Celebrating Women: Gender, Festival Culture, and Bolshevik Ideology, 1910-1939
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Choi Chatterjee. Celebrating Women: Gender, Festival Culture, and Bolshevik Ideology, 1910-1939. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2002. x, 223 pp. Illustrations. Notes. Bibliography. Index. $34.95, cloth.Many visitors to former Soviet Union are familiar with International Women's Day-and just as many have likely dismissed March 8th holiday as a meaningless gesture, an annual opportunity to present flowers to grandmothers, sweethearts and female co-workers. In Celebrating Women, however, Choi Chatterjee convincingly argues for Women's Day's significance as chief locus for articulation of discourse for and about (p. 4). From its proclamation at Second International in 1910 until late 1930s, when it was universally recognized as a fundamental date on Soviet holiday calendar, International Women's Day celebrations came to significantly shape New Soviet Woman's public identity, influencing how women construed their roles, rights and responsibilities.Pravda and other Soviet media trumpeted Soviet women's amazing achievements and equal opportunities every March, and Chatterjee is quick to acknowledge that these pronouncements did not necessarily represent most women's experience of Soviet power. She thoughtfully addresses disparity between Soviet propaganda promised women and it delivered, and in so doing makes important contributions to historiography of Soviet approach to woman question.First, Celebrating Women seeks to analyze Soviet gendered propaganda on its own terms, in order to reveal what was saying (p. 7). The state's message must be deciphered, Chatterjee contends, before historians can explore how it was experienced. This is a valid assertion; at same time, wealth of memoirs, diaries and similar sources now available in former Soviet Union might provide material for conjecture about how official visions of Soviet womanhood were received. Furthermore, while Chatterjee diligently and inventively avails herself of a wide range of archival and published sources, information about how (or to extent) women's status was discussed and propaganda for women formulated at highest reaches of power remain unclear. In this case, however, relevant sources are likely inaccessible or non-existent. Notwithstanding these omissions, Celebrating Women provides a valuable investigation of Soviet said to women.Second, while Chatterjee condemns regime's misogynistic patriarchalism and its failure to socialize housework and childcare, she argues that Soviet promises of gender equality were, nevertheless, significant in and of themselves. As she insightfully argues, the capacity to articulate scenarios of radical change in women's lives was... in itself a form of political practice. Soviet women, unlike their counterparts in Third World, were given opportunity to imagine alternative lives and rethink their relationships to family, community, and state (p. 6).The monograph's six chapters unfold chronologically, beginning with Bolsheviks' 1913 sponsorship of Women's Day celebrations. Bolshevik involvement was driven primarily by tactical concerns as party sought an effective way to recruit women, political expediency overcoming socialist reluctance to appeal to women qua women. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".