The New Ethics of Intimate Citizenship in ‘Today’s Woman’ Magazine

Today’s Woman6 is a woman’s magazine that was published by the Bulgarian People’s Women’s Union (Българският народен женски съюз), which later became the Committee of Bulgarian Women (Комитет на българските Жени). The mission of the publication was to educate the readers with socialist ideas, ‘to help the Bulgarian woman to be a free and happy person’ (‘Женатаднес’ на 60, 2005, no page).

The magazine was first published in 1945 and still exists, which makes it the oldest magazine in Bulgaria. During its most popular years (the 1970s and 1980s) its circulation reached 500,000 copies in Bulgarian and 100,000 in Russian, but it could have reached a million copies if it had not been limited by the central distribution of paper. The profits from the magazine were very high and were used to support not only its publication but also the activities of the women’s organisation (‘Жената днес’ на 60, 2005). It was the second largest publication in Bulgaria during socialism after the ‘Worker’s Deed’ [‘Работническо дело’]. Among the editors were Darina Boiajieva, Rada Todorova (Chairperson of the Committee of Bulgarian Women, Honours Chairperson of the International Democratic Women’s Federation), Sonia Bakish (editor between 1965 and 1980), and Eleonora Turlakova (‘Женатаднес’ на 60, 2005).

During the period between 1965 and 1980, when Sonia Bakish was the chief editor, the magazine became more pro-active and engaged with the daily problems of women in a more critical way. An article dedicated to the 60th anniversary of the magazine discusses the role of the Editor and the magazine:

The fifteen years when she [Sonia Bakish] was in the leading position of ‘Today’s Woman’ were marked by an abrupt change in the magazine’s messages. Her first mission was to show the reality of the difficult position of women workers […] Until the mid 1970s there was no other print media, radio or television that would so systematically and consecutively, off their own bat, analyse realistically the social reality and criticise the social policy as ‘Today’s Woman’ does. Under the leadership

6

of Sonia Bakish ‘Today’s Woman’ became the best friend of millions of Bulgarian women. […] The magazine is popular mostly because it approves femininity, admits the right of the socialist female worker to show weakness, to feel tired, and to desire to be beautiful and attractive (‘Женатаднес’ на 60, 2005, no page)

On the 25th anniversary of the magazine the Prime Minister Todor Zhivkov sent a letter to the editor but instead of congratulations it contained very critical comments calling the magazine ‘bourgeois’, ‘narrow-minded’, and ‘lacking a class position’. The pressure from the magazine to solve the ‘women’s question’ was discussed in relation to numerous legislative changes (Dimova, 2005) and even experts working for the magazine were involved in the drafting of the proposal for a new Labour Code (1973) which gave women more entitlements, for example to longer maternity leave. The latter was extended to three years, and these years also counted towards the woman’s pension – even if the mother was not working previously. Special protection for women who had children outside wedlock was also granted, and the state funding of nurseries and crèches was increased, as did the number of children enrolled at them.

The magazine published information about the activities of the Bulgarian People’s Women’s Union (BPWU) and also important political documents, and the contents of Today’s Woman were regularly on the agenda of BPWU meetings. The information available from these allows us to explore the link between organised women during the socialist period and the demands made on the pages of the magazine, as these two are often similar. The editorial remit of the magazine, especially from the mid 1960s to early 1980s, was to remain close to the daily lives of Bulgarian women. The published materials varied from reportage, to fiction, to articles by experts, to summaries of government reports, and readers’ letters. According to the article ‘Today’s Woman is 60’, the magazine managed to mirror the daily lives of Bulgarian women because it wrote about their feelings and problems. The article describes how many women sent letters to the editor discussing personal issues such as loneliness, unfaithfulness, deceitful husbands, childcare, problems at work, misunderstandings with mothers-in-law, and attitudes towards women who had children outside marriage.

Sampling

The analysis of the magazine covers a period of thirty years, from 1965 to 1995. Issues from the following years were included: 1965, 1968, 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995. The main

focus of this report is on the period between 1968 and 2008. However it is beneficial to focus on this thirty-year period in order to offer insights into the magazine and its history. Firstly, beginning in 1965 allows the analysis to commence at the start of Sonia Bakish’s period, when the magazine began making more explicit demands for women’s entitlements. The end of the researched period is 1995 because in 1996 the magazine was bought by a private company and even though it was still published, it cannot be argued that it still represents organised women in any way.

The issues included in the sample are March, June, September, and December from each of the years mentioned above. In 1990 not all issues were published due to financial difficulties and lack of paper. Therefore, only two issues from 1990 (March, and June/July) were included in the analysis. On several occasions articles from issues other than the initial sample were included. This happened when the review revealed that a series of articles particularly relevant to intimate citizenship were published during the researched year, for example the series of articles entitled ‘Sexology – a Delayed Conversation’ published across almost the whole year in 1970.

Mid 1960s and 1970s

Intimate citizenship issues received a lot of attention on the pages of the magazine in the period from the mid 1960s to the mid 1970s. Various demands were made in relation to parenting and childrearing, sex education, women’s health, and so on; a large variety of issues were part of the agenda. Adult intimate relationships were romanticised and seen as based on friendship, love, and mutual support, but sexuality was discussed as an important aspect of intimacy. Marriage was ‘highly recommended’ but it was not seen as an end in itself and there was a lot of regulative discussion of what is appropriate and what is socially unacceptable. Here age, ethnicity, and nationality become key factors defining ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in intimate relations.

Sexual intimacy and raising children were not confined to marriage only, but were largely expected to happen within wedlock. Nevertheless, single parenthood and pre-marital sexual contacts were not disapproved of, but were seen as areas where greater social acceptance of these practices was necessary. The portrayal of intimate relationships on the pages of the magazine included discussions of ‘jealousy’ and ‘unfaithfulness’ but these ‘problems’ were portrayed as

negotiable, as issues the couples should work on. The practices most strongly disapproved of were domestic violence, alcohol abuse, and lack of care for children.

In spite the large variety of intimate citizenship issues discussed, there were some omissions in the topics covered. For example there was nothing published on rape, and same-sex relationships/desires were discussed in only one article. Adult intimacy was predominantly heterosexual and procreation was central.

Partnership

Partnership was one of the central intimate citizenship issues. In 1965 a series of articles entitled ‘Talk on Love and Marriage’ (‘Разговор за любовта и барака’, see for example, June 1965) published articles by lawyers, doctors, journalists, and public figures exploring a number of issues related to intimacy: quick marriages at young age (June, 1965), divorce (September, 1965), early pregnancies and abortions (May, 1965), etc. The tone and main messages of numerous articles revealed a similar portrayal of intimate relationships, which focused on love and friendship. Other virtues of intimate relationships were help and support, and mutual respect. The stability of marriage was important, and could be achieved if a marriage is entered voluntarily and not under the pressure of society, parents, relatives, and peers (Заипротив, May/July 1965). Intimate relationships were seen as accompanied by ‘comrade help’ and love (Това не е спорт,

девойки, June 1968).

These family relationships were seen as part of the new ‘socialist way of life’, based on gender equality. Family, the magazine suggested, was ‘now a union of people with equal rights’ (Commentary of Letters to the Editor, September, 1968) and help and equal participation in domestic labour is seen as part of the ‘new morality’ as well. Men who refused to take part in domestic labour were criticised (Commentary of Letters to the Editor, September, 1968).

Special attention was paid to the love relationships of the young. Several articles suggested that young people should not try to hide their love but to fight for it and parents of young people were advised to respect the feelings of their children (Задабъдездраведин брак’, June 1965; ‘Зада няма нежелани последици’, May/July 1965; ‘Моето момиче изтъкано от противоречия’, June, 1975). A commentary article suggested that these problems occurred because it was a time

of change and a ‘new morality’ was being created (Editorial, September 1968: 8-9). According to the text, mothers were ‘helpless in front of the complexity of life’, which was creating confusion and conflicts between parents and children. But the lack of support, it was further suggested, could make young people angry and alienated. The commentary advised mothers to be ‘charming, wise, interesting and strong in the eyes of her child’ (September, 1968: 9) and argued for greater involvement of public organisations in helping and educating mothers to contribute to the better understanding the problems of young people. It is apparent here how women have a central role and a ‘social duty to bear and rear the ‘socialist citizens of the future’ (Einhorn, 1993: 40).

Divorce was also amongst the most discussed intimacy-related subjects and even though the tone of the materials revealed that divorce was not approved of and marriage should be sustained, the overall tone was not conservative. For example, an article dedicated to divorce issues proclaimed that a spouse who had ‘an infatuation with somebody should be offered help by the other spouse and a divorce should not be sought’ (За да бъде здрав един брак’, June 1965). Divorce was represented as a practice of ‘spoiled bourgeoisie women’ and the reasons for it were thoroughly discussed. Most often divorces were seen as resulting from vice, mismatch in character, disrespect of the spouse and her/his parents, unfaithfulness, and interference of others in the couple’s relationship (‘Семейството – жизненанеобходимостзаобществото’, June, 1965). In spite of the fact that marriage was perceived as a ‘lifetime union’ which offered the ‘closest intimacy [which] is between spouses’ (November, 1965), divorce was seen as acceptable in some cases, such as a mismatch between partners, long separation, and illness (November, 1965). Nevertheless, divorce is not encouraged, and there is usually disapproval of the guilty party, or the person ‘causing’ the divorce (‘Разговор залюбовта ибрака’, November, 1965). In relation to this, practices other than lifelong marriage were disapproved of. For instance, second marriages were described as ‘less likely to be successful’ (‘Разговорзалюбовтаибарака’, June 1965), single-parent families were seen as ‘amputated’ ones, and children were presented as seriously suffering from parental separation and prone to suicide, anti-social behaviour, isolation, and neurosis (‘Разводътипсихикатанадецата’, September, 1965).

Reproductive Rights and Parenting

The centrality of women’s role as mothers was crucial for the way in which parenting and reproduction were perceived during socialism. Women, collectively, were the central figures responsible for care, putting them in the centre of discussions of social ‘problems’ such as neglect of families and children. The magazine between the mid 1960s to late 1970s often protected women’s right to work and rejected the idea that women as individuals are solely responsible for care, or for the lack of it. The reasons for this were the transformation of gender relations in society and within families, as well as the insufficient socialisation of domestic labour. For example, an article entitled ‘Women Today and Tomorrow’ (September, 1970) pointed out that, in spite of the fact that women still did most to the domestic and care work, there was an understanding about equality of roles in the family, including childcare. Domestic labour was seen as diminishing, but still considerable, and as a duty that had to be shared between women, men, and children. The article argued that half of men took part in domestic duties, and the other half still harboured the ‘old mentality’ (‘Жените днес и утре’, September, 1970). There were occasions when women were criticised for their preoccupation with domestic labour and for not spending time reading, attending cultural events, being with friends, or going out (‘Жените противравноправието’, June, 1975: 11).

Having many children was often portrayed as a ‘traditional value of the Bulgarian family’ (‘Народът пееза българската челяд’, March, 1968) and the magazine often published various materials on the parenting of many children, including letters (see Letters to the Editor, June, 1968; June, 1975), pictures and quotes of mothers of three or more children (June, 1975). Having one child only, or postponing parenthood, was criticised and explained as a result from inappropriate form of upbringing (‘Народът пее за българската челяд’, March, 1968), with difficult balance of working and family duties, and small or inconvenient housing conditions (‘Раждаемостта и младите семейства’, June, 1975). In this sense voluntary childlessness was simply non-existent on the pages of the magazine. Single motherhood by choice, however, was seen as a growing practice (‘Тъйкатощеживеемвсемейство’, March, 1975).

There was an extensive discussion of what constitutes good parenting and good care for children. The best environment for the child was perceived to be a combination of family and institutional care (‘Тъй като ще живеем в семейство’, March, 1975; ‘Опорни точки’, March 1965). A

strong emphasis was put on not spoiling children with ‘excessive luxury’, ‘oversatisfaction’, or too high ambitions of the parents (‘Обратната страна на медала’, December, 1968; ‘Не изгубваме ли мярката’, June, 1975). Respect for children’s personalities was also promoted (‘Детето е личност, нека помним това’, December, 1975). In relation to motherhood, the age between 18 and 25 was recommended as the most appropriate for having children. Births outside this age were portrayed as carrying health hazards for the mother as well as the offspring (‘За да няманежеланипоследици’, May/July 1965).

Various claims and demands related to parental rights were made from the pages of the magazine, for example: for more privileges for mothers with more than two children; for the removal of a tax payable by adults aged 21 and over without children (the so called ‘Bachelor Tax’) if they were not childless by choice (‘Списание ‘Женатаднес’ предлага... да сепоправи една несъобразност’, May/July 1965); and for more support of single mothers, who were seen as socially marginalised (September, 1970; March, 1975). Adoption was presented as a good practice that needed to be encouraged (see for example letters to the editor form September, 1970). Most of the demands, however, were related to better state provision of childcare and various services for children, for example demands for a larger number and better distributions of care institutions, for different types of institutions that would meet different needs, lower fees, free milk and a sandwich at school (Editor’s Comments, June 1965; December, 1965), for professional nannies (‘Обиднолие’, June, 1970).

Infertility was addressed in some articles in the magazine in the discussions on reproduction and childlessness. Articles dedicated to infertility suggested that it was linked to numerous abortions, abortions at an early age, or an early sexual life (‘Анкета за безплодието’, December, 1968, ‘Какдевойкатада опази всебесимайката’, June, 1975). Abortions, therefore, were presented as harmful to women’s health and the use of contraceptives was suggested as a good family planning method and as a way of protecting women’s body and her fertility (‘Анкета за безплодието’, December, 1968; ‘Накогодавярвам’, June, 1975).

Care and intergenerational relationships were among the issues that the women’s organisation ‘tackled’ from the pages of its magazine. This can be considered part of the new intimacy and personal relationships ‘project’. Care for the elderly was also discussed but received much less attention (‘Майка’, March 1965; readers’ letters March, 1965: 14).

To sum up, reproduction and parenting were two of the most central intimate citizenship issues. Desire for procreation was not challenged and was perceived as central to the lives of adults, both men and women. Women, however, were continuously seen as the central person offering care, in spite of what was suggested as the new gender-equal family sphere. Even though motherhood was seen as a ‘substantial condition for complete fulfilment of women’s personality’ (Committee of Bulgarian Women, 1973: 4), only activities outside the domestic life could offer women independence.

Sexuality: Identities and Practices

Identities and practices related to sexuality did not have as central role in the construction of intimate citizenship as reproduction and parenting, but they were important in the presentation of adult relationships in the magazine. Discussions of what was considered a healthy and proper sexual life included topics such as sexual pleasure, the start of sexual life, sex education, and so on.

A series of articles entitled ‘Sexology – a Delayed Conversation’, published almost during the whole year 1970, offered an interesting discussion on sexuality. An important issue was the ‘early’ sexual life, which was understood as any sexual contacts under the age of 17-18 for women and 18-20 for men (June, 1970). Through engaging in ‘early’ sexual life young women were seen as losing respect for their partners (March, 1970), and putting themselves at health risk (‘Това не е спорт, девойки’, June 1968). Sexual life, therefore, should not only be an ‘animal instinct but joy, happiness and love’ (June, 1970) and young people were advised to ‘abstain from early sexual life by cold showers, physical activity, and dedication to education’ (‘Общвствено развити’, May/July 1965). Several of the articles demanded sex education and more consultations on issues related to sexual life. One article argued that:

education in correct communist behaviour and attitude between female and male youths, between men and women, and the creation of sexual culture is an obligation of the whole society (April, 1970: 16).

A few of the articles also discussed women’s pleasure from sexual contact as an important aspect of adult sexual relationships (September, October, December, 1970). The inability of the woman to feel pleasure was seen as leading to callous relationships and boredom with the partner. Sexual

problems were related to lack of knowledge about sexuality, stress and tiredness, jealousy and tense relationships, poor housing conditions – when young families had to share housing with parents (September, 1970, December, 1970). Certain ‘techniques’ of arousing sexual desire were also discussed – looks, gestures, dress, dance, perfume (October, 1970), and erotic zones (December, 1970). Eroticism was seen as important but it is not an end in itself, it had to be accompanied by friendship, closeness, love, and self-sacrifice (September, 1970; December, 1970). ‘Masculine women’ were criticised for not taking care of their ‘femininity – both physical and spiritual’ (October, 1970).

One of the articles discussed same-sex desire and presents a letter from a gay man to the sexologist. A quote from the letter was published:

Comrade Doctor, help me or I can’t live any more. I have to know if I’m a man or a