The text on the banner was written in Russian.

While women were in many ways the key group that suffered from the changes brought about by glasnost, the ‘man question’, and particularly men’s ‘demasculinization’, were also observed and debated in public. Conservative discourses suggested that Soviet ‘equality politics’ had in fact weakened Soviet men and caused their marginalization by supporting the development of ‘over emancipated superwomen’ (Posadskaya, 1994; Rotkirch, 2000). In this discursive configuration, Russian men were accused of becoming weak, degenerate and passive as a result of Soviet gender politics (see, for example, Temkina and Zdravomyslova, 2013).

Another novelty was how the activists discussed a particular form of sexual violence, which they termed ‘corrective violence’ as its aim was to ‘correct’ the sexuality of non-heterosexual non-males, or in other words turn them into heterosexuals. Many suggested that this particular form of violence was gaining popularity, and was a new manifestation of the ‘culture of violence’ that left victims alone with their painful experiences. The suggestion that this form of violence was gaining popularity was thus implicitly connected with the state’s encouragement of homophobia through the ‘homo propaganda’ law that indirectly legitimizes such behaviour.

As Laurie Essig has pointed out in the context of post-Soviet Russia, ‘coming out of the closet is coming out of the underground’ (1999: 96). This dynamic was echoed, for example, when Vera, identifying as bisexual, discussed “coming out of the closet of feminism”, referring to being open about one’s feminism as some kind of compensation for not being able to come out of the closet as a bisexual in some contexts, for example in her workplace. There were similar echoes in Vania’s narrative, who identified both as a feminist and gay. He stated that he felt it was too dangerous to take part in public LGBT activism under the current legislation, and suggested that this was one reason why he engaged in public feminist activism instead, feminism thus offering a way to remain in one closet (not coming out as gay in public and politically), while coming out as a feminist.

Safe space is also a common feminist and activist term relating to the negotiation of rules for a space or a feminist meeting to make it as comfortable as possible for the participants (Roestone Collective, 2014). Rather than discussing feminism as safe space, I choose to discuss it as a shelter for contextual reasons, in terms of how the feminist ‘shelter’ was produced based on the ‘culture of violence’, non-normative identifications and sheltering from the conservative values and context in general.

According to Nira Yuval-Davis (2011), belonging tends to be naturalized and invisible as long as it is not threatened, but becomes politicized when it is. This was the case for many of the feminists interviewed for this study, as their national belonging was questioned in conservative and nationalist discourses owing to both their non-normative gender and sexuality (Persson, 2014). Indeed, they became marked as foreign in such projects of belonging, as the values they supported and promoted – those that would guarantee them equality and safety – were marked as Western imports and opposite to what constituted Russianness, according to its conservative political framing.

This did not mean that all the participants uncritically incorporated this kind of thinking. Following the rehearsals, as we went to eat falafels at a nearby corner cafe, some participants engaged in a lengthy debate over whose cause feminism ultimately advocated – that of overall equality or that of women (Field notes, 17 September 2015) Although many had become engaged in feminism only recently, the amateur actors had various views on the issue.

These non-academic considerations, I suggest, also reflect the fact that there was a shortage of local feminist knowledge, among other things, due to the dismantling of gender studies centres and the repression of alternative political discourses in public space. They also reflect the overall shortage of resources such as money and support for the movement.

The ‘scandal’ in which Rapoport was involved took place in 2015, when the independent online news outlet Meduza consulted Rapoport on an article about how men should treat women. However, the published article was very different from what Rapoport had been led to believe. Rapoport published her own statement on the issue, criticizing the sexist and disrespectful language in the article, and drawing attention to how, among other things, it called women telochki, a slang word that combines chicks with cows. Meduza later publicly apologised for the article.

Naval’nyi was poisoned in August 2020. Owing to his severe condition, he was evacuated to Germany for medical care, where his condition gradually improved. Naval’nyi returned to Russia in January 2021 in order to participate in the upcoming elections, but was arrested on his arrival at the airport for allegedly violating the terms of his probation. The Kremlin has denied involvement in Naval’nyi’s poisoning, and Russian prosecutors have refused to open an official investigation into the poisoning. They claim to have found no sign of a crime having been committed.

Vladimir Putin’s position was strengthened by pushing through changes to the Russian constitution, which secured him further terms as president. As Greene and Robertson (2019) point out, at the end of the day his position is as strong as the will of ordinary Russians to settle for it and remain in the quiet majority, supporting or at least not openly opposing and resisting him.