Gender convention was a very black and white kind of scenario in 19th century Russian Society. Within the Russian 19th century society, men had more power and authority than women, which often led to abuse and a power struggle within relationships and power struggles between gender roles of society. Within Leo Tolstoy’s “The Kreutzer Sonata”, we see several instances during which women are undermined and viewed as lesser beings when compared to males. From another standpoint, we see similar ideals being depicted within Marianna G. Muravyeva’s “Between Law and Morality: Violence against Women in Nineteenth-Century Russia”, which expresses how women are taken advantage of due to their lack of power and authority in Russian society and in relationships. Along with these, another source “ “ by also shows how….
In 19th century Russian society, a power struggle had existed between the two genders, because of the major patriarchal establishment there was, which unfortunately led to men having more privileges than women in a myriad of instances. Within Tolstoy’s “The Kreutzer Sonata”, we see various instances during a conversation between a lady, an old man, and a lawyer, where patriarchal views are depicted and seemingly enforced by the people. In the text it states, “What can you say? The first thing that should be required of a woman is fear!… Why, this: let her fear her husband! That fear!” (161). This goes to show how the tradesmen depicted ideals that many people followed during these times. Ideas revolving around how the man should be the authoritative figure within a relationship, and how the women should be there as an obedient supporter. This is one of the logical reasons behind why there was this power struggle between Genders and how gender roles within 19th century Russia were very flawed and led to people having antiquated beliefs regarding societal influence. Along with this, it further states in the text, “No one is permitting anything, but a man does not bring offspring into the home; while a woman-a wife is a leaky vessel,” the tradesman continued insistently. His tone was so impressive that it evidently vanquished his hearers, and even the lady felt crushed but still did not give in.” (162). This specific phrase ‘leaky vessel’ depicts how society viewed women as child-bearers and caretakers, more than a human being who had the same potential as a man in society. The tradesmen’s logic is that women are the only ones who can give birth, and so by nature’s law, women must be child caretakers and birth givers, while the men go out to work and earn for their families. It was generally believed that the women should be housewives, caretakers for children in a relationship with a man, as the male figure claims the authority by working and bringing income home to provide for the family, with more options than the female. While we would typically see this perspective on gender roles as completely outdated and unrealistic in modern times, many individuals in 19th century Russia would adopt these ideals to a certain extent. The idea of men having more privileges over women was typically known, but unspoken. Yet, we see these ideas being freely spoken about by the old man who believed the male figure should always keep the female in check and line, as stated in the text which states, “Because he is a fool,” said the old man. “If he’d pulled her up properly from the first and not let her have her way, she’d be living with him, no fear! It’s giving way at first that counts. Don’t trust your horse in the field, or your wife in the house.” (163). This is quite significant, as it showed how rather than believing in an equal and loving relationship where both partners contribute, the old man believed the male figure should always keep the women figure in check. Almost sort of like on a leash, where the women should be watched and taught obedience by the husband, which depicted how bad the power struggle and power balance was between the male and female figures in relationships of 19th century Russia. When we begin transitioning to how females were treated when adultery was discussed, and how the men were treated, we begin to understand how much more powerful men were than women in relationships. Within this text, we see how Pozdnyshev, after developing his paranoia, anxiety, and suspicions of possible adultery that may have been committed by his wife, went on a rampage by murdering his wife. At this point, all he could think about was how to get rid of her, how impure or disobedient she seemed to be, and how to get his revenge, rather than trying to resolve potential suspicions by talking it out thoroughly in a conversation with his wife. According to the text it states, “You know at the trial the case was put as if it was all caused by jealousy. No such thing: that is, I don ‘t mean ‘no such thing,’ it was and yet it was not. At the tnal it was decided that I was a wronged husband and that I had killed her while defending my outraged honour (that is the phrase they employ! you know)” (209). Going to show another sense of power struggle within a relationship, as this specific scenario depicts a man’s honor being tested and because of a rumor regarding adultery, surrounding his wife. Rather than conversing with her as two equals of a relationship, it decided to end all ties with her, and end her life because she did not seem to fit his description of an obedient wife, because of a potential act of adultery possibly being committed.
These same ideas regarding a sense of power struggle and power dynamics between gender roles are also expressed within Marianna G. Muravyeva’s “Between Law and Morality: Violence against Women in Nineteenth-Century Russia. Within this text, a sundry of instances are depicted in which women fall victim to a lack of authority and power in relationships. For example, in the text, it states, “Nineteenth-century lawyers unanimously agreed that there could not be rape in marriage. N. A. Nekliudov, an authoritative criminologist at the time, explained that rape was a crime against woman’s chastity and honour, which could not happen in spousal relations, as sexual intercourse was sanctioned by the sanctity of marriage. In other words, a husband had absolute control over his wife’s body and any sexual violence was classified as domestic abuse.” (48). This is crucial to understand within the perspective of 19th century Russian Society and its ideals, as it shows how even the laws favored male authority over women. In this specific scenario, we see how men could easily get away with taking advantage of their wives sexually, whether it be with consent or no consent. It did not matter if the wife was obedient or did not like how they were being treated by their husband, as the husband could easily get away with these sexual acts due to how laws were designed back then. This goes to show just how privileged men were in 19th century Russia, and how women were constantly under a power struggle with their spouses, due to how society perceived a male authoritative figure as the only possible logical explanation. To add on, within the text it also states, “Ethnographical data for the nineteenth century from the Tomsk region (where allegedly the tradition of wife-selling or wife-exchange was widely practiced) suggests that husbands still ordered their wives to have sex with strangers in exchange for goods or money. At one of the goldmines, for example, people witnessed a husband beat up his wife with a bridle because she refused to sleep with his friend who offered three rubles for that privilege. His actions were supported by the eldest members of the family: they insisted that a wife should always obey her husband’s orders and contribute to the family’s wealth in any way necessary. (49). This is also going to show how important obedience of a wife was, in 19th-century Russian society, as it was one of the most sought after aspects of an ideal wife. Without obedience, a woman was considered to lack the tasteful qualities of a marriageable wife who could keep her husband happy and satisfied. We see here, in this scenario, that a lack of obedience often led to abuse, and how women were taken advantage of by their husbands, because of their lack of power or authority in the relationship. Thus, further proving how there was a massive power struggle between gender roles. In this specific citation, we see how when the wife refused to sleep with her husband’s friend for money, she was abused and beat because she displayed disobedience to the figure of authority in the relationship. In this text, the general situation and experiences of abused women in Russia are also expressed, and how many women were desperate to get out of these power struggles with their husbands. Within the text, it states, “The picture of the abuse of Russian women emerging from this chapter is mostly negative and calls for obvious conclusions about the place of women in nineteenth-century society. Patriarchal families led by men (and sometimes women) used every accessible tool to discipline, control, and subjugate women to the family and community needs, often to the harm of their interests. Women responded by using all available strategies to cope with the violence and to resist it through judiciary and extra-legal activities. Many women fled. Some killed their husbands and fathers-in-law in self-defense. Yet many preferred to conform because their well-being and livelihood often depended on the male head of the household.” (51). This pretty much sums up how much of a power struggle and difference in authority there was within relationships, as women had to choose between either conforming and obeying their husbands or disobeying and getting away from their husbands. It even went as extreme as women feeling forced to kill their husbands because of the abuse they underwent, and pressure that was developed as a result of the authority husbands had over them. Some people may think that the women could have easily gotten a divorce and just gotten away from abusive relationships that way, however, it was not that simple. Due to the way 19th century Russia was, men had access to a variety of jobs, while women were very limited in their options. Usually restricted to options such as being a maid, caretaker of children, and even prostitution. Therefore, females felt inclined to stay in relationships with an authoritative male and deal with being obedient, as it was much better than trying to survive on their own through means such as prostitution, which was often frowned upon when compared to a married life.
When looking past just the relationship power struggles, we also see the power struggles between gender roles in the workforce. According to Richard Stites’s, “The women’s liberation movement in Russia: feminism, nihilism, and bolshevism, 1860-1930”, it states, “In the same manner, a discussion of the economic difficulties of women in the cities leaves the impression that only upper-crust society women and prostitutes peopled the towns, an imbalance that stems from reliance on the most readily available sources: upper-class women’s accounts about themselves and police reports concerning prostitutes. We hear little or nothing about women of merchant, artisan, civil service, and clergy families…” (499). This goes to show how when women began to stop using marriage as a solution for financial stability because of the lack of authority and potential abuse that comes with it, their options were very limited in the workforce. Since they were not given the same education opportunities as men in the Patriarchal system, their options were limited, while the stigma of women performing the same jobs as men also reduced their options as it was frowned upon. This goes to show how the power struggle between gender roles was observable, as we just saw in the workforce example, and how it was blatantly obvious due to the societal results that were produced as a result of it.
As you can see, there are a myriad of examples that can be utilized to depict how the power struggle between gender roles existed in 19th-century Russian society, and how issues such as abuse, oppression of women, an imbalance in the workforce existed as a result of this power struggle between the two genders. Females were given this image of being a housewife that birthed children and obeyed their husbands to satisfy and support their husband’s welfare. Yet, through time this power struggle between authoritative figures of a relationship and gender roles, gradually became less and less of an issue as these antiquated beliefs were left in the past.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.