by Liana Khanaghyan
Red Valkyries: Feminist Lessons from Five Revolutionary Women by Kristen Ghodsee offers an intimate look into the lives of socialist women dedicated to gender equality during the Soviet era in Eastern Europe. In often hostile political environments, these women passionately fought for gender equality, recognising the intersection of gender and class in shaping women’s lives. Despite the many challenges of their time, such as patriarchal cultural resistance and the alienation from male allies, they deemed women’s rights indispensable for rebuilding society. Turning their progressive vision into practical efforts, the “Red Valkyries” led revolutionary changes for Soviet women, inspiring ongoing gender equality efforts beyond Soviet borders and their historical context.
“No more domestic “servitude” for women! No more inequality within the family. No more fear on the part of the woman to remain without support or aid with the little ones in her arms if her husband should desert her.” – Alexandra Kollontai, Communism and the Family (1920)
Kristen Ghodsee’s biographical essays delve into the lives of five “Red Valkyries” – Lyudmila Pavlichenko, Alexandra Kollontai, Nadezhda Krupskaya, Inessa Armand, and Elena Lagadinova. Each of these women, coming from diverse backgrounds within the socialist movements of their time, played pivotal roles in advancing women’s rights and challenging societal norms.
At the dawn of the Soviet era—a period marked by sweeping socialist reforms and the establishment of the USSR in the early twentieth century—feminism remained unfamiliar and often unwelcome, even among the most progressive men. Yet the “Red Valkyries” launched bold feminist initiatives that would radically reshape gender roles and women’s rights across Eastern Europe. They spearheaded working-class feminism, advocated for new social and sexual relations, and championed feminist demands in the socialist movement. By calling for equal participation in the workforce, the socialised distribution of care, and the dismantling of traditional gender roles, they laid a foundation for gender equality that was inherently feminist, even if they did not always identify with the label.
Feminism for the Working Woman
While liberal feminists aimed to remove oppression based on gender, socialist feminists argued that these demands did not go far enough. They recognised that class also played a crucial role in women’s oppression. As the revolutionary Russian diplomat Kolontai famously stated in her pamphlet The Social Basis of the Woman Question (1909), “The feminists seek equality in the framework of the existing class society, without challenging the existing prerogatives and privileges.” She termed this approach as bourgeois feminism – a feminism that does not challenge the oppressive structure of society but aims to move (elect) women up the hierarchy of oppression. Often at the expense of underprivileged women.
Addressing the imbalance in social reproductive tasks was a primary focus for Kollontai. She was joined by Inessa Armand, a key figure in shaping policies through the Zhenotdel (the Women’s Department of the Communist Party), and Nadezhda Krupskaya, a revolutionary educator. Together, they shared a vision of redistributing the unequal burden of care work faced by working-class women. Their model for redistribution went beyond a mere fifty-fifty split of home and childcare between men and women. “The Red Valkyries” were convinced that the only way women could genuinely be alleviated of the social reproductive labour was through socialised care, which required a wider network of public institutions instead of being confined to the nuclear family. To bring this vision to life, Kollontai, Krupskaya, and Armand, along with other women activists, collectivised the laundries and opened public cafeterias, nurseries, and kindergartens. These efforts not only provided essential services to working-class families but also sought to redistribute care work across society, effectively challenging the assumption that such responsibilities should rest solely on women within the family unit.
By advocating for these communal approaches, socialist feminists understood that focusing solely on legal (gender) equality would primarily benefit women in affluent positions—those who could afford to hire others for childcare and household responsibilities. This critique highlighted the limitations of liberal feminism, which often emphasised individual success without addressing the systemic inequalities faced by the majority of women. Long before the rise of concepts like “girl-boss feminism,” which tends to celebrate individual women’s achievements within existing power structures, these revolutionary women were already rejecting compromises that perpetuated the unequal distribution of resources and opportunities.
The progressive vision of distributing care work from the early 1900s remains strikingly relevant today. The gender gap in caregiving still poses a significant obstacle to achieving true gender equality. This historical perspective underscores the need for societal restructuring around care work, echoing current advocacy for policies like universal childcare and paid family leave (Fraser, 2016).
Sex, Gender and Relationships
Although less immediately apparent than the connection to care labour, the exploitative logic of capitalism also permeates relationships, gender dynamics, and sexuality—a reality that the “Red Valkyries” sought to dismantle. One of the most striking examples of this struggle was Lyudmila Pavlichenko, the legendary Ukrainian sniper, who emerged as a symbol of defiance against the traditional gender roles that dominated her era. By excelling as a sniper during World War II, she shattered the notion that combat and military prowess were exclusively masculine traits. Her success on the battlefield highlighted the fluidity of femininity and masculinity, illustrating that women could embody strength, courage, and resilience without sacrificing their feminine identity; instead, they expanded the definition of femininity itself.
While Pavlichenko fought for more fluid gender norms, Kollontai sought to reimagine the roles of sex, love, and friendship within the constraints of twentieth-century Russia. She knew that collective ownership of the means of production was not enough; for true liberation, a new form of social relations was necessary. She was especially critical of the disproportionate significance put on romantic relationships and how it was often more of a survival mechanism against isolation due to economic hardships. As a wife and mother struggling with these social expectations, Kollontai believed that expanding social safety nets would reduce the stress in romantic relationships.
Sexual liberation was also integral to socialist feminists, yet their fight remained firmly rooted in class struggle. Armand exemplified this dual commitment by promoting sexual equality while addressing the economic pressures that drove women into exploitative professions. She established shelters to support sex workers, predominantly young rural women who were struggling to make ends meet due to dismal factory wages. This effort brought to light the deep-rooted intersection of class and gender oppression, illustrating how the commodification of women’s bodies reflects the broader logic of capitalism, which often exploits vulnerable populations.
Fighting Class Reductionism
Socialist feminists were committed to rebuilding a new society free from economic and political exploitation. But they also knew that this alone wouldn’t solve the gender inequalities and that extra attention was required to secure women’s rights. Lagadinova, a Bulgarian agronomist, politician, and former World War II partisan, championed policies that supported women’s workforce participation by directly addressing family and caregiving responsibilities. Along with her colleagues, she developed progressive policies that offered child allowances and job-protected maternity leave. Lagadinova and her peers knew that for women to contribute fully to society, they needed a robust social infrastructure that made balancing work and family possible. However, male leaders within the Soviet bloc often saw women’s domestic roles as a resource, a “cost-effective” means of subsidising the economy by expecting women to bear childcare and domestic burdens without formal support. To them, unpaid care work was simply part of women’s “maternal duties” rather than a form of labour that merited compensation or institutional support.
Similarly, Kollontai encountered pushback from her male comrades when she put forward the “Social Protection and Provision for Motherhood and Infants” policy recommendation, demanding an eight-hour working day and banning labour for children under 14. Her male comrades argued that extra attention on women’s issues would only split the solidarity of the working class. They feared that prioritising gender issues might fragment the working-class movement and weaken its collective strength against the capitalist system. On top of this, many men in the socialist movement held traditional views that relegated women to domestic roles, believing that women’s liberation should be a secondary concern until after the revolution achieved broader societal changes. This viewpoint often dismissed women’s issues as less critical than the urgent class struggle. Kollontai quotes, “ My party comrades accused me and those women-comrades who shared my views of being “feminists” and placing too much emphasis on matters that concern women only”. But Kollontai, like many revolutionary women of that period, knew that a liberated state could not be instituted without liberated women.
Despite facing marginalisation within their own party, the “Red Valkyries” worked tirelessly for a feminist future. Their nuanced understanding of systemic oppression and the intersectional approach improved the conditions for Soviet women through education, literacy campaigns, labour rights, and social services. Undeterred by anti-feminist sentiments, the “Red Valkyries” organised working women, giving them a platform to press their demands on the state.
Red Valkyries: Feminist Lessons from Five Revolutionary Women illuminates how these pioneering socialist feminists were ahead of their time, crafting a vision of gender equality that resonates today. Their revolutionary ideas on socialised care, labour rights, and sexual liberation exemplified feminist principles, even as they often eschewed the label. The legacy of the “Red Valkyries” serves as a testament to their enduring influence, reminding us that the fight for equality is both a historical and a contemporary imperative.
Liana Khanaghyan, born in Armenia, is a Content Writer for an environmental services organisation. Passionate about social issues, she spends her free time exploring Marxist feminism, writing on the intersections between neoliberal capitalism and feminism, and connecting with youth activist networks.
References:
Kollontai, A. (1909). The social basis of the woman question. Marxists Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1909/social-basis.htm
Fraser, N. (2016). Contradictions of Capital and Care. New Left Review, 100, 99-117.
University of Missouri-Kansas City. (2022, March 9). The gender gap in caregiving and why women carry it. UMKC Women’s Center. https://info.umkc.edu/womenc/2022/03/09/the-gender-gap-in-caregiving-and-why-women-carry-it/
Raffia 