"Decree" on the nationalization of women
The story of a hoax
VELIDOV Alexey

In early March 1918, in Saratov, an angry crowd gathered near the exchange building on the Upper Bazaar, where the anarchist club was located. It was dominated by women.

They furiously pounded on the closed door, demanding to be allowed into the room. From all sides came indignant cries: “Herods!”, “Hooligans! There is no cross on them!”, “People’s property! Look, what have you come up with, shameless ones!” The crowd broke down the door and, crushing everything in its path, rushed into the club. The anarchists who were there barely managed to escape through the back door.

What has the residents of Saratov so excited? The reason for their indignation was the “Decree on the abolition of private ownership of women” posted on houses and fences, allegedly issued by the “Free Association of Anarchists in Saratov”... There is no single point of view regarding this document in the historiography of the civil war. Some Soviet historians categorically deny its existence, others pass over the issue in silence or mention it only in passing. What really happened?

At the beginning of March 1918, a message appeared in the newspaper "Izvestia of the Saratov Council" that a group of bandits plundered the teahouse of Mikhail Uvarov and killed its owner. Soon, on March 15, the newspaper published a note saying that the reprisal against Uvarov was carried out not by bandits, but by a detachment of anarchists of 20 people, who were instructed to search the teahouse and arrest its owner. Members of the detachment “on their own initiative” killed Uvarov, considering it “dangerous and useless” to keep a member of the Union of the Russian People and an ardent counter-revolutionary in prison. The newspaper also noted that the anarchists had issued a special proclamation on this matter. They stated that the murder of Uvarov was “an act of revenge and just protest” for the destruction of the anarchist club and for the publication on behalf of the anarchists of the libelous and pornographic “Decree on the Socialization of Women.” The "decree" in question - it was dated February 28, 1918 - was similar in form to other decrees of the Soviet government. It included a preamble and 19 paragraphs. The preamble set out the motives for issuing the document: due to social inequality and legal marriages, “all the best specimens of the fair sex” are owned by the bourgeoisie, which violates the “correct continuation of the human race.” According to the “decree”, from May 1, 1918, all women aged 17 to 32 years (except those with more than five children) are removed from private property and declared “the property (property) of the people.” The “decree” determined the rules for registering women and the procedure for using “copies of national property.” The distribution of “deliberately alienated women,” the document said, would be carried out by the Saratov anarchist club. Men had the right to use one woman “no more than three times a week for three hours.” To do this, they had to present evidence from the factory committee, trade union or local Council of belonging to the “working family”. The forgotten husband retained extraordinary access to his wife; in case of opposition, he was deprived of the right to use the woman.

Each “labor member” who wanted to use a “copy of the national heritage” was obliged to deduct 9 percent of his earnings, and a man who did not belong to a “working family” - 100 rubles per month, which ranged from 2 to 40 percent of the average monthly salary worker. From these deductions, the “People's Generation” fund was created, from which assistance was paid to nationalized women in the amount of 232 rubles, benefits to those who became pregnant, maintenance for children born to them (they were supposed to be raised until the age of 17 in the “People's Nurseries” shelters), as well as pensions for women who have lost their health. The “Decree on the abolition of private ownership of women” was a fake, fabricated by the owner of a Saratov teahouse, Mikhail Uvarov. What goal did Uvarov pursue when composing his “decree”? Did he want to ridicule the nihilism of the anarchists in matters of family and marriage, or did he consciously try to incite large sections of the population against them? Unfortunately, it is no longer possible to find out.

However, the story with the “maternity leave” did not end with the murder of Uvarov. On the contrary, it was just beginning. With extraordinary speed, the libel began to spread throughout the country. In the spring of 1918, it was reprinted by many bourgeois and petty-bourgeois newspapers. Some editors published it as a curious document with the aim of amusing readers; others - with the aim of discrediting the anarchists, and through them - the Soviet government (anarchists then participated together with the Bolsheviks in the work of the Soviets). Publications of this kind caused a wide public outcry. Thus, in Vyatka, the right-wing Socialist Revolutionary Vinogradov, having rewritten the text of the “decree” from the newspaper “Ufa Life”, published it under the title “Immortal Document” in the newspaper “Vyatka Krai”. On April 18, the Vyatka Provincial Executive Committee decided to close the newspaper and put all persons involved in this publication on trial at a revolutionary tribunal. On the same day, the issue was discussed at the provincial congress of Soviets. Representatives of all parties that stood on the Soviet platform - the Bolsheviks, left Socialist Revolutionaries, maximalists, anarchists - sharply condemned the publication of the libel, believing that it was intended to incite the dark, irresponsible masses of the population against Soviet power. At the same time, the Congress of Soviets overturned the decision of the provincial executive committee to close the newspaper, recognizing it as premature and too harsh, and ordered the provincial executive committee to issue a warning to the editor.

At the end of April - the first half of May, the situation in the country worsened greatly due to devastation and food shortages. In many cities there were unrest among workers and employees, and “hunger” riots. The publication in newspapers of a “decree” on the nationalization of women further increased political tension. The Soviet state began to take more brutal measures against newspapers that published the “decree”. However, the process of disseminating the “decree” got out of the control of the authorities. Various versions of it began to appear. Thus, the “decree” distributed in Vladimir introduced the nationalization of women from the age of 18: “Every girl who has reached the age of 18 and has not married is obliged, under pain of punishment, to register with the free love bureau. The registered one is given the right to choose a man from the age of 19 until the age of 50 as your cohabiting spouse..."

Here and there, in remote villages, overzealous and ignorant officials accepted the false “decree” as genuine and, in the heat of “revolutionary” zeal, were ready to implement it. The official reaction was sharply negative. In February 1919, V.I. Lenin received a complaint from Kumysnikov, Baimanov, and Rakhimova against the commander of the village of Medyany, Chimbelevsky volost, Kurmyshevsky district. They wrote that the committee was in control of the fate of young women, “giving them to their friends, regardless of the consent of their parents or the requirements of common sense.” Lenin immediately sent a telegram to the Simbirsk provincial executive committee and the provincial Cheka: “Immediately check as strictly as possible, if confirmed, arrest the perpetrators, the scoundrels must be punished severely and quickly and the entire population notified. Telegraph execution.” (V.I. Lenin and the Cheka, 1987, pp. 121 - 122). Following the order of the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, the Simbirsk gubcheka conducted an investigation into the complaint. It was established that the nationalization of women in Medyany was not introduced, which the chairman of the CheK telegraphed to Lenin on March 10, 1919. Two weeks later, the chairman of the Simbirsk provincial executive committee, Gimov, in a telegram addressed to Lenin, confirmed the message of the provincial checker and additionally reported that “Kumysnikov and Baimanov live in Petrograd, the identity of Rakhimova in Medyany is not known to anyone” (ibid., p. 122).

During the Civil War, the “Decree on the Abolition of Private Ownership of Women” was adopted by the White Guards. Having attributed the authorship of this document to the Bolsheviks, they began to widely use it in agitation against Soviet power. (A curious detail: when Kolchak was arrested in January 1920, the text of this “decree” was found in his uniform pocket!). The myth about the Bolsheviks introducing the nationalization of women was spread by opponents of the new system later. We find its echoes during the period of collectivization, when there were rumors that peasants joining a collective farm “will sleep under one common blanket.”

The “Decree on the Abolition of Private Ownership of Women” became widely known abroad. The stereotype of the Bolsheviks - destroyers of family and marriage, supporters of the nationalization of women - was intensively instilled into the consciousness of the Western public. Even some prominent bourgeois political and public figures believed these speculations. In February-March 1919, in the “Overman” commission of the US Senate, during a hearing on the state of affairs in Russia, a remarkable dialogue took place between a member of the commission, Senator King, and the American Simons, who arrived from Soviet Russia:

King: I got to see the original Russian text and the English translation of some Soviet decrees. They actually destroy marriage and introduce so-called free love. Do you know anything about this?

Simons: You will find their program in the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels. Before our departure from Petrograd, if newspaper reports are to be believed, they had already established a very definite regulation regulating the so-called socialization of women.

King: So, to put it bluntly, Bolshevik Red Army men and male Bolsheviks kidnap, rape and molest women as much as they want?

Simons: Of course they do.

The dialogue was fully included in the official report of the Senate commission, published in 1919.

More than seventy years have passed since the time when the owner of a teahouse in Saratov, Mikhail Uvarov, made what turned out to be a fatal attempt to discredit the anarchists. The passions around the “maternity leave” he invented have long since subsided. Nowadays no one believes in idle fictions about the nationalization of women by the Bolsheviks. The “Decree abolishing the private ownership of women” is now nothing more than a historical curiosity.

"Moscow News". No. 8. 1990

Alexey VELIDOV, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor.

Woman in history. A woman's perspective on historical and simple events. Everything that might be interesting to the female half of humanity.

4 messages. Page 1 from 1

CASE No. 18
ACT OF INVESTIGATION ON THE SOCIALIZATION OF GIRLS AND WOMEN IN THE MOUNTAIN. EKATERINODAR UNDER THE MANDATES OF THE SOVIET AUTHORITY

In the city of Ekaterinodar, in the spring of 1918, the Bolsheviks issued a decree, published in the Izvestia of the Council and posted on poles, according to which girls aged 16 to 25 were subject to “socialization,” and those wishing to take advantage of this decree had to apply to the appropriate revolutionary institutions. The initiator of this “socialization” was the Jewish Commissioner for Internal Affairs, Bronstein. He also issued “mandates” for this “socialization”. The same mandates were issued by the subordinate head of the Bolshevik cavalry detachment Kobzyrev, the commander-in-chief Ivashchev, as well as other Soviet authorities, and the mandates were stamped by the headquarters of the “revolutionary troops of the North Caucasus Soviet Republic.” Mandates were issued both in the name of the Red Army soldiers and in the name of Soviet commanders - for example, in the name of Karaseev, the commandant of the palace in which Bronstein lived: according to this model, the right to “socialize” 10 girls was granted.

Sample mandate:

MANDATE(*)

The bearer of this, Comrade Karaseev, is given the right to socialize in the city of Yekaterinodar 10 souls of girls aged from 16 to 20 years, whom Comrade Karaseev points out.

Commander-in-Chief Ivashchev [signature]

Place of seal [seal]

(*) A photograph of this mandate, signed by Ivashchev, is attached to the documents as material evidence.

On the basis of such mandates, the Red Army captured more than 60 girls - young and beautiful, mainly from the bourgeoisie and students of local educational institutions. Some of them were captured during a raid organized by Red Army soldiers in the city garden, and four of them were raped there, in one of the houses. Others were taken, about 25 souls, to the palace of the army chieftain to Bronstein, and the rest to the “Old Commercial” hotel to Kobzyrev and to the “Bristol” hotel to the sailors, where they were raped. Some of those arrested were then released, for example, a girl raped by the head of the Bolshevik criminal investigation police, Prokofiev, was released, while others were taken away by the departing detachments of Red Army soldiers, and their fate remained unclear. Finally, some, after various kinds of cruel torture, were killed and thrown into the Kuban and Karasun rivers. For example, a 5th grade student in one of the Ekaterinodar gymnasiums was raped for twelve days by an entire group of Red Army soldiers, then the Bolsheviks tied her to a tree and burned her with fire, and finally shot her.

This material was obtained by a Special Commission in compliance with the requirements of the Charter of Criminal Procedure.

but most likely
this is another Jewish manifestation under the guise of revolution
initiative and attempt to DESTROY THE TRADITIONAL WAY OF LIFE
OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE.

gender issue Komsomol socialization of women 20s local excesses

tonik Messages: 17 Registered: 10 Feb

History of Kyiv brothels

90 years ago, Alexander Kuprin’s story “The Pit”, dedicated to the hot spots of Kyiv, was published, causing a lot of noise. The writer was well versed in the nightlife of the city at the end of the century before last. But when I wrote my “Pit,” where I touched upon the topic of its prehistory, for some reason I did not find time to leaf through the old city newspapers. It was based only on oral tradition, someone’s fragmentary memories. The reality, as often happens, was both sadder and more curious than the writer’s imagination...

The heyday of Yama began with a loud Kyiv scandal

Once upon a time, near Yamskaya Street in Kyiv (it still exists, leading from the Baikovo cemetery to the central bus station) there was a settlement of state-owned and free coachmen who were engaged in carting - the so-called Yamskaya Sloboda or Yamki. Even during Kuprin’s time, they “remained a dark glory as a place that was cheerful, drunk, pugnacious and unsafe at night.” How and when this “merry settlement” turned into an area of ​​​​official brothels, oral tradition is silent. And therefore the writer assumed that this happened spontaneously, as if by itself.

The heyday of Yama began with a loud Kyiv scandal. The Kiev civil governor Gudyma-Levkovich often visited one of the brothels on Esplanadnaya Street, almost in the city center. On a May evening in 1885, he visited his favorite “institution” and, to the horror of his “young ladies,” he suddenly died in the arms of one of the skilled craftswomen in her field. The most unfavorable rumors for the provincial authorities immediately spread throughout the city. The shocked press remained silent. The frightened provincial administration also did a great stupidity: in order to maintain the appearance of decency, it ordered the pupils of the aristocratic women's boarding school of Countess Levashova to attend the funeral of their fornicating patron.

The agitation of minds in the city intensified. Enraged by the confluence of these absurd and surprisingly ugly circumstances, the hot-tempered Governor-General of Kyiv, Drenteln, ordered the immediate extermination of all nests of debauchery, and their inhabitants sent to the outskirts. But no one knew where to move the brothel houses. Then all prostitution concentrated on the steamy side of Khreshchatyk, from the corner of Proriznaya to Dumskaya Square. A decent woman could only go there with her husband, but if a young lady walked alone, it meant that she was a prostitute. And then the residents of Yamskaya Street came to the rescue of the authorities, who decided that nothing terrible would happen if the brothels returned to their original place and brought with them considerable profits to the owners of the estates rented for them. This is how the famous letter from the inhabitants of Yama appeared, where - for the first time in the history of Kyiv - the residents themselves asked to place city brothels on their street!

In an ironic retelling of the editorial board of Kievlyanin, the letter looked like this: “The other day, the acting governor received a petition from the residents of Yamskaya Street in the Lybidsky district with approximately the following content: “Since you will be at a loss as to where to move the brothel houses from Esplanadnaya Street, and According to the law, they must be on the outskirts of the city, therefore we, residents of Yamskaya Street, declare that our street is quite suitable for brothels. Move them to us, and our well-being will improve, because apartments for such houses are more expensive. We now have no income, and we pay taxes and city needs on an equal basis with residents of the central part of Kyiv."

There was a lot to laugh about here. But many residents of Yamskaya, indeed, enriched themselves at the expense of prostitutes. And the street itself has changed over time, become prettier, and lined with beautiful houses. She had such a well-groomed, elegant appearance, as if an eternal holiday reigned here. Thousands of men from all over the city flocked to this new center of Kyiv nightlife every evening (except for the last three days of Holy Week and the eve of the Annunciation)! And four hundred prostitutes, inhabiting more than 30 houses, greeted them with wine and music as “guests,” creating the illusion of fun and noisy enjoyment of life.

Alexander Kuprin, who saw Yama in its heyday, wrote about it like this: “It’s like a holiday on the street - Easter: all the windows are brightly lit, the cheerful music of violins and pianos comes through the glass, cab drivers are constantly driving up and leaving. In all the houses the doors are wide open, and through They are visible from the street: a steep staircase and a narrow corridor at the top, and the white sparkle of the multifaceted reflector of the lamp, and the green walls of the entryway, painted with Swiss landscapes..."

Yama's brothels were divided into three categories: expensive - "three-ruble", average - "two-ruble" and the cheapest - "ruble". The differences between them were great. If in expensive houses there was gilded white furniture, mirrors in exquisite frames, there were cabinets with carpets and sofas, then in the “ruble” establishments it was dirty and meager, and the knocked-down haystacks on the beds were somehow covered with torn sheets and holey blankets.

Girls were molested by the hundreds

Paid debauchery became a symbol of bourgeois relations new to Kyiv, which aroused the indignation of a handful of Kiev residents. Nikolai Leskov, old liberals and young democrats, especially socialists, were indignant. But the bulk of the townspeople clearly enjoyed Yama's services.

Hundreds of girls were molested every year, and the hunt for them became widespread. Usually the “young ladies” could “serve” in the brothel without falling ill with a “bad disease” for two or three years, no more. Replenishment came mainly from the villages, from among girls and young women who were looking for work in the city.

Finding themselves in a difficult situation or finding themselves on the street without acquaintances, connections or means of livelihood, young peasant women easily accepted dubious offers from shady businessmen who promised them “good jobs” and big earnings. However, not only naive “village women”, but also educated city dwellers were caught in the network of these luden-catchers. The main technique of girl hunters was to tear the victim out of her environment, transfer her to an unfamiliar environment and, putting her in a hopeless situation, force her to a shameful profession.

This simple plan worked almost flawlessly. “Kievlyanin” reported on such a case: “A certain Mrs. Marya Al-na, who had long ago opened a den of secret debauchery, went the other day to Odessa, where she invited a young girl K. as her guest. Not knowing the plans of this lady, K. arrived in Kiev, but did not find the promised place in her mistress’s house, and in exchange for the title of bonna, she was offered to “give a living.” ".

Specialists in the wholesale trade of women's bodies appeared in the city, recruiting prostitutes and reselling them from one brothel to another. Larger businessmen served dozens of cities simultaneously. In the 1880s, Kyiv became a transshipment point for the trade of live goods transported from Galicia to Poland, to the harems and brothels of Turkey. “The leader of the organization,” the Rada newspaper wrote in 1909, “is considered to be one Kyiv homeowner, who, before settling in Kyiv, ran a brothel in one big city. Having thus collected a lot of money, he bought a house in Kyiv and again began a profitable business, supplying girls to all sorts of dubious establishments... The organization also consists of many such subjects who live not only in Kyiv, but also in other cities, not excluding Constantinople.”

So Kiev legal debauchery became the soil on which the first mafia structures of Kyiv grew up... But Yamskaya’s “establishments” were never persecuted by the authorities. Although those who have read Kuprin still believe that Yama disappeared after the local administration “one fine day took and destroyed to the ground an ancient, hatched, and created nest of legalized prostitution, scattering its remains throughout the hospitals and prisons of the old city.” “Now,” the writer writes, “instead of the violent Yamki there remains a peaceful, everyday outskirts, in which live gardeners, rope workers, Tatars, pig breeders and butchers from the nearest slaughterhouses.”

Kuprin... invented Yama's "quick and scandalous death" without finding another spectacular ending for his story. In fact, no one “ruined” her, and she herself did not “disappear” anywhere. Unable to withstand competition with other brothels that appeared in large numbers throughout Kyiv after the revolution of 1905-1907, Yama simply degenerated into a street of seedy, trashy “establishments” designed for the most undemanding public. On the eve of the First World War, Alexander Vertinsky visited one of the brothels there. And what he saw there really did not resemble Kuprin’s descriptions.

Expensive coquettes came to Kyiv “on tour” from Paris and Vienna

“One day,” writes Vertinsky, “Georges Zenchenko (the head of the extras of the Solovtsov Theater) took me to Yamskaya Street, where the brothels were located... The hostess, old, red-haired, doughy, with a huge belly, with deep furrows on her face, opened the door for us. , plastered to the point that powder was falling off her face.

A pianist sat at the piano, a blind old man with a frantic face and dead knuckles, crooked with gout, playing some kind of “macabre.” And the girls were sitting on the sofa around him. They had motionless masked faces, as if everything in the world had ceased to interest them. They spread around the acrid smell of strawberry soap and cheap Swan's Down powder.

The hostess, apparently, favored Georges, because she began to fuss, lisp and flirt... I shuddered with disgust. Meanwhile, the taper started playing the criminal song “Klavishi” and screamed in a wild voice:

Well, then sing, keyboards, sing! And you, sounds, fly faster! And you open a page to God for this damned life of mine!

I didn't like it at all. I was trembling all over with disgust and pity for these people. I began to beg Georges:

Let's get out of here! For God's sake! I feel sick!

The hostess frowned angrily. Apparently she was afraid that I would take the guest away.

Eh, Mr. Schoolboy,” she said reproachfully, “shame on you!” You are not a man! You are some kind of... snot on the fence!

Georges burst out laughing. And I went out into the street in confusion and trudged home."

At the beginning of the last century, the Kyiv authorities had already lost control over prostitution and it spread throughout the city. Expensive cocottes from St. Petersburg, Moscow, Warsaw and even Paris and Vienna began to come to Kyiv for “tours”. At one time it became fashionable to visit secret establishments with half-silk prostitutes. They were located in the center under the sign of a dentist or a fashionable workshop. The “guests” were received here by high school students, college students, and girls from good homes.

“At every crossroads,” a contemporary recalled, ““violet establishments” opened every day, in each of which, under the guise of selling kvass, two or three old girls sold themselves right next to each other, behind a partition of shalevkas.”

To create the appearance of order, the police raided prostitutes operating on Khreshchatyk, Fundukleevskaya, Proriznaya and other central streets. But such measures could not stop the spread of prostitution throughout Kyiv. It seemed that the city itself was gradually turning into a huge brothel. It got to the point that entire neighborhoods were set aside for the shameful trade. “On the side where the even numbers are,” the memoirist recalled, “from the corner of Proriznaya to Dumskaya Square, a decent woman could only walk with a man, but if she walked alone, it means she was a prostitute. This law especially began to apply after the revolution of 1905.”

Under these conditions, Yamskaya Street lost its former significance as a legalized and clearly defined by the authorities center of urban debauchery. And, in the end, the Yamsky homeowners themselves, who had become rich from a dubious trade, demanded... that the remaining dirty dens here be closed, and that the disgraced street itself be renamed! It was proposed to name it after the poet Vasily Zhukovsky, who once came with the heir to the throne to Kyiv.

The City Duma easily agreed to rename the street. But she did not want to sully the poet’s bright name. And, remembering the shameful behavior of the Yamsk residents in 1885, she bestowed on their street the name Batu, hated by every Kievite. For some time it was called Batyevskaya Street...

100 years ago Kyiv was the capital of prostitution

The last decade of the 19th century in Kyiv was a period of construction fever. A huge amount of male labor arrived in the city, and hundreds of girls from Odessa, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Vienna and even Paris followed them to satisfy men of all ages and social status. Kuprin, in his famous work “The Pit,” described this period as follows: “And this whole noisy gang of strangers, intoxicated by the sensual beauty of the ancient city, these hundreds of thousands of wild animals in the form of men shouted with all their mass will: “Woman!” At every crossroads “violet establishments” opened every day - small wooden booths, in each of which, under the guise of selling kvass, two or three old girls sold themselves right next to it, behind a partition.”

That time was quite loyal to young ladies who made a living by selling their bodies. Prostitution was declared “tolerant” (hence the name of brothels - “houses of tolerance”), i.e. permitted in strictly regulated forms. Corrupt girls had to live in special institutions, set up in the German style, and be called “young ladies.” The girls were under the supervision of "mothers" - the owners of the brothels and received their "guests" in the common room, where they entered as if into a cafe. It was strictly forbidden to openly invite passers-by into brothels, which is why red lanterns were hung over such establishments. The young ladies gave the money they received from clients to the housewives in exchange for stamps. At the end of each month, the marks were again exchanged for banknotes, and the “mom” kept the main part of the income for maintenance (room in the boarding house, food, servants, “working clothes”, etc.), paying out only pitiful crumbs - the prostitutes lived in eternal debts. That is why many outwardly attractive moths preferred to work independently rather than fall into bondage to insatiable banders.
There are legends to this day about the Podolsk "mama" nicknamed Kambala, a former prostitute known for her unbridled character and brutal attitude towards the girls who worked for her. For an hour of relaxation in a brothel, clients of that time paid 1-5 rubles, depending on the beauty of the “young lady”. In brothels with a “good reputation” on Khreshchatyk (luxurious interior, specially trained girls, claims to sanitation) the client was charged from 10 to 25 rubles per night. There was another good reason why the ladies of the demimonde tried in every possible way to veil their profession: the passports of “official” prostitutes registered with the police were taken away and yellow tickets were issued in return. Corrupt girls disguised themselves in different ways. For example, the meeting houses of the so-called “half-silk” prostitutes were covered with signs of doctors, notaries, midwives, various workshops and shops, so they received clients during the day, during working hours. However, just like the workers of the “minerashki”, those very booths about which Kuprin wrote so impartially. In a store with a sign “Artificial Mineral Waters” on Yamskaya, behind the partition separating the brothel from the drinking house, former farm laborers were given to soldiers, sailors, high school students and cadets on dirty beds for only 50 kopecks. The “ladies from the buffet” - prostitutes who ply their trade in cafes with the assistance (not free of charge, of course) of the barmen - earned a little more for one “session”. The beginning of an acquaintance with a reveler was usually standard: “Treat me with beer - I’m so thirsty!” The girl tried with all her might to please the “admirer” and move the revelry to the “office” - if the business burns out, then both she and the bartender will lose out.
The “creamy” layer of Kyiv prostitutes of the late 19th - early 20th centuries is “ladies with girls.” These are prostitutes masquerading as decent women, using a pretty girl disguised as a daughter as a cover. Of course, the child was “rented” for walks in crowded places, visiting cafes, etc. The military stratagem worked one hundred percent: there were much more people who wanted to have an affair with a beautiful married lady than to pay for the caresses of an obsessive prostitute. In the evening, the lady with the girl retrained as an interesting, mysterious widow who grieves for her deceased husband. This image is familiar to everyone: “Always without companions, alone, breathing perfume and mists, she sits by the window. And a hat with mourning feathers, and a narrow hand in rings.” A gloomy crepe and a thick veil pulled down over her face give her a stern, unapproachable look that attracts thrill-seekers. And in the morning, the “widow” in embroidered silk pantaloons, stretching sweetly, took several ten-ruble banknotes from the dressing table and forgot forever the name of yesterday’s admirer. In the evening, she was seen again in another park or an expensive restaurant with a respectable admirer in a three-piece suit, to whom she was telling a new “sorrowful” story. Of course, these were extraordinary, to some extent talented ladies.
Governor-General Dmitry Bibikov himself was known as a ladies' man. Bibikov's mistress turned out to be the luckiest cocotte in Kyiv, who in a year from a modest dowry turned into a countess with countless possessions. Having married Count Pototsky, not without the patronage of the Governor-General, and having received the money due to her according to the marriage contract, she, through her all-powerful lover, takes the landowner to Siberia. She herself settles on the aristocratic Lipskaya, leading the usual lifestyle of a lady of the demimonde. Her trotters and carriages, velvet and lace, diamonds and emeralds, combined with extraordinary beauty and youth, turned everyone’s heads. Of course, for the no longer young Bibikov, the doors of her luxurious house were open at any time of the day.

DOCUMENTARY
From a letter from the district manager to the director of the 5th Kyiv men's gymnasium: “I have the honor to inform Your Excellency that on July 6 I received the following message about the behavior of students on the streets and in parks of Kiev: “You should see what your gymnasium students are doing with you right under your nose in Nikolaevsky Park with prostitutes at 8-10 pm. Such vile outrages, cynicism and vulgarity have never been observed before. However, your high school students even walk the streets arm in arm.”

BY THE WAY
In rich Kyiv brothels, in addition to the hostess, there were also a housekeeper, a cook, a janitor, a doorman, maids and pianists. Gypsies and professional singers and dancers willingly performed there; The “young ladies” were dressed in luxurious dresses, and clients were served in French silk lingerie. Small talk was a mandatory “addendum” to the true purpose of the man’s visit. The girls underwent a mandatory medical examination once a month.

In the 20-30s of the last century there were no brothels as such, but girls operated on the panels. At that time, on the right sides of Khreshchatyk and Shevchenko Boulevard, prostitutes stood in huge numbers. The identification mark is brightly painted lips for greater obviousness - a red ribbon on the ankle of the left leg.

During the German occupation of Kyiv, prostitution gained a second wind. Anatoly Kuznetsov in the novel “Babi Yar” wrote: “This is real b...ldom they have in the Palace of Pioneers - Deutsches House, a first-class brothel. On Saksaganskogo, 72, there is also a huge mess. And German soldiers walked along the sidewalks of Podol , hugging local prostitutes." Source

In order to prepare a girl for the role of exploited labor force or living commodity in the family, she is raised and socialized in a specific way from childhood. Everyone does this - mother and father, girlfriends, children's institutions. nanny, school, magazines, children's films and books. Although the most important role is still played by the family.
Education takes place under the pressure of a very important factor: gender; to put it simply, they explain to the girl what she should be like, “otherwise you’re not a girl.” As a child, it’s very offensive and scary to hear that you don’t belong to your gender, that you don’t know who you are.

At the same time, socialization goes in two main directions, they can be called “hostess” and “princess”.
Before we look at the features of these areas, let’s touch on the socialization of men. The boy, of course, is also socialized under the same pressure, “otherwise you’re not a boy.” But! The socialization of a boy concerns exclusively the “universal” area, he is prepared for life in society, taught to be interested in a variety of things, to be strong and courageous, not to whine, to win competition (and our society is competitive).
The liberation of women led to the fact that the socialization of girls also began to include the same universal area. That is, the girl is also being prepared for life outside the home, she is also studying, she is also being taught to withstand competition and to be brave and strong. But - at the same time she goes through the “hostess” and/or “princess” program. These programs are designed for girls to learn how to build relationships with men, support them, and lead a family.

But the boy is not taught this at all, because this is not a master’s business. What are boys taught about girls? The maximum is “you can’t hit girls.” This is reminiscent of a joke: during a lesson on the law of God, children are asked what commandment governs their attitude towards parents? “Honor your father and your mother,” the children answer. “What commandment determines our attitude towards brothers and sisters”? - “Thou shalt not kill!”
That is, all that the boy is told about his future relationships with women is that they “cannot be beaten.” Of course, even this is not carried out later, and it is suggested very weakly. But the fact that relationships need to be built, that something needs to be done with the family, remains a complete secret. And for what? The woman will take care of everything.

However, women are not raised equally. Let's return to the named areas of socialization.

Among the masses of working people, of course, the “housewife” socialization is more often accepted. When a girl is born, her mother is congratulated “for being a helper.” Already at an early age, the girl is given some instructions and is happy when she picks up a rag or fiddles with dough. Then powerful pressure begins - “after all, you are a girl!” Clean your room, you're a girl! You should know how to cook, because you are a girl! You must be neat, you must be clean, and what is this dirty jacket, because you are a girl! I don’t know how it is now, but in my time this pressure was incredibly strong. For example, I remember that in the first grade I once complained that my grandmother sewed a bag for me for my second shoes, and the boys tore it. In an indescribably cold tone, one of my friends asked me why my grandmother sewed a bag for me, can’t I do it myself? I still remember the shame that overwhelmed me at this. We were seven years old! I really didn’t know how to sew, I couldn’t learn, and it ruined all my childhood and adolescence.
That is, the “hostess” program is direct preparation for the role of free service personnel in the family. What role will a woman perform not under pressure, but voluntarily and with song - because otherwise “she is not a woman.” With age, this becomes such a habit that a woman begins to serve other people as soon as she sees them somewhere. He immediately carries sandwiches, pours tea, serves, wipes... A proper “hostess” needs a man precisely in order to serve him. Because this is the meaning of her life - even if in the universal sense she is much better and has achieved more than this man.

When I was thinking about the topic, it occurred to me that the famous film “Moscow Doesn’t Believe in Tears” would be ideal to illustrate these theses. I'll use this movie. The “hostess” in the film, of course, is Antonina. The ideal happy woman: she was prepared for the role of a housewife, she married a comrade who values ​​family and service, at the same time ready to support her in this role and help; She gave birth to three children and joyfully serves her family all her life, working at a construction site along the way. The husband also works there, but he comes out in time for breakfast, which Antonina has carefully laid on the table, and she gets up much earlier, cooks and sets it. This is probably explained by the fact that the husband has a “harder” job - but in this case this is not the case. The work of a plasterer (for Tosya) is physically harder than the work of an electrician at a construction site. But the roles in the family are clearly distributed, and everyone is happy.

What do we have with the “Princess” socialization? This is the girl who is being prepared for the role of a conqueror of men’s hearts and a beauty (usually the mother prepares her with a similar program, but often the father also plays a role here, playing the role of a gallant gentleman). She doesn't have to be a housewife. Or rather, she is also taught how to cook and do some housework. But... the “hostess” will prepare a dozen delicious dishes and will anxiously say, “Oh, it seems there’s not enough salt in the roll.” And the “princess” will cook one thing, the simplest one - but will serve it in such a way that it will seem like you are eating a royal delicacy. After all, it was prepared by Her hands! That is, cooking/housekeeping for the Princess is just one of the means of influencing men (“and I also cross-stitch”).
Don't think that being a Beautiful Flower is easy. This is still work. You need to watch your figure. Thoroughly understand masks/cleansing cosmetics/makeup; need to get dressed. All this is expensive and takes a lot of time. And all this work is aimed only at creating an image of Herself, delighting the male gaze. The same Muse, Inspirer, Femme Fatale, etc.
It is not surprising that such a woman expects a reward from men or even direct payment for such incredible work. Sexually, she is usually more relaxed, sometimes even finding pleasure in it.

In "Moscow..." the Princess is Lucy. Note that outwardly she is the scariest of the three friends. But this doesn't mean anything! What makes a princess is not facial features, but behavior, the way you dress and look, and the way you communicate. Lucy has a completely clear goal in life: “Moscow is full of writers, poets, film actors, diplomats, scientists... And almost all of them are men. And we are women!” - “So they have enough women of their own” - “And we are better than theirs!”
In the film, such socialization is gently ridiculed: Lucy achieved her goal, married a famous hockey player, but for some reason he became an alcoholic, and we guess that Lucy’s closeness did not benefit him. But Lucy does not lose heart and continues to try to hook up her husband in a cooler way.
However, I have the impression that Princess socialization has now become much more widespread, and no one thinks of laughing at such an attitude anymore. Moreover, some women made it their “profession”; being a kept woman or the wife of a rich husband is very honorable. And they look no match for the village Lucy.

And who is Katya in the film? According to her female socialization, Katya is definitely a “hostess”. But her normal, that is, universal, socialization turned out to be strong. Katya is very interested in the world around her, in addition to various kinds of “relationships”. She is interested in technology and she understands it. She has a clear goal - to study chemistry, she believes that chemistry is the future of humanity. In the future, she works well and makes a career. In her free time, Katya visits art galleries.
But, the filmmakers sigh, it’s hard for a woman alone, without a man! And Katya suffers! She has nowhere to (supposedly) apply the socialization of the “hostess”, and yet, she is an excellent cook! And finally she finds a Real Man who clearly distributes responsibilities: “I make decisions. You cook borscht.” And she’s happy to the point of fainting, now she has someone to cook borscht! And this is not mockery - she is really happy. The world fell into place. It was explained to her as a child that she was incomplete if she did not serve anyone, and now she - in her free time from directorial duties - can serve, hurray.

Of course, these types of socialization are extreme; most often there are some combinations. It happens that a girl is not socialized according to the female type at all, and an ordinary “common man” grows up, not at all trying to serve anyone or seduce anyone. Nowadays, everyone strives to raise a “beauty and hostess.” Again, in the family a girl can be taught anything, but she herself can choose the role of “Princess” for herself if, for example, she is quite narcissistic, outwardly beautiful, and knows how to manipulate people.

Interestingly, women socialized into different types tend to have difficulty understanding each other. For example, “princesses” do not understand feminism at all, it even makes them angry. How do men oppress women? Yes, men are sweethearts, they bring flowers, gifts, money, you can even cheat them, you can play with them. In fact, it’s actually a pity for them, if you think about it! (especially those Princesses who really did not behave very ethically with men, extracted money from them, deceived them, etc.) Probably, these feminists are simply not needed by anyone, so they are furious!
But the “housewives” understand everything about feminism quite well, especially when you talk about oppression in the family.

This is also where men’s “misunderstanding of women” comes from different types of socialization. When I read all these tearful complaints that “she wants a fur coat,” that women only dream of money, that mercantile women, not this, not that, cheat, and so on, I’m perplexed: where do they even get all these Horrible Bab?! But if you think about it, it’s clear where: they choose just from the most competitive ones, and these are the Princesses. It is clear that a girl who spends several hours a day worrying about her appearance will greatly benefit from a Hostess who, at most, smears something on her face at night. But the Princess must be paid for her beauty, but men do not want to pay; The princess can cheat and deceive, she will not serve, sometimes Princesses can be dishonest. And these tearful male complaints are a consequence of incorrect expectations: they want to choose a beautiful Princess, they really choose the most beautiful (and we remember what beauty is made of) from the girls available to them, and then they expect that this same Princess will turn out to be a faithful wife and friend who will serve in the highest class, will economize on himself, wearing one coat for ten years (as the Mistress would do) and spend all day working around the house, will never look at other men and will not demand high wages and maintenance from her husband. When choosing a Mistress, a man expects from her feats in bed and inspiration - but this will not happen, because she was not prepared for that. And housekeeping service is extremely different from “service” in bed (the latter, to be honest, is not service at all, but something else, when they begin to consider it service that the wife is obliged to provide - this is a variant of rape). And so the complaints begin against the faithful, but gray mouse-wife and the search for the Princess as a mistress.

Yes, there is, of course, an option - to be a common man, without all these programs, and hope that someone will live with you and honestly share the work. And this also happens, especially in the circles of the intelligentsia.
But to be honest, it rarely happens.

Many feminists believe that the only way out is separation, not communicating with men, so as not to serve them. Give up your personal life. Yes, perhaps this is a good solution. But why do you have to rob yourself at all, why is the only option to give up an interesting experience and thereby impoverish your life?
In fact, of course, the general solution is for women to stop being service personnel altogether. Yes, and “Princesses” too, although they enjoy it. Then there will be no need to socialize girls in this way. Both sexes in childhood should be socialized into relationships, taught to build and maintain relationships, understand each other, resolve conflicts, and simply basic psychological literacy.
I hope someday this will be the case.