''Women do not want Hillary Clinton. Women want Donald Trump''

''Women of Catherine Deneuve's generation do not understand what feminists of today are fighting for''

If in European countries and the US something constantly happens under feminist slogans, then Russia seems to still maintain patriarchal way of life in most of its territory. There are statistics that only 6% of women in our country know what feminism is. Is it true?

You know, here is the problem with the level of education. I think 6% is an exaggeration. I think that all Internet users have a general idea of feminism, and they are 30-40% of the population of our country. It's another thing that people don't understand and distinguish between different aspects of feminism. It is often due to the complexity of the subject. It changes, transforms, its essence, obviously, is not what it was in the 1950s, and certainly not what it was in the 1930s. Feminism changes its image and even the message very quickly. At the generation level, we have a different feminism. Moreover, sometimes the previous feminism is perceived even as something hostile to the feminism that is most common today.

Therefore, it is difficult to grasp the essence of this phenomenon. I am not so experienced in its various shades, but I understand that it is the strongest political weapon, and each generation uses this weapon in its own way. For example, the last movement #MeToo that swept Hollywood, and representatives of which became the face of the year 2018 in Time magazine. Catherine Deneuve and her generation would be just baffled by this. Women of her generation do not understand the repression of new feminism, this ''movement of silence breakers'', as they call themselves. The women of Deneuve's generation do not understand what feminists of today are fighting for. If young people in their time fought for sexual emancipation, then where is this sexual enslavement of today from and what's the point of this struggle?

''The first and most important is the suffragette movement and the struggle for equal electoral rights, for the fact that a woman is the same as a man, she has the right to elect, to be elected, to hold the same political positions.'' Photo: wikipedia.org

To resume, we can probably distinguish six different feminisms. The first and most important is the suffragette movement and the struggle for equal electoral rights, for the fact that the woman is the same as the man, she has the right to elect, to be elected, to hold the same political positions. This is feminism number one.

The second type says that we will not only give women political rights, but also recognize that she can be in all respects equal to the man, so in the family, husband and wife must share responsibilities for making money, raising children and so on.

Then, in the 1960s, feminism number three came along. It is associated with the name of Betty Friedan, who said that women are not like men, they have the right and must not be like men. Women's male non-identity, women's separate identity to male identity, women's special female identity, female magic must be recognized, but unfortunately, it is not recognized in the modern male world. This coincided with the postmodern struggle for identity and so on.

Finally, the fourth stage — feminism begins to intertwine with the struggle for lesbian love and same-sex marriage, and there is a merger of the two currents. Women not only do not want to be like men, differ from them in culture, worldview, mentality, and so on, but also to have the right to homosexual relations in their environment, and to make it recognized by society.

The fifth type is what we now have in the form of #MeToo movement. Women don't want to be the object of sexual gratification, they don't want to be taken care of, to attract. In itself, the sexuality of men is perceived by them as aggression, as an attack on their freedom, and in general sexual relations — it is, from their point of view, unpleasant, and the male reproductive organ is the source of evil on Earth. I'm describing the extreme form.

Finally, the sixth option, which exists but does not have as much political representation, is often expressed not so much by women as by men, who have certain perverse feelings towards women. It is the desire of genarchy (the reign of women — editor's note), to make the woman to dominate everywhere, to command and manage — in the family and at work, while the man would play subordinate roles. Since a number of women are drawn into this and some benefits are likely to be obtained, this phenomenon exists. This is also called female suprematism. It was especially popular in the era of hopes for the coming to power of Hillary Clinton.

Betty Friedan (second from left) said women are not like men, women have the right and must not be like men. Women's male non-identity, women's separate identity to male identity, women's special female identity, female magic must be recognized, but unfortunately, it is not recognized in the modern male world. Photo: wikipedia.org

All these six types of feminism, which I have described in general, are often interspersed with each other, they are connected with each other. From this we get what we have today. Of course, it is very difficult for an ordinary normal woman to understand the intricacies of these six phenomena, one of which is the legal part of the struggle for civil rights, and the other — the struggle of perversion for her rights. This is the whole huge culture that really defines the modern Western world. In the West, of course, there is a masculine counter-movement for tradition in all respects, but the left-wing course of European Western thought is very strongly coloured by all of the above types of feminism. Plus, they still tend to external expansion. All these six movements are an integral part of the spread of democracy and freedom to the outside world, which creates a number of difficulties and problems.

''Our woman has civil rights, but in the family plays the traditional role of mother and wife''

Which of the feminist elements you have described are present in our everyday life in Russia unconsciously or consciously?

I think that they all are present, although not equally. The woman in Russia has long won civil rights in the political sense. But the second type of feminism, when a woman becomes like a man, has not taken root in our country. This is what international funds tried to promote in our country in the 1990s: ''Let a woman go to work, family is not the main thing, the main thing is personal self-realization.'' Our woman has civil rights, but in the family plays the traditional role of mother and wife. The man also plays the traditional role of breadwinner and the head of the family. Russia does not want to take away political rights from women, but the family morality remains about the same. This is what most men want, rare men do not want it. And this is what a woman wants: I do not see much desire in women in our country to compete with a man for the role of a money earner. When a man earns significantly less than a woman — this is usually a source of tension in the family. The problem arises not only because of the ''fault'' of men and their male qualities, but also because of the woman's rejection of the situation: if a man begins to lose to a woman in the family competition, as a rule, this leads, if not to divorce, then to discord in the family.

Feminism number three is common in Russia in narrow academic circles. Someone gets doctoral degrees on this, it becomes a password in certain left-wing political circles. Let me remind you that this is the idea of the charm of femininity, the idea of Eric Fromm, that the more we will gravitate from father to mother and the more important positions women will take in society, the less authoritarian the father is, the more society will be good, kind and prosperous.

''Let me remind you that this is the idea of the charm of femininity, the idea of Eric Fromm, that the more we will gravitate from father to mother and the more important positions women will take in society, the less authoritarian the father is, the more society will be good, kind and prosperous.'' Photo: Verlagsgruppe Random House / wikipedia.org

Also, in our country there is a clear aggressive (I say this in a neutral sense) rejection of the lesbian idea within in the framework of general rejection of the same-sex culture. This is very well developed in Russia, and it is difficult for me to imagine that something here can be changed.

Finally, the fifth feminism, which we called #MeToo, in Russia just causes furious anger.

But the sixth feminism — perversive, is rather male than female, with the idea that women should command everything, is very common in our different circles. But, as a rule, in the form of prostitution.

''There is the type of urban alpha female who successfully controls everything and has more than one partner''

Perhaps, this kind of feminism is found mostly in metropolitan circles, not in province?

Yes, it is urban circles. BDSM, the related idea of female supremacy, is, as a rule, a kind of displaced form of prostitution, it is very widespread in urban circles, but certainly not acquiring any ideological hue. On the contrary, I know many such people, and the more they are immersed in it, the more they develop ideological masculinity. And it will be a source of contradictions and difficulties. This is the shadow side of masculine culture: the more it is masculine, the more men experience the attraction to the displaced side of life. So, we have the sixth feminism, and it's getting stronger, but it's not getting ideological and it's having an impact on society in the shadow side.

Photo: Oleg Tikhonov

''A Russian woman expects a man to be able to do everything, be brave, clever, earn a lot''

At the same time, in the West, some women, including scientists, are beginning to oppose feminism and its consequences in the form of homosexuality, fall in birth rate and so on. Do we have people who actively oppose?

We certainly do. Until recently, our president spoke in this way. He gave speeches on these subjects.

I would refer to the third part of the series Twin Peaks in my answer. I was trying to understand what was its meaning, and I think I did it. David Lynch, who was a conservative, has long renounced conservatism. The first part of the series was shot with clear conservative patterns, but from some point he swore allegiance to the dominant trends of culture. I think the third part of his series is the precursor of the #MeToo movement, and that was the reason for producing it. Another thing is that it is so confusing that no one understood. But the point there is exactly this: all the evil is in women who do not give a man, relatively speaking, to stop being macho. White women are to blame, who want men to be aggressive, strong, violent money earners, cool. <… > The idea is that it is necessary to change the woman, it is necessary to make so that she ceased to be bought on Trump, relatively speaking, on males.

''Liberal world and order, liberal utopia has already broken, we have already lost it. It broke down on that women do not want Hillary Clinton. A woman wants Donald Trump. She wants the healthy, maybe even sexually aggressive man who can achieve his goal.'' Photo: facebook.com/WhiteHouse

The main cultural blow will fall on the behaviour of women: it's a shame, shameful, that it is evil and disgust — when a woman demands from a man brutal boxing-masculine behaviour.

This topic will continue to sound. It also exists in Russia. A Russian woman is like this Sarah. She usually expects men to be able to do everything, to be brave, clever, earn much money, to love children, ''to be funny in a company'' and so on. To make him a little bit like a Russian peasant, but only in modern post-industrial conditions. For whom would this woman vote? For Yavlinsky? No. For Sobchak? No. Even if she absolutely does not like Putin and Trump, she will vote for Roizman at best.

They want to change this psychology. A tremendous effort will be made to change the behaviour of women. I don't know if it will succeed. But this is a political task. Because global elites do not want strong men at the head of their countries for obvious reasons. Liberal world and order, liberal utopia has already broken, we have already lost it. It broke down on that women do not want Hillary Clinton. A woman wants Donald Trump. She wants the healthy, maybe even sexually aggressive man who can achieve his goal.

This is considered wrong, they want to change it by changing the culture, education, to restore the liberal world order. Feminism is an important part, an instrument of building this world order.

Could you explain also the gender theory known today, when it is claimed that each person is born without masculine or femine characteristics and only upbringing and their personal choice determine what role they will play in society — male or female.

It is, in my opinion, all the same fourth type of feminism with promotion of homosexual relations. ''Third sex''. Hence this endless transhumanism with the idea of sex change. It's part of the gay culture. Some lesbians perceive themselves as active-aggressive, feeling the male nature. Some lesbians feel more feminine nature. They have some kind of known separation. This is largely a product of the internal mythology of the movement for the rights of same-sex marriages: ''We can be this or that, no one has the right to limit us, all these roles are imposed by society, a woman can choose other roles, like a man.'' This is certainly an element of queer culture.

Of course, gender is a biological thing. There are attempts to change it. But the problem is that, as we know from Jung, there are male hormones in a woman, there are female hormones in a man, in certain circumstances, a man may gravitate to passive role, and a woman — to active one. And here they can go too far. The main mystery of the human sex is the huge number of deviations, which no one has explained yet.

The lesbian idea is a left-wing movement, which is usually socially oriented, it says that there is nothing in biology, everything comes from education and environment. But the paradox is that this statement also works for conservatives such as Yelena Mizulina, who believes that if a child is brought up correctly, he or she does not become gay or lesbian. It turns out that the defenders of this theory, on the one hand, say that homosexual tendencies — natural for some people that it can not be altered. On the other hand, they say that the traditional roles of men and women are determined by society. When there is such a theoretical discrepancy, then there is a theory that says that there is nothing biological at all, that everything is subject to human being, there is no norm, I will become who I want.

In my opinion, this is all a product of ideological manipulation. As I have already said, a certain part of the elite believes that the continuation of the order based on masculinity is a potential source of wars and conflicts between countries and classes. Since the fear of a great war in the European world is huge, there is an attempt to break this traditional pattern.