Gender inequality in university management in Russia130

Women make up more than 60% of the total university staff in Russia, but of the top positions, only 10% are in the hands of women. The background to this, and the occurrence of hidden discrimination are discussed, and the reasons why it is important to have women in university management are presented. Finally, the author suggests some ways of future action.

The University management in Russia seems to be an exclusive men’s club. There are seven hundred Universities in Russia, and only about 10 of them are headed by women rectors, among them the rectors of St. Petersburg University and the Moscow Linguistic University. But the tradition of feminine academic management in Russia dates back to the times of Catherine the Great: the first president of the Russian Academy of Sciences was Duchess C.Dashkova, a close friend of Catherine.

At present, according to official data women in Russia make up more than 60% of the total university staff. There are no gender-based rules of recruitment and hiring. However when it comes to the university management the situation is not so optimistic. The proportion of women in top positions is very low (about 10%). Management is higher education is definitely a male-dominated area in Russia; there is a ‘glass ceiling’ for women that it is an invisible but impenetrable obstacle that prevents them from achieving promotion. The way ahead seems clear, no apparent barriers exist but it simply is not possible to progress along it.

The following questions will be touched on:

§ Why are there so few women in top positions in higher education in Russia?

§ Does hidden discrimination in university management occur? If so, what are it’s possible manifestations?

§ Why should women be more actively involved in university management?

§ What should be done?

Women are systematically denied access to power on the grounds that they are not capable of holding it. Power is based on knowledge (scientia potentia est) and the irony here is that women are made to feel that they deserve such treatment because of inadequacies in their own intelligence and/or education (Lakoff, 1989). The view was that the mind was masculine and nature feminine, says Dr. Jan Harding, who works with the Faweet Society to promote women in science. It was not thought that women were equipped for science, but they appeared to have access to some other form of knowledge. So it was thought that they must get that knowledge from the devil. The notion of power for men is different from that for a woman. Men’s power is predominately based on dictatorship; very few men in the history of civilization possessed charismatic power. With the women it is quite the opposite-the majority of women-leaders have had strong charisma.

Gender discrimination in Russia is deeply rooted in the concept of domesticity: patriarchal authority has always been very strong in this country, and women have always belonged to their husbands.

At the moment, in Post-Soviet Russia there is a discrepancy between the official course towards democratization aiming at equal rights and possibilities for both sexes, on the one hand, and the actual discrimination of women, on the other hand. One can speak about a historical paradox: the transition to democracy is accomplished at the expense of increased discrimination of women. Fewer and fewer women maintain their managerial positions in Russian political and cultural life. The only sphere where women can hope to maintain their job positions is the sphere of business.

On January 8, 1996 the Russian Government adopted the official document “Conception of improvement of women’s position in Russian Federation”.

According to this conceptions the woman’s rights are part of the human right. Full and equal involvement of women in political, economic, social and cultural life at the federal, regional and international levels must become the main objective of the State policy. But despite this conception there is a hidden discrimination of women at all levels and in all spheres of life in Russia.

Forms of discrimination in university management are, inter alia, non-motivated firing or sexual abuse on the part of the manager. The discrimination can be openly violent or hidden. But in any case it is violent in regard to the personality of woman, it is a threat to her personal security. About 45% of university women staff encounter discrimination during the enrollment procedure and firing.

The following groups of women are most profoundly discriminated against:

§ Women in their pre-retirement age – 77%

§ Pregnant women – 65%

§ Invalids – 56%

§ Single – 52%

§ Victims of sexual harassment – 36%

These data are according to Sillaste and Kozhamzharova (Sillaste, 1997).

In Russia we can observe a traditional attitude to the study of social discrimination of women. First, it has always been viewed as a purely legislative problem. But it is well known that the situation de juro can differ from that de facto.

Second, traditionally social discrimination of women has been studied from the psychological point of view at the microsocial family level. The analysis is normally based on the biological differences between sexes as well as on different cultural patterns if men’s and women’s behavior.

All societies distinguish between women’s work and men’s work. Traditionally the concept of a man has been that of a provider and a protector. The women’s lot was three ‘K’: Küche, Kinder, Kirche.

From the point of view of the ‘comfortable concentration camp’, the masculine world of competitive achievement looked glamorous and exciting for housewives. Women began to demand access to the allegedly ‘creative’, ‘fulfilling’ work enjoyed by men (Lash, 1997). Women want to make their contribution not as housewives but as citizens. What matters is a life-long commitment to society.

Traditionally it is supposed that women are more altruistic because of child nurturing, whereas men are more egoistic. Women pay more attention to their appearance: what seems to be self-centered efforts are really aimed at the opinions of others. It is no wonder, Robin Lakoff writes, women lack identity and feel they have no place of their own. In every aspect of life, a woman is identified in terms of the man she relates to.

Men are in fact the vain sex, and they often do things purely for their own satisfaction, not caring nearly so mach how it will look to others. Thus surely, it is true egocentricity. A strong personality in general, a mark of egocentricity is valued in men much more than in women. For these reasons women are supposed to be not very successful in business or politics where both vanity and eccentricity of certain sorts can be marks of distinction rather than objects of ridicule (Lakoff, 1994:24)

Both legislative and psychological approaches allow to shed light only on some particular aspects of women’s discrimination. But it is only the sociological approach that provides a deeper insight into the whole problem. At present in Russia the most advanced approach to the problem is demonstrated in the socio-gender studies.

The empirical basis of these studies is provided by the results of research of the international association ‘Women and development’ headed by Galina Sillaste in 1991–1996. The concrete problems studied were: women and democracy, women-market-conversion, women in Russian society, and labour, employment, and unemployment (Sillaste, 1997).

Why then should women be more actively involved in the managerial teams of universities?

§ To begin with, women have better rapport with the subordinates. According to Tannen (Tannen, 1990), men’s talk is a report talk. For most women, the language of conversation is primarily a language of rapport, a way of establishing connections and negotiating relationships. Emphasis is placed on displaying similarities and matching experiences. For most men, talk is primarily a means to preserve independence and negotiate and maintain status in a hierarchical social order. This is done by exhibiting knowledge and skill, and by holding center stage (Tannen, 1990:76).

From the psychological point of view men and women have essentially different selves. Men define themselves in separation, while women define themselves in relation to other people. The masculine model of behavior is that of dedication to abstracted principles. The feminine model of behavior is nurturance of personal relationship (Lash, 1997).

§ Women are more polite. Politeness involves an absence of strong statement. Women’s speech is ddevised to prevent strong statement. Women are involved in cultural upbringing of their children more than men. Men are mostly dedicated to their work, women are in charge of the transfer of cultural heritage to younger generation.

§ Women promote cooperation and consensus in a subtler way than men. These ends are better served by morality of caring and sharing than by morality of rights and rules.

§ There is a conventional contrast between the expressive orientation of women and the instrumental orientation of men.

Carol Gilligan in her book In a different voice (Gilligan, 1982) proposed a new model for women that proceeds in the opposite direction from altruism to egoism. Women need to learn what men have to unlearn; a healthy regard for their own interests. It may seem paradoxical. Women are person-oriented , interested in their own mental states and respective status; men are object-oriented, interested in things in the outside world.

Men enter into bonding relationship and form relationship of camaraderie in a way that they do not with women nor do women really with one another. But there is no paradox (Lakoff, 1989:82). In looking at each other’s psyches, and reactions to one another, women retain their individuality; they are not fused into a group. There is not necessarily a sense of cooperation in this process, but rather a sense that each individual is keeping track of the other individuals. In this sense women’s greater ability to express and share emotions is less to be ascribed to camaraderie than to separateness. But when needed women can come and work together. Men on the other hand are not so much concerned what’s going on in another’s minds, but rather on how the group can work as a whole to get something done. This leads to the submerging of everyone’s feelings and some gruffness of reaction.

§ Women have the so called sixth feeling, intuition. I am sure the Chechen war would not have broken out if President Yeltsin had had a clever woman in his team.

The last question to be raised in my paper is what should women do to achieve and maintain top positions in higher education in Russia. What is necessary in the analysis of the degree of discrimination that is the scale and the forms of limitation of women’s rights in management. This will provide the possibility to study the mechanism of integration of women into the whole system of management.

The objective of fight against gender inequality is to reach gender symmetry in university management. The main thing is to eliminate the threat to women’s security. The women should have equal rights to realize their potential as mothers, educators, and managers. To solve these problems a special mechanism is needed on both national and international levels. A special committee under the auspices of CRE (Association of European Universities) should be created. To keep abreast of tomorrow’s world Russian women should join the European Network on Gender Equality in Higher Education and devise action plans.