Does this mean that women had more to lament about than men did? Or were men just more restrained emotionally?
The answer is yes to both questions. Men were not supposed to wail on those occasions when wailing by women was called for: the death of a loved one, the drafting of a loved one into the tsarist army, the loss of livestock or property, etc. These events, theoretically, should have been just as upsetting to men as to women. On the other hand, mothers were closer to their children than men were, daughters were closer to their parents than sons were, and so on. A correspondingly greater degree of suffering at the loss of loved ones could therefore be expected from women.
In addition, there was one event in life which was much more tragic for women than for men, namely, marriage. With good reason Pushkin declared that “our wedding songs are melancholy, like a funereal howl.”76 Here a woman, unlike a man, was being torn from her family and was entering into a form of virtual enslavement by the spouse and in-laws. She had every reason to lament this fate—although normally she also accepted it. Indeed, the wedding laments assisted her in accepting it. They served as an instrument for gaining mastery over the idea that she no longer had freedom (“volia”), that she must now obey everyone in the new, patrilocal household (for detailed consideration of the prenuptial bathhouse laments, see below, 195–99).
For the traditional peasant woman to marry was truly to embark upon a life of suffering. The remarkable nineteenth-century anthropologist Aleksandra Efimenko writes that the Slavic (including the Russian) peasant woman is “worn down by slavery and heavy labor,” and that she “by her own admission sanctions this abnormal relationship [with the husband].”77 Efimenko quotes a folk song in which a Russian woman sings “I, of my own will, am an eternal servant [vekovechnoiu slugoiu] to my dearly beloved.”78
Soviet sociologist Larisa Kuznetsova says that a Russian woman’s willingness to “bend her back” is a habit that has “become overgrown with its own psychology over the centuries [privychka gnut’ spinu obrosla v vekakh svoei psikhologiei].”79 She says that women in some parts of Russia before the revolution were, for all intents and purposes, “house slaves and concubines” who had to be dragged out of the abyss of ignorance and servility “often against their own will.”80 Kuznetsova characterizes the old patriarchal idea of femininity as “concern for a man, submissiveness to him, obligingness.”81
Soviet sociologist A. Kharchev refers to the alienation which occurred between the proverbial “enslaver-man and enslaved woman” in the Russian family of tsarist times.82 Marriage for love was rare in those days, says another Soviet sociologist V. A. Sysenko, who also speaks of the “humbled” (“prinizhennoe”) position of the woman in the old, patriarchal Russian family.83
Among contemporary Western scholars, Christine Worobec has gone far in the direction of recognizing that Russian peasant women were complicitous in their own oppression. She characterizes the position of the post-emancipation peasant woman as follows in her recent book Peasant Russia:
Despite their position as second-class citizens, Russian peasant women supported or, at least, accommodated themselves to the patriarchy. The isolated individual might resist her subjugation, but peasant women did not stand up as a group to protest their oppression. This accommodation may be explained by the nature of the patriarchy itself, which was careful to give women some rewards, power, and safeguards. Russian peasants honored women as mothers and diligent workers. Because men were dependent on their wives’ labors in the household and its environs, they gave women a good deal of latitude in managing their affairs. The patriarchy also placed great store in women’s honor, so intricately tied to family and male honor. It protected women’s reputations, rigorously punishing those who falsely slandered a woman.84
Recognizing that “accommodation” did take place, Worobec does not, however, consider the possibility that a psychological factor such as masochism might have facilitated it. It is true that peasant women gained “some rewards, power, and safeguards” for “accommodating” to their abject position, but these do not have to be the only features that contributed to an acceptance of that position.85 Worobec herself provides numerous examples of female abjection which must surely have had a psychological basis. Thus, during a typical peasant wedding ceremony the bride was at one point obliged to throw herself at the feet of the groom as a sign of submission and obedience. Later in the ceremony she was obliged to remove his boots for him. She was not supposed to get into the nuptial bed with him until she obtained his permission to do so86 (these secular rituals corresponded perfectly with the bride’s legal obligation “to obey her husband as the head of the family” and render “unlimited obedience” to him).87 Certainly a masochistic attitude would make such behaviors easier for the bride to perform. Even if the groom threw in some symbolic economic incentive, such as placing money in the boot removed by the bride,88 the bride’s masochism should not be ruled out. Indeed, if such a gift were perceived as humiliating, then accepting it would also be masochistic.
Worobec also points to the deferential attitude of the peasant wife toward her husband. While a wife might address her husband using the respectful first name and patronymic, or sometimes call him “father,” the husband would typically use just the first name or such derogatory terms as “baba” (woman) or “starukha” (old lady).89
Worobec observes that a husband had the right to beat his wife (even publicly), and quotes proverbs such as: “A husband is the law for his wife”; “Beat your wife like a fur coat, then there will be less noise”; “The more you beat the old woman, the tastier the soup will be”; “There is no court for women and cattle.”90 Such proverbs have, as Worobec says, “a decidedly male voice,” and there are many of them. A few from the Dahl collection may be added here:
The one I love is the one I beat (Kogo liubliu, togo i b’iu).
Beat your wife before dinner, and again before supper (don’t sit at the table without beating) (Bei zhenu k obedu, a k uzhinu opiat’ [bez boia za stol ne siad’]).
If you let a woman off, you’ll become a woman yourself (Babe spustish’—sam baba budesh’).
Freedom spoils even a good woman (Volia i dobruiu zhenu portit).
A chicken is not supposed to crow like a rooster, a woman is not supposed to be in charge of a husband (Ne pet’ kure petukhom, ne vladet’ babe muzhikom).
A wife is always guilty before her husband (U muzha [pered muzhem] zhena vsegda vinovata).
Cry, young wife, but tell your sorrow to no one (Plach’, moloda zhena, da pro svoe gore nikomu ne skazyvai).91
These proverbs are perhaps more indicative of male sadism than female masochism. A wife did not necessarily want to be beaten, even if there was pressure to accept such behavior. Indeed, there is evidence of some resistance to being beaten. As Worobec points out, women chanted incantations to safeguard against beatings. Sometimes they would run away from husbands who were prone to “excessive violence.”92
Yet there was generally an attitude of smirenie. Violence that was not considered “excessive” was nonetheless tolerated. Efimenko tells us that “wives lodge complaints [in court] only for severe beatings,” meaning that “the lighter ones thus pass without any action being taken.”93 These words ought to be seriously considered by those scholars who think that litigation records, however detailed, are an indication of what was typical in old Russia. Here one proverb is worth many court cases.