Russian Member of the Federation Council Margarita Pavlova suggested that the list of illegal content on the Internet should include the ideas of childfree lifestyle and radical feminism. Quite expectedly, the suggestion caused discontent with former MP Oksana Pushkina and among feminists who left hundreds of comments below the posts on Pavlova’s pages. Feminists call the bill discriminatory and hateful. In addition, they made many remarks that cannot but astonish citizens: for example, the opinion that a mother should have the right to kill an infant within a year of giving birth, or the claim that the senator suggests that women should not be allowed to work. Also, according to Pushkina, the initiative violates human rights and contradicts the Constitution.
Here is just one of the chilling exchanges found on VKontakte, a Russian online social media and social networking service based in Saint Petersburg:
Translation
Maria Rutskaya: Now very often doctors in state clinics purposefully delay the timing of abortion, “lose” tests, etc., in order to force them to give birth against their will. If a woman has not decided to have a self-abortion, then she can only try to somehow give birth to a bastard without paying attention to him and figure out how to get rid of him right away. I’m so sorry for these women.
Therefore, I believe that it is necessary to decriminalize the murder of one’s own child in the first year after childbirth. For this, you should not be put in jail and there should not be any responsibility. The woman gave birth, and it is up to her to decide what to do next with the kid and whether he lives or not.
It is necessary to protect the life of a person by law no earlier than one year after birth.
Defiant van Dunkelheit: Maria, well, a year is a bit too long. For six months, you can certainly get an idea of what a child is, and decide to get rid of it.
Maria Rutskaya: Defiant, very often mothers kill a one-year-old child, so this term is quite relevant among women. But even half a year would be good progress for our legislation.
Many panelists (on the part of defenders of traditional values) noted that the aggressive statements of feminists on Margarita’s page were a very clear evidence of the reasonableness of the senator’s proposal.
Senator Pavlova responded to the criticism: “A free discussion is fine, but I would still like to hear serious, reasoned objections rather than the repetition of others’ hackneyed ideological clichés, the kind that even Western societies find less and less appealing.”
She recalled that the people of Russia chose to defend their traditional values at a referendum when they voted for amendments to the Constitution. To deny these values is, in essence, to oppose the people, history, and the Constitution. On her VKontakte page she explained:
“Mrs. Pushkina accuses me of ignorance of the Constitution, but I would advise her to study the basic law of our country and other important legal documents properly herself. If she does, she will understand that the proposals under discussion are not a violation of the Constitution, but its implementation. After all, the updated Constitution clearly states in Article 114 that the state is obligated to protect the family and traditional family values. And the people of Russia, supporting the updated Constitution, have made their choice – and now the state, we as lawmakers, are called to consistently implement it. By the way, the Russian Constitution says nothing about the ‘right to abortion’. But it speaks of the need to protect the right to life.”
“Let me remind you,” the senator continues, “This was not about banning homosexuality, abortion, radical feminist ideas as such – this was about restricting destructive propaganda. And it is no coincidence that the discussion of these issues is taking place in the context of protecting the national security of our country. The President’s National Security Strategy clearly states that attacks on family values are a direct threat to us all. And this is completely understandable – after all, the demographic stability of the country and the unity of the people in the face of any internal and external problems, and patriotism, and the preservation of people’s cultural identity – all this grows, first of all, from the family. And everything is tied to it – our defense capabilities, economic stability and development of the country, and stability of society. Attempts to strike at the value foundations of the family put all of this in direct danger.”
No matter how much members of radical movements try to turn the words of Ms. Pavlova and other pro-life advocates inside out, it is obvious to many that modern feminism has nothing to do with protecting women’s rights. Under the guise of outdated and worn-out slogans, they have long promoted the destruction of children, discrimination against men, and the abolition of the family. For example, they actively discourage women from being informed about the consequences of abortion and interfere with organizations that help women in crisis pregnancies and mothers with babies.