“I want a twenty-four-hour truce, during which no rapes will occur,” — these words of Andrea Dworkin make us think about the mundaneness of gender-based violence. Can her dream come true and, if so, when will it happen? In this text, we will try to understand the causes of violence against women. What is the basis of violence? What should be the feminist opposition to violence? And feminist psychotherapy for victims of violence? More on this and other things later in this text.
Theories about violence
A certain phenomenon can only be eradicated by understanding its essence. Researchers from various disciplines (sociology, psychology, criminology, philosophy, etc.) have repeatedly turned to studying the root causes of violence.
Sociology, cultural studies, philosophy, research on power and ideology
The two most famous sociological experiments of the 20th century are connected precisely with the topic of violent behavior. The first is the Milgram experiment: its participants shocked actors with an electric shock, the strength of which was gradually increased, the percentage of refusal and the duration of “passing” were measured. Although there are critical remarks about this experiment (the participants could predict that they would not be allowed to experiment with real violence, and could consider themselves participants in a prank), the results of the experiment shocked both the public and the researcher himself. A similar one is the Stanford prison experiment, in which a prison was simulated, and volunteers played the role of jailers. In both cases, the actual subject of the study was the violent behavior of the participants in the experiment, and both times the following conclusions were made: the situation set by the experimenter, which inclines the subject to commit violence, affects the behavior of the individual more than his personal qualities. These experiments were a kind of breakthrough in understanding the topic, because until then the problem of violence was considered from a moralistic position, as a manifestation of some malignancy of the individual who commits this violence.
In the further development of Western sociological and philosophical thought, the works of Louis Althusser are important, who contributed to the theory of the concept of “ideology”. In the context of the topic of violence, we are interested in his statement that any power apparatus and its practices always materially embody some system of ideas, and therefore, the system of power relations and the set of ideas in the minds of individuals who belong to this system of relations do not exist separately from each other, but on the contrary, they are directly related.
Later, sociologist Johan Galtung introduced the concept of “structural violence”, distinguishing it from “personal” by the absence of a subject who commits violence, instead its causes are structural (economic or political). This does not necessarily have to be a targeted oppression through the imposition of unjust rules – structural violence can be a consequence of the general imperfection of the system of relations. A category of the population that systematically suffers from hunger and disease is a victim of structural violence.
This same approach is implemented in the classic works on the sociology of violence – the studies of Michel Foucault. Considering power as something inherent not only to certain social institutions, but also rooted in the minds of members of society, Foucault shifts the emphasis from subjects who exercise power over certain objects to the social relations themselves, which are the bearers of power. Foucault writes about prisons and hospitals as institutions that exercise power and punishment, and notes that these models are internalized by the consciousness of the punished or patient, and that the very notions of norm and abnormality are conditioned by the social context. In particular, at the Salpêtrière hospital, he says, it was common to observe insane women who “in none of the periods of their illness showed any distortion of the ability to understand and were possessed only by a peculiar instinct of violence, as if only their emotional faculties were affected.”[1] This quote vividly illustrates the patriarchal prohibition on women from resisting and generally showing any aggression. Similarly, Pierre Bourdieu introduced the concept of symbolic violence as an attribute of power[2] — the latter imposes meanings that are beneficial to it on the subjugated. Thus, the system of power relations is perceived as legitimate and is not perceived as such that it can be changed.
Thus, violence in modern sociology and political philosophy is considered as a systemic phenomenon, one of the sources of which is social relations. All these theoretical approaches are easily applied to the concept of patriarchy and gender-based violence as its indispensable component. Overcoming patriarchy and moving to a feminist utopia without violence and discrimination is possible if we realize how this system of violence is constructed.
One of the latest sociological works is “Violence: A Micro-Sociological Theory” by Randall Collins. In this fundamental work, the author examines the micro-level of more than thirty different types of violence, including domestic violence, and analyzes the scenarios in which conflicts occur. Among the forms of partner violence, Collins distinguishes short-term gender-symmetrical violence and long-term male-dominated violence.
“The difference between casual intimate partner violence and serious abusive relationships is that the former type of confrontation is directed towards protected, limited violence; whereas the latter develops into a pattern of situational tension and sudden release of tension, leading to violent over-acceleration of panic or prolonged use of torture.”[3]
Psychology
The structure of social relations does not deprive the individual of free will, and behind each act of violence lies the responsibility of an adult capable person. Therefore, it is important to consider not only the structural, but also the individual level of violence. Psychological research throughout the existence of this science has sought keys to understanding the behavior of victims and aggressors.
The study of “female hysteria” and the very concept of psychotherapeutic work with psychological problems arose in the 19th century in the works of Jean-Martin Charcot, and then Sigmund Freud[4]. The latter established a connection between childhood psychological trauma and psychological problems in adulthood. However, it is believed that he could not believe the scale of sexual violence against children and women that he discovered, so he renounced his previous theories, and the new explanations he proposed were unsuccessful. However, the work of Freud and his followers laid the foundation for healing psychological difficulties, and psychotherapy emerged and became an increasingly accessible service.
A patient of Freud’s colleague Josef Breuer, Anna O. (Bertha Pappenheim), was a prominent activist of her time. Her personal resistance to the violence she experienced turned into a long-term political struggle against the abuse of women and girls, and she founded shelters and feminist organizations.[5] From the mid-twentieth century, psychoanalysis began to acquire a feminist dimension. Notable here are Nancy Chodorow, who in her study “The Reproduction of Motherhood” analyzes the mechanism of reproduction of gender-role differences in Western society, and Juliet Mitchell, whose work “Psychoanalysis and Feminism” radically reevaluated the classical version of psychoanalysis.
Among the modern psychological theories, the most interesting in the context of violence, it is worth mentioning the conclusion that the behavior of the aggressor or the victim can be similar and repetitive. Eric Berne’s research indicates that one of the prerequisites for the repetition of a certain situation (not necessarily violent) is scripted behavior, that is, one that is reproduced according to the same scenario with different people. Knowledge of this reproducibility has brought to psychotherapy the opportunity for the client to get out of the scenario and form new, more constructive ways of behaving. This concept is further developed by the concept of the Karpman triangle – a psychological and social model of human interaction, which assumes that there are three roles in the system of relationships: “Victim”, “Persecutor” and “Rescuer”, and they dynamically replace each other (more on this later)[6].
Psychologists began to examine the topic of violence and its consequences more closely during and after the Vietnam War, which coincided with the second wave of feminism. Feminists also redefined rape as an act of violence and political control, and surveys have shown the enormous scale of its prevalence.[7] Notable works on this topic include Judith Herman’s books Trauma and the Road to Recovery and Parent-Daughter Incest. They are based on the author’s long-standing work with victims of sexual and domestic violence and present the theory of psychological trauma and the practice of trauma psychotherapy from a feminist perspective. Psychologist Lundy Bancroft, in his book Why He Does It, summarizes his work with men who commit domestic violence. In his view, the problem lies primarily with men and it is they who are responsible for ending domestic violence. The humiliation of a partner, writes Bancroft, is not the result of the dynamics of the relationship, and changing her behavior or trying to better understand her partner does not lead to changes for the better. He insists that in this case it is men who need to adjust, and not their emotions, but their behavior and value system.[8] Michael Kaufman agrees, introducing the concept of the triad of male violence as a set of violence against women, violence against men and violence against themselves. Kaufman recognizes aggression as a toxic part of masculinity, built into the structure of the male psyche by society and upbringing, and suggests getting rid of it.[9]
Robin Norwood’s book “Women Who Love Too Much” also gained popularity, although it eventually earned a negative reputation among feminists as one that (along with the activities of the author’s support group) caused malignant changes in the lives of affected women.[10] Norwood recognizes the prevalence of the problem of violence and saw its causes in the psyche of women, who, in her opinion, are too dependent on men. The self-help program, developed on the basis of the “twelve steps” program of the Alcoholics Anonymous movement, proposed to change only one’s own perception of oneself as a victim. However, a man, unlike a bottle, is a subject, not an object, ignoring his responsibility for violence and refusing to actively try to demand better treatment from him is not an adequate response to the problem. The woman who attended Norwood’s self-help program remained passive as before, but now she was also strengthened in this passivity ideologically.
Atlanta 1996. I’d long wanted to rewatch those Olympic Games — my first viewing, when I was only three years old, had long faded from memory. Then, during the quarantine, the Olympic Channel decided to delight fans by uploading full recordings of the Games on YouTube, including gymnastics — which, in my personal universe of priorities, is a definite must watch. Not only because of our own Lilia Podkopayeva, but also because of the Magnificent Seven, as the U.S. women’s gymnastics team was famously called.
Even knowing in advance who won the team final, I still got immense joy from those old broadcasts — until the very last vault. That was when I remembered what would happen next, and who would inevitably appear on screen. In a moment, Kerri Strug would injure her leg, and team doctor Larry Nassar would rush to her aid. The same doctor who would later be exposed as a pedophile, who had already been abusing gymnasts — even back then, in the 1990s.
Trainer Martha Karoli (second from right) and doctor Larry Nassar help the injured Kerry off the platform.
It was the first of four Olympic Games where Larry Nassar worked with the U.S. gymnastics team. His abuse went unpunished for two decades after Atlanta — and had already been happening for almost ten years before it.
In 2017–2018, Nassar was convicted of possession of child pornography (60 years in prison) and of ten counts of sexual assault against minors — receiving 175 years for seven of them and an additional 40 to 125 years for the remaining three. The “ten” counts refer only to the official verdict. In reality, as of early 2020, Nassar had raped at least 517 girls and women over the span of three decades — those who found the courage to come forward.
On June 24, Netflix released a documentary about this largest harassment case in sports history, titled “Athlete A.” The previous year, HBO had released another documentary on the topic — “At the Heart of Gold: Inside the USA Gymnastics Scandal.”
The Nassar case was not the first, nor the only one — but it became a turning point. At the very least, public discussion and awareness of harassment in sports grew dramatically. Real systemic change will still take time, but the fact that the athletic community is now breaking the silence, acknowledging the problem, and ruthlessly (though not always consistently) removing abusers is already a major step forward.
According to ChildHelp statistics,[1] 40–50% of athletes experience some form of abuse, and 2–8% face sexual abuse. Research by the Council of Europe within the Start to Talk initiative[2], aimed at protecting children from violence in sports, shows that one in five children experiences sexual harassment. Meanwhile, data from INSPQ[3] indicate that 98% of child harassment cases are committed by coaches, teachers, or instructors.
Causes: An Atmosphere of Fear and Manipulation
Undoubtedly, the number one cause is the perpetrator. But why is sports such a fertile ground for their abuse?
First of all, because the word “violence” is still often used almost interchangeably with the word “sport.” This is especially true in elite sports, where constant competition, pressure, and the chase for medals prevail. When athletes live under constant emotional and physical strain, they become accustomed to it and may no longer recognize it as harmful. Yelling, insults, and physical blows are still treated as “normal” — a supposed part of “discipline.” While the global sports world is trying to move away from such methods, they remain widespread across post-Soviet countries, where coaches who began their careers in the USSR — or those trained in that system — still dominate. Progressive voices advocating for change remain a small minority.
Sexual abuse is often preceded by psychological and physical abuse. The perpetrators may not always be the same people, but a climate of anxiety, fear, and normalization of pain creates the perfect ground for adding yet another layer of harassment — another “sacrifice on the altar of sport” in the pursuit of Olympic glory.
Another reason is isolation and lack of awareness. Athletes spend most of their time inside a closed “sports bubble” — surrounded by people who share the same routines, beliefs, and norms. This community develops its own version of “normal,” and unless someone steps outside that bubble and compares experiences, they may not even realize that what they consider ordinary others see as toxic.
Children are the most vulnerable in this environment. Many simply don’t know what sexual abuse is because no one has ever explained it to them. From an early age, young athletes get used to the idea that their bodies don’t belong to them — everyone touches them, whether they want it or not: parents, relatives, coaches, doctors. Some of these touches can be painful or uncomfortable, making it difficult for a child to distinguish between what’s medically necessary and what’s inappropriate. Only now is society beginning to understand the importance of sexual education and respect for personal boundaries, especially when it comes to children.
And one of the main reasons: respect — and fear — of authority. For many, going against a coach or a senior official is unthinkable. The old mentality of “the coach is the law” still dominates. Their authority is rarely questioned, and they are often supported by other influential colleagues.
However, abusers are not always openly aggressive. A common manipulative tactic is “grooming” — masking abuse behind care and affection. Such individuals can appear kind, attentive, and charming: they flatter their athletes, bring treats forbidden by other coaches, joke with them, show interest in their lives, and win the trust of parents. This duality confuses children and teens, leading them to doubt their own perceptions: “Maybe they’re not that bad — maybe I misunderstood.” And for outsiders, it becomes even harder to believe that such a seemingly kind and friendly person could be capable of violence.
All these factors appear again and again in almost every new case of harassment in sports. And revisiting these stories — starting with Larry Nassar — is necessary. Netflix, surely, won’t mind the reminder.
“How Much Is a Little Girl Worth?” — A Turning Point in Gymnastics
Larry Nassar took root in sports medicine early in his career — in 1978. Over the years, he rose to become chief physician of the U.S. women’s gymnastics team, which he joined in 1986, and worked as an osteopathic doctor at Michigan State University (MSU) and other athletic clubs and schools. For 18 years (until 2014), he served as the national medical coordinator for USA Gymnastics (USAG) — the governing body for artistic, rhythmic, acrobatic, trampoline, and other gymnastics disciplines. In other words, Nassar had access to and influence over the entire medical system of American gymnastics.
Most of his assaults took place either in his office or at his home, where he offered some athletes “private treatments.” During competitions — including the Olympic Games — he would invite gymnasts to his hotel room. After performing legitimate medical procedures, Nassar would proceed to what he called his “special treatment methods”: inserting his fingers into their vaginas and anuses, touching their breasts, masturbating in the corner or even in front of the athletes. He often managed to assault girls in the presence of their parents, positioning himself so they could not see exactly what parts of the body he was touching.
Reports of Nassar’s abuse — both oral and written — had been sent to USAG leadership and individual clubs for decades, but action was only taken after 2015, when Sarah Jantzi, coach of gymnast Maggie Nichols, filed a formal complaint. Jantzi overheard her student discussing Nassar’s “treatments” with a friend and later discovered that the doctor had been sending Maggie inappropriate messages and compliments about her appearance.
That report finally led to Nassar’s dismissal from USA Gymnastics. Michigan State University followed suit only in 2016, after the allegations gained national attention.
Larry Nassar in court
“1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 — these are the years when we spoke out about Larry Nassar’s abuse.”
That’s how Olympic champion Aly Raisman began her speech when she and other survivors received the Arthur Ashe Courage Award at the ESPYs. Later it became known that reports had been filed even before 1997.
“All those years, we were told: ‘You’re mistaken. You misunderstood. He’s a doctor. It’s normal. Don’t worry, everything’s under control…’ The greatest tragedy of this nightmare is that it could have been prevented. Predators thrive on silence… All we needed was one adult — just one decent adult — brave enough to stand between us and Larry Nassar,” Raisman said.
The voice that was finally heard belonged to Rachael Denhollander — a lawyer and former gymnast who, in September 2016, told her story to The Indianapolis Star. Alongside her was the anonymous “Athlete A,” who later turned out to be Maggie Nichols. Their testimonies became the basis of the documentary “Athlete A.”
Nassar began abusing Denhollander when she was 15. She had come to him for treatment of back pain.
“Each time I lay on that table, trying to make sense of what was happening, I knew three things,” she said in court. “First, it was clear Larry did this regularly. Second, I was certain that some women and girls must have reported him to MSU or USAG officials. Third, I believed that if they knew what he was doing and hadn’t stopped him, then his treatment must have been legitimate. The problem had to be me, I thought. So I kept lying still. I didn’t know it then, but I was right about the first two.”
In 2016, Denhollander not only spoke publicly but also filed a police report with extensive documentation: legal analyses of Michigan statutes, medical evidence of how pelvic floor therapy should actually be performed (a procedure Nassar used as cover), witness statements, expert lists, and personal journals describing her trauma — which Nassar himself read as part of the case file.
“Did the leadership of USA Gymnastics and MSU expect this level of preparation from children before believing them?” the article asked rhetorically.
Even this wasn’t enough for Michigan State University to take the accusations seriously — the institution initially sided with Nassar. One physician, Brooke Lemmen, testified in his defense, claiming there had been no penetration and suggesting the girl had “misinterpreted what happened,” saying:
“When you’re 15, you think everything between your legs is your vagina.”
Similar responses were given to other girls who tried to report the abuse.
Three months after Denhollander’s story broke, Nassar was arrested. The FBI later found over 37,000 child pornography images and videos in his home — including footage of himself assaulting minors.
Over the following year, more and more athletes came forward to share their traumatic experiences — and to expose the complicity of USA Gymnastics and MSU, which had ignored the abuse happening under their watch.
Nassar wasn’t the only predator protected by USA Gymnastics. The organization had ignored complaints about William McCabe and over 50 other coaches. Some weren’t even banned — they continued working with children. McCabe was finally arrested in 2016, after a gymnast’s mother reported him directly to the FBI.
Olympic champion McKayla Maroney revealed that USA Gymnastics paid her $1.25 million to keep silent about years of abuse by Nassar.
“It started when I was 13 or 14,” Maroney wrote in her victim statement. “It seemed like whenever and wherever he had the chance, he ‘treated’ me — in London before we won Olympic gold, before I earned silver there. The worst night of my life was when I was 15. We were flying to Tokyo, and he gave me a sleeping pill for the flight. The next thing I remember, I woke up alone with him in his hotel room — and he was ‘treating’ me. I thought I was going to die that night… People need to understand that sexual violence doesn’t happen only in Hollywood or Congress — it happens everywhere. It seems that wherever there’s power, there’s potential for abuse. I dreamed of the Olympics, but what I had to endure to get there was unjustifiable and disgusting.”
When court hearings began in January and February 2018, the number of survivors wishing to speak skyrocketed. Instead of the planned 88 statements, the court heard 204 testimonies over nine days — some in person, others in writing.
Many said they found the courage to speak after watching the first brave women confront Nassar in court. One mother read a statement on behalf of her daughter, who had taken her own life after years of depression and trauma. Another father asked the judge for permission to have “five minutes alone in a locker room with this demon” before attempting to lunge at Nassar — stopped only by security.
After one particularly emotional day, Nassar asked the court to stop hearing testimonies, claiming they were “too hard to listen to” and accusing the judge of turning the process into “a media circus.” Judge Rosemarie Aquilina denied his request.
The last to speak was Rachael Denhollander, whose rhetorical question became symbolic of the entire trial:
“How much is a little girl worth?”
“When Larry was sexually aroused — when he found pleasure in our pain — his actions were evil and wrong,” she said. “I ask you to render a judgment that shows what happened to us matters. That we are worth everything — the fullest protection the law can give.”
Rachel Dengollander after her final court appearance
Consequences of the Nassar Case: Legal Reforms and an Overburdened System
The punishment of Larry Nassar himself did not mark the end of the case. Lawsuits flooded in against USA Gymnastics (USAG), the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC), the Twistars Gymnastics Club, and Michigan State University (MSU). The entire leadership of USAG — including President Steve Penny — resigned (albeit reluctantly, under pressure from the USOC), as did MSU President Lou Anna Simon. Penny was later arrested on charges of evidence tampering, while Simon faced charges of providing false information to police.
USAG also suspended John Geddert, head coach of the 2012 Olympic team and owner of Twistars — a close friend of Nassar, known for his aggressive and abusive training methods. One gymnast testified that Geddert once witnessed one of Nassar’s “treatments” but simply left the room after making a joke.
In 2018, the Karolyi Ranch — the U.S. women’s gymnastics national training center founded by Béla and Márta Károlyi in 1981 — was shut down. It was there, many athletes later said, that the conditions most conducive to Nassar’s abuse were created. Parents were forbidden access, gymnasts lived under a climate of fear and bullying, trained through injuries, and developed eating disorders due to extreme dietary restrictions. Trust was nonexistent. Many survivors claimed that the Károlyis knew about Nassar’s actions, though the couple denied all allegations. Investigations into their role are still ongoing.
The biggest systemic change came with the passage of the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017. The law requires sports organizations to report all suspected abuse directly to law enforcement and led to the creation of the U.S. Center for SafeSport, an independent body tasked with investigating and preventing emotional, physical, and sexual abuse in American sports. The center also develops training programs and educational materials on athlete safety.
However, the initiative quickly revealed serious underfunding issues. SafeSport receives an average of 230 new complaints per month, but lacks the staff and resources to handle them all. With a team of 40 employees — 24 dedicated to case management — the center was handling 1,200 active investigations as of early 2020. SafeSport’s first CEO, Shellie Pfohl, resigned in 2019, citing inadequate funding. Her successor, Ju’Riese Colón, continues the work.
As of 2019, SafeSport’s annual budget was $11.3 million, twice what it started with, funded primarily by the USOC and national sports federations. This dependence has raised questions about its true independence, since SafeSport is tasked with investigating the very organizations that finance it. The only government funds it receives are small grants for educational initiatives.
In its first three years, SafeSport sanctioned over 600 individuals accused of various forms of abuse. Yet these numbers don’t reflect the full picture — in several cases, courts overturned or reduced lifetime bans, including those against figure skating coach Richard Callaghan, taekwondo athletes Jean and Steven Lopez, and weightlifter Colin Burns.
Meanwhile, investigations into the institutions that enabled Nassar have dragged on. In February 2020, the USOC and USAG offered $215 million in settlements to Nassar’s survivors in exchange for dropping lawsuits — a move that would effectively shield both organizations and individuals like Penny and the Károlyis from liability. Gymnasts including Simone Biles and Aly Raisman condemned the proposal as an attempt to bury accountability ahead of the Tokyo 2020 Olympics (later postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic).
A 2019 U.S. Senate report by Jerry Moran and Richard Blumenthal concluded that the FBI, USOC, USAG, and MSU had all the necessary evidence to stop Nassar at least a year before his arrest. The report also proposed new legislation to expand protections for athletes, empower Congress to dissolve the USOC and Paralympic Committee if necessary, and increase SafeSport funding to $20 million per year — a measure still under consideration.
Moran and Blumenthal with gymnasts at a press conference on athlete protection
The campaign for its adoption is now being actively led by three-time Olympic swimming champion and human rights advocate Nancy Hogshead-Makar, who herself survived rape at the age of 19. Today, the former athlete heads the organization Champion Women, which advocates for safe sport, gender equality, and the elimination of discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community. Hogshead-Makar supported the creation of SafeSport and collaborates with Child USA, which fights against child abuse.
In general, according to the SafeSport database, at the time of writing, 1,235 sports professionals had been temporarily or permanently suspended for various forms of abuse. The most bans are in gymnastics (227), swimming (186), and hockey (117). And if the imbalance in cases of violence committed by men surprises or unsettles you, note that in gymnastics, where there are the most cases, 219 of the suspended individuals are men and only 8 are women. This is partly because the vast majority of coaches and sports administrators are still men. According to the International Olympic Committee, at the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics, 89% of accredited coaches were men.
SafeSport’s rulings date back to the early 1980s and apply only to the United States. It is also important to note that professional sports leagues such as the NBA/WNBA and the NFL are not under the center’s jurisdiction.
Other cases: inspired by the fall of untouchables
The example set by American gymnasts and the #MeToo movement, which peaked during the Nassar trial, inspired other athletes to speak out about the violence they had experienced.
For Belarusian four-time Olympic champion of the 1970s Olga Korbut, this became a reason to speak again about how her coach Renald Knysh raped her. Korbut first spoke about it in 1999, saying she had felt like a “sex slave.” She was supported by gymnasts Halyna Chesnovska and Liudmyla Riabkova, who were also harassed by the same coach. In an interview with Radio Svoboda, they recalled that after training, Knysh would drive the girls home, and the one he left for last he would take into the forest and rape. During training sessions, he often made sexually suggestive jokes and showed porn magazines and sex toys. They said that everyone knew about it and called them “Knysh’s harem,” but nothing was done to stop it. The girls didn’t tell their parents because they felt ashamed, and the coach was considered an authority figure — if they wanted to compete, they had to obey. Knysh, who died last year, called the accusations slander but also said that it was “natural” for gymnasts to be “fond of their coach” and that each “wants to become his lover or wife.”
Ukrainian Olympic champion and gymnast Tetiana Hutsu, who now lives in the United States, also spoke out about abuse. According to her, in 1991, when she was 15, the then 19-year-old Belarusian Vitaly Scherbo raped her in a hotel room and ordered her not to tell anyone. Tetiana said that she tried to talk to Vitaly about the incident in 2012 but did not receive an apology. Scherbo sued Hutsu for defamation, arguing that “the greatest athlete in the history of sports” could not be “so mentally unstable and insane as to do such a thing.” The conflict ended with Hutsu and Scherbo agreeing not to comment on each other in the media.
Former American football coach Jerry Sandusky is serving a sentence for at least 45 cases of sexual abuse of underage boys. This story occurred before Nassar’s and is very similar to it. Sandusky’s victims were participants in The Second Mile — a charity organization he founded at Pennsylvania State College to support underprivileged teenagers and, according to its slogan, to give them “hope.” Even Sandusky’s own son was among the victims. As in the Nassar case, reports about incidents began surfacing long before a full investigation — as early as 1998 — but the university’s leadership covered them up. Later statements revealed that the abuse had been happening since the 1960s. Sandusky was imprisoned only in 2012. He has never admitted his guilt and has tried to obtain a retrial.
Sandusky image removed from university mural
A series of harassment allegations has also reached the U.S. national swimming team. Last week, six more athletes filed lawsuits against USA Swimming, claiming that the federation’s leadership knew about the abuse by former coaches and did nothing to stop them. The swimmers said they had experienced harassment from Mitch Ivey and Everett Uchiyama — both already removed by the federation but still free — and from Andrew King, who is currently serving a prison sentence for pedophilia. Suzette Moran stated that the abuse by Ivey began when she was 12, and shortly before the 1984 Olympic trials, the 17-year-old Suzette became pregnant by her coach, who forced her to have an abortion. Years of rape led to depression, panic attacks, and destroyed her love for swimming. Earlier, coach Sean Hutchison received a lifetime ban from USA Swimming after being accused of harassment by world champion Ariana Kukors Smith.
Although American cases often become the most high-profile and make global headlines, the problem is by no means limited to the United States. Shortly after the first public statements about Nassar’s abuse, the issue of child sexual violence emerged in British football. The scenario was the same: it had been happening for a long time, at least since the 1970s. Thanks to the large number of people who came forward to tell the truth, within a year and a half 300 coaches and scouts suspected of abuse were identified across 340 football clubs in the country. In total, 12 people were imprisoned. Michael Carson committed suicide before his trial began.
New accusations were brought against coach Barry Bennell, who worked with youth teams at Crewe Alexandra and Manchester City and had already served three prison terms in the United States and the United Kingdom for raping minors. Colleagues called him a “star maker” and admired his ability to spot potential football talents. Bennell, meanwhile, exploited the dreams of young players, promising that “relationships” with him would help their careers. More than a hundred boys suffered from his abuse.
Continuing with football: last year, FIFA permanently banned the president of the Afghanistan Football Federation, Keramuddin Karim, from all football-related activities. This was due to sexual harassment, physical violence, and threats against members of the women’s national team — in addition to the already deeply negative societal attitudes toward women who play football. Many athletes were afraid to speak out about what was happening, as extramarital sexual contact in Afghanistan can be punishable by death. Moreover, Karim threatened to kill their relatives and spread rumors that they were lesbians, which is also extremely dangerous in that country. The athletes reported the abuse anonymously to The Guardian, fearing for their families’ safety. They also said that Karim had a secret room at the federation’s training base where he lured female players, and which could only be opened with his fingerprints.
Heads also rolled in figure skating — particularly in the French national team. At the end of last year, suspicions arose that world championship medalist Morgan Ciprès had harassed a minor skater who trained on the same rink. The girl and her parents said that the French skater sent her photos of his penis (according to USA Today journalists who reviewed the messages, the photos came from Ciprès’s verified Instagram account), while coaches John Zimmerman and Silvia Fontana intimidated the girl, urging her to stay silent because Ciprès and his partner Vanessa James were preparing for the Olympics. They also blamed the victim, saying she was “a pretty girl, and men have needs.” Moreover, the girl’s parents said that another coach, Vinny Dispenza, forced her and another student to message Ciprès asking him to send intimate photos in exchange for pizza from Dispenza himself.
The scandal also led to the resignation of Didier Gailhaguet, the controversial president of the French Figure Skating Federation, who had previously been involved in corruption scandals. Gailhaguet called Ciprès’s actions “stupid” and later resigned over his own misconduct. It later emerged that Gailhaguet had for years covered up sexual abuse by coach Gilles Beyer. Among Beyer’s victims were Hélène Godard and world championship medalist Sarah Abitbol, who wrote about the abuse in her autobiography. Both were minors at the time.
Last year, after a wave of reports about numerous cases of abuse — especially in short track — South Korea launched a large-scale investigation into sexual harassment in sports. Two-time Olympic champion Shim Suk-hee and several other short track skaters accused Cho Jae-beom and other coaches of sexual and physical violence. Cho was sentenced to 18 months in prison for assaulting Shim but denies the rape allegations. “If I criticize my coach, my career is over. If I accuse him of crimes, I won’t get into university or a professional team. That’s how it works,” an anonymous athlete explained in an interview with CNN. Olympic short track champion Lim Hyo-jun was found guilty of sexual harassment, and a month ago, Olympic judo silver medalist Wang Ki-chun was arrested.
The Beginning of Change: Breaking the Silence in Ukraine
And what about Ukraine? For a long time, it seemed that there was complete silence about sexual harassment in Ukrainian sports. Yet a significant — if grim — step forward came with a recent scandal in the climbing federation. Not because it was positive, of course, but because people finally began to speak publicly, pointing out problems and naming those responsible.
Last year, climber Pavlo Vekla stated that when he was a minor, he had been harassed for years by his coach Artur Pechiy. “In Germany, children are taught in school what pedophilia is. And if there’s even the slightest hint — they go to their parents and file a police report,” said Pavlo, who now lives in Germany. “Unfortunately, in Ukraine, it’s different. I only learned the word many years later, when I was already at university.”
At the beginning of 2020, Vekla was supported by his teammates — seven athletes, including team leaders Danyil Boldyrev and Yevheniia Kazbekova. They collected testimonies[14] in which they described in detail their experiences working with the coach and succeeded in having him fully dismissed from the federation, where he had remained vice president and continued coaching even after his official suspension from coaching activities.
Pechiy’s students experienced psychological abuse, blackmail, restrictions on personal life, extortion, inappropriate training loads, and neglect of safety regulations that led to injuries. According to Fedir Samoilov, Pechiy massaged boys and touched their genitals “because it was more convenient for him,” or “inserted a finger into their anus.” He also “asked the boys ten times a day when and how often they masturbated,” gave them advice on how to do it, and described how he did it himself. Samoilov had previously supported the coach but changed his opinion after re-evaluating his experience and publicly apologized to Pavlo Vekla.
Climbers had reported Pechiy’s behavior to the coaching council earlier — back in 2013 — but according to Vekla, “they were only laughed at.” Pechiy himself, predictably, called it all lies and a publicity stunt and filed a counterclaim.
After all these stories, it may seem that sport is an all-powerful evil and a source of inevitable danger. The problem is indeed far from being solved: such a deeply entrenched system is difficult to dismantle in a year or even several years, no matter how powerful the effect of these sporting “Weinsteins.” Moreover, trust in law enforcement remains weak, and not all parts of society are mature enough to discuss and take this issue seriously.
However, it is important that — however slowly — we are beginning not only to see this problem but also to understand and respond to it. The only way to protect ourselves and our children who play sports is to speak out. Speak about our own experiences, speak about the experiences of others. Overcome discomfort and talk to children about their bodies. Overcome fear and shame and talk about the violence we have experienced or witnessed. Support the broad implementation of sexual education in society.
Ukraine does not yet have its own equivalent of SafeSport, but regardless of the field in which violence occurs, you can contact the police or civil society organizations specializing in this issue, such as La Strada Ukraine.
A few years ago, social media was full of loud jokes and irony about amendments to Ukraine’s Criminal Code that strengthened accountability for sexual and domestic violence. One of the main targets of ridicule was the clause on consent to sexual contact. Now, four years after those legal changes, the idea of a culture of consent has become much clearer and more widely understood.
Read more about these changes in the article by Kateryna Viter.
The reasons behind this social shift include active youth education, more accurate and sensitive media coverage, and the advocacy of laws protecting against sexual violence. In other words, building a culture of consent in Ukraine is a daily effort shared by people across different fields — blogging, journalism, politics, advocacy, psychology, and non-formal education.
Gender in Detail spoke with active women from these sectors to learn how they are helping transform the so-called “rape culture” into a culture of consent, and why doing so is especially important right now.
Read more about the difference between a culture of consent and a culture of rape in the article by Yevheniia Dyshleva.
Psychology
“Previously, no one spoke about the culture of consent — society assumed women should be submissive.”
Teaching conscious consent, addressing stereotypes, promoting nonviolent communication, and supporting children and teenagers in schools and universities — this is only part of how psychologists influence personal development and the formation of personal boundaries.
According to Maryna Didenko, PhD in Psychology and expert in tolerance and nondiscrimination, the culture of consent in a psychological context is a set of beliefs or behavioral habits that a person uses to interact with others, including their partner. These habits are shaped by attitudes, upbringing, and learned behavior.
“Previously, no one spoke about the culture of consent, so society mostly believed that women should be obedient. There were stereotypes that sex is essential for men but not for women. Such ideas harm both sides — women are pressured not to refuse sex, and men are pressured to always want it,” Didenko explains.
The formation of a culture of consent in adulthood happens through self-awareness, personal development, psychotherapy, and education. These processes help people reshape the basic beliefs that drive behavior.
The psychologist also notes that during the full-scale war, many couples are separated and cannot engage sexually in person. However, she sees this as an opportunity to build consent culture through communication — by discussing uncomfortable topics, including sex.
“From a distance, partners can talk about their values, desires, and fantasies. This helps them maintain intimacy and lays the foundation for healthy interaction in the future,” she says.
At the same time, war brings heightened aggression. Unprocessed emotions, alcohol or drug use, and other stressors heavily affect human interaction, including in sexual contexts. The number of domestic and sexual violence cases has already increased. Didenko believes that zero tolerance and social condemnation will gradually influence all social groups and lead to real change.
Blogosphere
“If people start googling what ‘active consent’ or ‘active non-consent’ means — I feel an inner victory.”
TikTok and Instagram bloggers play a significant role in forming Ukraine’s culture of consent. They address gender stereotypes, sexual and domestic violence, discrimination, and related topics — reaching teenagers and young adults, the main audiences of these platforms.
Many bloggers use their platforms for educational outreach, explaining the importance of consent and mutual respect in relationships. Creators such as “U Trusakh” (@utrusakh), “Moe Dilo” (@moe_dilo), and bloggers Emma Antoniuk and Yana Brenzei from “Nam palae” (@nam_palae) regularly publish videos analyzing high-profile harassment cases, sharing statistics, and raising awareness.
Ukrainian sex educator and blogger Asya Say (on Instagram and TikTok: @asyasay) believes that understanding active consent can save relationships — and even lives — because it reduces the risk of violence from the very beginning.
“For our society, the culture of consent is still a kind of mysterious creature. Even though there’s been ongoing work on nonviolent communication, people still react with confusion when they hear about consent. But if they start googling what ‘active consent’ or ‘active non-consent’ means afterward, I feel an inner victory,” says Asya.
She notes that some Ukrainians still view asking for consent as a sign of weakness, believing that questions like ‘Can I do this?’ or ‘Do you want this?’ kill romance.
“But more people are beginning to realize that this is about their own safety. In my experience, people under 30 are more receptive to the idea of consent. It’s harder with older generations, especially those deeply rooted in patriarchal or so-called ‘traditional family values,’” she adds.
Asya emphasizes that children should start learning about sexual consent around the ages of 9–10, since the average age of sexual initiation in Ukraine is 15 — even though, under Ukrainian law, teenagers that age cannot legally give consent to sexual activity.
According to Asya, it is also crucial to promote the culture of consent in mass culture — in films, TV series, and books. That way, it will no longer be seen as “a new idea imported from the West” but will instead become an unquestioned social norm.
Politics
“Work with civil society should start with conversations with children.”
Another major driver in shaping the culture of consent in Ukraine is legislation — or more precisely, the people who design, adopt, and implement it. Lawmakers determine how quickly new frameworks that strengthen protection for survivors of any kind of violence are introduced and how effectively perpetrators are held accountable.
Among those advocating for legislation to combat domestic and sexual violence and to establish the concept of consent in law is MP Inna Sovsun and her team. In March 2023, Sovsun submitted a bill to the Verkhovna Rada that would allow criminal proceedings for sexual violence without a formal complaint from the victim. She also actively supported the ratification of the Istanbul Convention.
Gender in Detail spoke with Maria Klius, a human rights advocate and assistant to MP Inna Sovsun, who writes legislative texts and anti-discrimination reviews for educational materials.
“For ten years, everyone who worked on advocating the ratification of the Istanbul Convention talked to politicians about its importance. Over time, this idea became so ingrained that now, as we work on implementation, we no longer have to explain the basics — like why women need specific protection,” Maria said.
As part of broader advocacy efforts, public awareness has also increased, since many of Sovsun’s initiatives are widely discussed — from anti-discriminatory school textbooks to registered civil partnerships.
Maria emphasizes that while the ratification of the Istanbul Convention was a huge victory for Ukraine, the next step — implementation — is even more challenging. The Verkhovna Rada is now considering several bills amending the Code of Administrative Offenses and the Criminal Procedure Code to regulate investigations of sexual violence, plea agreements, and related issues.
“Our team also works with the Ministry of Education, because we are still fighting problematic phrasing in ‘Health Basics’ textbooks. We receive complaints about victim-blaming and other harmful narratives that contradict the idea of a culture of consent. This is critical, because if we want to work with civil society, we must start by talking to children,” Maria explained.
Maria and her colleagues aim to reform the expert review process for school textbooks to ensure it involves qualified professionals, since current reviewers often ignore problematic content — even when students themselves notice it.
Law
“Voluntary consent is mandatory in every case.”
Thanks to their legal expertise and work in protecting survivors of violence, female lawyers and human rights defenders also contribute to dismantling rape culture. They consult victims, help file complaints with law enforcement, and represent women who have experienced violence in court — ensuring that perpetrators face justice.
They also collaborate with NGOs and advocacy initiatives aimed at combating violence and harassment, conduct trainings and legal education programs, and lobby for improvements in gender-based violence legislation. One of the key organizations working in this field is the Ukrainian Women Lawyers Association “JurFem.”
As Marta Pavlyshyn, a lawyer and program manager at JurFem: Education, explains, the conversation about consent is directly tied to the 2019 legal reforms. Previously, under Ukraine’s Criminal Code, rape was defined only in cases where there was resistance or the victim was in a helpless state. The Istanbul Convention, which Ukraine signed in 2011 and ratified 11 years later, introduced the notion of consent to sex as central. This change criminalized acts that previously were not considered rape — even though they were committed against the victim’s will through intimidation or coercion.
The reforms also criminalized sexual violence within marriage, which had often been ignored due to the idea of “marital duty.” Today, the law makes it clear: it does not matter whether the individuals are married or not — voluntary consent is mandatory in every case.
“Ratifying the Convention legally obliges Ukraine to implement and report on its provisions. In terms of consent, the legislative framework is already sufficient: we have criminalized sex without consent and established liability for it, as the Convention requires,” Marta stressed.
According to her, the next step is to change investigation practices, since outdated methods from before 2019 are still common. Some investigators still focus on the presence of physical injuries or the so-called “virginity test.” However, the key issue should be whether the accused obtained voluntary consent from the victim.
Read a detailed legal analysis of Ukrainian legislation from the perspective of the culture of consent by Kateryna Viter.
For survivors of sexual violence and all forms of gender discrimination, the JurFem: Support hotline offers free and confidential legal assistance: 📞 068 145-55-90 or 0 800 30 55 90.
JurFem lawyers provide full legal support — from consultation to courtroom representation. In one current case, JurFem attorneys represent a 14-year-old girl from Zakarpattia, who was raped by three teenage boys.
Media
“The issue of sexual violence is about a violation of the law — and about how justice should work.”
Media professionals play a crucial role in raising public awareness about sexual and domestic violence. Their work creates public pressure on the government and legislative bodies to adopt necessary laws and policy decisions. At the same time, it helps strengthen the culture of consent and build a safer environment for everyone in Ukraine.
Through sensitive and accurate coverage of difficult topics and publication of high-quality materials on cases of violence, journalists help audiences form a proper understanding of such events, challenge gender stereotypes, and dismantle the victim-blaming narrative.
However, the media’s handling of sexual violence remains controversial. In February 2023, StopCor editor-in-chief Maryna Titova contacted Dana Okomaniuk, founder of the platform goodjob, who had publicly shared her story of being raped as a student years earlier. Titova asked Dana for the rapist’s phone number to obtain “his side” of the story. When Dana criticized this request as unethical and insensitive, the journalist published an article defending her actions as adherence to “journalistic standards.”
Read more about how Ukrainian media cover rape in a series of articles by Olha Bilousenko: “‘The neighbors said nothing bad about him’: how Ukrainian media write about rapists,” “Not a sensation but a crime: how to write about rape without causing harm,” and “Accusations and unsolicited advice: how Ukrainian media write about survivors of sexual violence.”
Writers and human rights advocates such as Larysa Denysenko, Liza Kuzmenko (head of the NGO Women in Media), and Oksana Pavlenko, editor-in-chief of Divoche.media, analyze and explain how journalists should write about sexual violence responsibly.
Another prominent voice is Tetiana Troshchynska, editor-in-chief and radio host at Hromadske Radio. She emphasizes that journalism plays an essential role in shaping a culture of consent — especially when not only niche but also mainstream media with mass audiences begin to address these topics.
“Sometimes the audience doesn’t even understand what a media piece is about. That’s why outlets with strong editorial principles must not back down — even if readers or viewers react negatively, saying things like ‘this problem doesn’t exist’ or ‘are we supposed to sign consent forms before sex now?’ It’s important to keep explaining these issues and stay on course,” Tetiana said.
For journalists who are just beginning to cover sexual violence, she advises not only to report incidents, but also to help advance justice and give survivors space to be heard and supported.
“The topic of sexual violence is about breaking the law — and about how justice should function. But it’s also about a person who has survived, found inner strength, and moved forward. The media should not focus on the survivor’s age, weight, hair color, or clothing,” she emphasized.
Journalists should also help survivors feel safe to report crimes to law enforcement and understand the importance of working with lawyers who can help them seek justice in the least traumatic way possible.
Education
“Agreeing to go somewhere or have a drink is not the same as consenting to sex.”
Non-formal education is another powerful tool for cultivating respect, mutual understanding, and consent. Today, lectures, workshops, and seminars on communication, relationship boundaries, and consent are becoming increasingly popular in Ukraine. Such educational programs are offered by organizations like Teenergizer, TolerSpace, Divchata, Vpershe, and by educators such as Yuliia Yarmolenko, Kris Shapran, and Marianna Anoshchenko.
Olha Kukula, sex education trainer and coordinator of the initiative Girls Create, stresses that the culture of consent must be formed from early childhood. The first thing a child should learn is that their body belongs to them, and no one has the right to touch it without permission. Children in kindergartens and other group settings should be taught the “underwear rule” and how to say “I don’t like this.” As teenagers, they need to understand that every form of interaction — a hug, a kiss, or a touch — requires consent.
“We still live in a culture of rape rather than a culture of consent. You can see it in how people react to high-profile cases of sexual violence. Girls are often blamed for going to someone’s house or being drunk. But agreeing to go somewhere or have a drink does not equal consent to sex. This must be openly discussed with young people,” Olha emphasized.
This summer, she worked as a tutor at sex education training sessions for school and university students. Participants discussed sexual violence (including harassment on public transport, catcalling, and street harassment) and the concept of consent. Some girls later shared personal stories of harassment or how adults had blamed victims in similar cases.
Olha admits it’s hard to measure the success of such work — trainers often don’t know how deeply their lessons affect participants, especially young people. Still, she is convinced these sessions are crucial for teenagers, who need not only information but also support — since many already have negative experiences yet fear speaking up for fear of being blamed again for “improper behavior.”
Courses, Series, and Books
The development of a culture of consent requires active engagement from society, as well as support from education, media, organizations, and government. This culture helps build a fair and equal society and creates a safer environment for women and children, who are most often subjected to harassment and various forms of violence.
Gender in Detail has compiled several useful resources to help you better understand the concept of the culture of consent:
Free online course “Sexual Education” on Prometheus. The course provides answers to the most common questions teenagers have about sex and debunks popular myths about sexual life.
TV series Sex Education (Netflix). The show explores topics such as gender identity, hypersexuality, masturbation, teenage sexuality, pregnancy, and the importance of contraception.
Book Doing It: Let’s Talk About Sex by Hannah Witton. This global youth bestseller discusses sensitive but essential topics — first relationships, virginity and sexual experience, the negative effects of pornography and sexting, and healthy perceptions of one’s body and sexuality.
Derogatory sexist statements by Ukrainian politicians of various levels are still not uncommon in Ukrainian political culture. Yes, it must be admitted that over time there are fewer and fewer of them. Moreover, as soon as they gain publicity and become known to the general public, they are immediately subjected to devastating public criticism and condemnation, and this criticism is increasingly massive and influential. Society is better at identifying manifestations of sexism and more resolutely condemning them. This may indicate that we are gradually moving away from traditional patriarchal attitudes, and egalitarian views are becoming more and more firmly entrenched at the level of the social norm.
Probably, that is why fewer politicians resort to open hostile sexism. However, among deputies and civil servants of various levels there are still those who, in a veiled form, under the guise of “good intentions”, express theses that can be identified as “benevolent” sexism. After all, there are still a few politicians who are not ashamed of their sexist position and discriminate against women in an aggressively hostile manner.
After a sexist comment or act gets on TikTok or Ukrainians’ news feeds and spreads, it is interesting to observe the reaction of the main sexist character. Here, various strategies are traced – from self-defense and justifications to an active attack, accompanied by new sexist pearls. The reaction of a sexist to accusations of sexism is the main subject of research.
Usually, this reaction allows us to better understand how deep the author’s convictions are in the correctness of his words and actions. It also helps us understand what the author thinks about the phenomenon he is accused of. It is logical to assume that those for whom the criticism was convincing enough and the accusations were fair will at least admit that they were wrong and apologize. On the other hand, those who firmly adhere to their sexist beliefs and believe in their correctness will defend their position to the end and will not see manifestations of sexism in their actions / words.
Using this approach, it will be possible to assume how those who resort to it (do not) understand and interpret the phenomenon of sexism. Of course, this study does not claim to be representative, so its results and conclusions are inappropriate to extend to the entire Ukrainian political sphere. Let us consider here only the most striking cases of sexist statements and actions over the past few years.
Flowers as a “friendly gesture” of an apology for sexism The first analyzed case occurred shortly before the full-scale Russian invasion. On February 3, 2022, speaking at a plenary session of the Kyiv City Council, Mykola Tyshchenko, a People’s Deputy of Ukraine from the Servant of the People party, called one of his colleagues “a girl who smiles during the war.” On February 16, the Kyiv City Council Standing Committee on Rules of Procedure convened a meeting[1] regarding a violation of the code of parliamentary ethics. Tyshchenko (or his representative) was invited to participate in the meeting “both officially and publicly.” The MP did not appear in person; his assistant took part in the meeting. On Tyshchenko’s instructions, “in order to prevent any political speculation,” he handed over the bouquet to MP Dinara Tarlan, although according to the chairman of the committee, the address was addressed to another MP.
When asked whether he considered this statement to be discriminatory, Tyshchenko’s assistant replied:
“I was not present at the meeting. Well, if it was an address to the audience, if we cannot establish who the statement was addressed to, he could have said “woman,” “madam,” “girl.” He addressed them, I believe, this is not a violation. It’s like “sir,” “guy.” Mr. Tyshchenko respects women very much, everyone knows it, all of Kyiv knows it, how he congratulates everyone.”
This answer suggests that the People’s Deputy does not see signs of sexism in his statement and does not admit that he was wrong. The chairman of the commission once again clarified whether Mr. Tyshchenko considered the expression “smiling girl” discriminatory, to which his representative clearly replied that he did not.
Later, Tyshchenko’s assistant, Ms. Evelina, who participated in the meeting, also spoke. She also did not see anything offensive in this statement:
“Such a gesture is not a conflict or some kind of mockery, as some representatives of the Kyiv City Council are trying to speculate again. As a girl, I can also assure you that this is not offensive and Mykola Mykolayovych did not have anything wrong with him in any way and did not violate, I am sure, any political ethics.”
It is ironic that Ms. Evelina tried to change the focus of the discussion and accuse all the deputies of the Kyiv City Council, who allegedly made noise during Tyshchenko’s speech, of violating parliamentary ethics:
“But at the same time, I think that perhaps we should consider a violation of political ethics: when a people’s deputy speaks, and other deputies of the Kyiv City Council make noise, treat each other with contempt, it was very loud. I think that this is really disrespect for each other. Perhaps, of course, noise is not regulated, but there are some non-verbal rules that, I think, were violated. Therefore, this gesture with flowers is an exclusively friendly gesture towards Ms. Dinara.”
When asked whether she personally finds Tyshchenko’s statement offensive, Ms. Evelina replied that she did not:
“For me, as a citizen of Ukraine and a woman, it is not offensive, because I believe that in that sense there was no offense. Mykola Mykolayovych in no way wanted to offend anyone, because he treats every person with respect, according to any of his colleagues, so no”.
Even more interesting are the assistant’s thoughts on the situation with gender equality in Ukraine, which she voiced when answering the question about what gender discrimination and sexism are. Ms. Evelina is convinced that such phenomena simply do not exist in Ukraine and we are incredibly lucky with this:
“I think that, probably, we all understand that in our country it is very rare when women or men are discriminated against on the basis of gender or some other… well, we are probably lucky, but in our country it is not developed. We have a very large female quota, all women are treated very appropriately, responsibly and with respect. Therefore, I believe and am very proud that there is no such thing in our country, I have never encountered such a thing.”
Meeting of the Kyiv City Council Standing Commission on Rules of Procedure, Deputy Ethics and Corruption Prevention. February 16, 2022
The coordinator of the secretariat of the Kyiv City Council’s MFO “Kyiv — for Equal Opportunities” noted that the MFO had prepared a statement from 56 deputies who are members of it, stating that they categorically condemn such behavior and consider it unacceptable not only within the walls of the Kyiv City Council, but also in the political space of Ukraine in general. She called for support for the MFO’s statement and emphasized the importance of a personal apology from the deputy through a public statement.
As a result, the commission voted to:
1) recognize the inadmissibility of any statements of a discriminatory nature from persons participating in Kyiv City Council meetings;
2) condemn Tyshchenko’s statement and recommend that the Kyiv City Council leadership contact Tyshchenko if he still participates in Kyiv City Council meetings to apologize to the Kyiv City Council and individual deputies;
3) recommend that the Kyiv City Council leadership apply the rule of immediately stopping the speech in case of relevant discriminatory statements.
After this meeting, there were no more personal apologies from the people’s deputy. Overall, this situation very successfully demonstrates that Tyshchenko’s sexist statement is not at all an accident or a failed communication, which he sincerely regrets. Judging by what his assistants, who represented his views, said at the commission meeting, Tyshchenko never understood what was wrong with his words. The gift given by the MP is more like a “kind gesture” on his part, to gently smooth over sharp corners and prevent public publicity of the situation, which could negatively affect his reputation.
“Sincere apologies for sincere impressions in an unacceptable form”
A somewhat different strategy of sexists’ behavior can be traced in the situation with Oleksandr Kornienko and Davyd Arakhamia, which, unlike the previous one, has spread widely online. The party chairman and the head of the Servant of the People faction discussed their colleague Iryna Allahverdiyeva and resorted to obvious sexism. This was broadcast live on YouTube, so the situation quickly gained mass publicity, and the politicians were sharply criticized.
What was the reaction of the main sexist characters? That same day, Kornienko wrote an explanation and apology on Facebook[2] and gave several arguments in his favor.
Oleksandr Kornienko’s first post about sexist statements
First, he chose self-defense and stated that the recording was edited, phrases were taken out of context, and the colleague’s name had nothing to do with what was discussed in the private conversation. Regardless of its content, the very fact of the excuse indicates that the politician realizes that such statements will not find support among the electorate. Therefore, he does not try to defend his beliefs, but immediately renounces them.
Secondly, in this post, he expresses “sincere apologies” on his own behalf and on behalf of Arakhamia, because he understands that “certain frivolous words could offend people, including women.” In conclusion, after making excuses about the “specificity of language,” Kornienko calls on the social media community to “judge by deeds, not by words” and emphasizes that his legislative initiatives demonstrate that he continues to be a supporter of “true equality between women and men, particularly in politics.”
The next day, Kornienko took another step — recorded a video address[3] entitled “I will try to put an end to the history of my inappropriate conversations.” From the first seconds, it is noticeable that his arguments have changed somewhat over the past day: here he apologizes to his colleague for “that first small, short part of the conversation, where Arakhamia and I discuss our impressions, actually, of her beauty, charm, but in a completely unacceptable form.” The deputy admits that he had nothing bad in mind, and such words are his sincere impressions of his colleague’s appearance. And he declares that the next part of the conversation is not about Iryna, but about Tetyana Dombrovska, who impressed Kornienko with “her energy, her enthusiasm.” Here he also admits that the form he chose for this was unacceptable and sometimes offensive, which can indeed be perceived as sexism. In conclusion, Korniyenko admits: “I allowed myself sexist, discriminatory, disrespectful statements, for which I sincerely apologize.”
As we can see, this politician’s strategy is different. Unlike Tyshchenko, who is not ready to admit that he resorted to sexism, Kornienko does come to it. Yes, not immediately. The first post of a people’s deputy is rather an infantile justification and clumsy attempts to remove responsibility from himself and shift it to editing. However, very quickly, either under the pressure of public condemnation or out of fear for his political future, the deputy publicly admitted that his statements contained signs of sexism, and apologized for them. According to the proposed classification of behavioral strategies, the first reaction is closer to the second strategy (justification, refutation), and the reaction on the second day is closer to the first (admission, apology).
Sexists who do not hide it Although I do not want to talk about Arestovych again, each of his reactions to accusations of sexism successfully and clearly demonstrates the third model of behavior of sexist politicians. This category includes those who can be described with the phrase “Yes, I am a sexist and I am not ashamed of it”. Former non-staff advisor to the President’s Office Oleksiy Arestovych last year became the laureate of the anti-award “Sexist 2022” and, as can be seen from his reaction, is proud of it.
Oleksiy Arestovych’s reaction to his leadership in the anti-award “Sexist of the Year”
Not once after his numerous sexist statements and the public criticism that followed them, has Arestovych even tried to refute what was said, justify himself or deny it. Obviously, there is no question of a public apology. He firmly stands by his position and usually reacts with another sexist statement. This type of behavior indicates that, firstly, the hero is sincerely convinced of the correctness of his views and is ready to persistently defend them; secondly, he uses the label of sexist as part of his image, an inalienable attribute of his persona.
Oleg Lyashko’s public sexist statements and his reaction to accusations of sexism are another example of this strategy. For example, in 2019, Lyashko addressed People’s Deputy Alona Shkrum from the rostrum of the Verkhovna Rada:
“When I look at you — a wonderful, young, intelligent woman who comes here and reports on the laws on civil service and local self-government, I have one question for you: Have you worked for even a day in state bodies or in local self-government bodies?”
Undoubtedly, such rhetoric discredits the deputy, it is sexist and unacceptable within the walls of the highest legislative body of Ukraine. Iryna Gerashchenko pointed this out to the deputy and urged him to speak objectively about the bills, “and not about the age, gender, beauty or unbeauty of the representative of parliament.” Lyashko’s answer illustrates very well how he understands sexism:
“Dear colleague, she is young, smart, beautiful, if this is sexism, if this is an insult, if I have to apologize for these words of mine, then I don’t understand what kind of world we live in. What should I have told her – an old witch or what?”
Such an answer shows that the people’s deputy does not see the problem in his words at all. Unlike Tyshchenko or Arakhamia, who seemed to be trying to take a step forward, ineptly apologizing, or a step back, renouncing their words, Lyashko does not understand the reasons for the accusation and is trying in every way to attack in response.
This is not the first time that such behavior has been observed. A few years before that, Lyashko used feminine pronouns with mockery (“vice-deputy”), deliberately distorted the surname of a female deputy (“Klympush… Tsitskadze”) and never apologized for it. That is, the people’s deputy is so convinced of the correctness of his position that he is not even afraid of the risk of public condemnation. Or, like Arestovych, he deliberately uses sexism as part of his political image.
Among the recent cases is the reaction of Lutsk Mayor Ihor Polishchuk to the “Reverse Day” flash mob in one of the city schools. At an operational meeting on June 5, the mayor stated that “when a male person wears women’s clothing, it is a perversion.” In response, one of those present at the meeting commented:
“The trend towards changing women’s clothing to men’s… it seems to have come from Europe. We missed some certain points during Covid, because distance learning made its own conclusions, and thus such days for changing clothes for men and women were introduced somewhere in educational institutions. But I will say that these trends, they say, have their own basis, subtext. Regarding 24 schools, this is a day of gender equality, which focused on children supporting each other in this part of gender equality, men, women, and so on. But you understand that these scenes of children changing clothes were taken out of context…”
Operational meeting in the Lutsk City Council
Yes, this cannot be called a decisive accusation of the mayor in sexism. The response from the audience is rather uncertain attempts either to justify the school administration by blaming the pandemic, or to explain the “European” origin of the values of gender equality. However, for this study, the reaction and response of the mayor are much more important. He stated:
“These values, these trends—they are foreign to us. These are not our values, these are not our trends. We a Christian city, and we have a city of normal values. These are not our tendencies, remember that.”
That is, Polishchuk also does not even try to justify himself or, even less, apologize for his sexist statements — he confidently defends his beliefs about “traditional values.”
Sexists who “do not notice” accusations of sexism Finally, another model of behavior of politicians who are accused of sexism is the lack of any reaction to these accusations. Those who belong to this category are probably the most numerous. Among the clear examples, we will recall the manifestation of “benevolent” sexism by the mayor of Lviv, Andriy Sadovy, when he addressed the female deputies: “Girls, do not quarrel.” His colleagues stated[4] that such appeals are unacceptable and Sadovy should publicly apologize. However, there was no further communication: either an admission of his mistake, an apology, or an explanation — from the mayor.
A prime example of hostile sexism is the communication of the mayor of Dnipro, Borys Filatov. The mayor has repeatedly allowed himself misogynistic and offensive comments on social networks and has not responded in any way to criticism and accusations of sexism. For example, in the comments under A. Gorba’s post, Filatov addressed the commentator as an “exalted “heifer”” who gives advice “from afar”; “little girl.” After the woman reacted to his statements and pointed out their misogyny, Filatov continued: “There is no such emoticon that I could put on you, my dear)) Are you my electorate, a laughing stock? I do not have an electorate. I have voters. Normal and decent people.” The following commentators also noted the inadmissibility of such communication for the mayor, but all these remarks remained without a reaction and response from Filatov.
Filatov’s misogynistic communication on social networks
Another example of ignoring the accusations and the lack of any reaction is the communication of the head of the Mykolaiv Regional State Administration (then the Regional State Administration, not the Water Administration) Vitaliy Kim. Back in February 2021, at the All-Ukrainian Forum “Ukraine 30”, Kim, speaking about the region’s tourism potential, mentioned “the most beautiful girls in all of Ukraine” several times as one of the region’s advantages and a reason “to invest in places such as hotels, souvenir shops, catering establishments, whatever.” These statements did not go unnoticed by civil society, and Kim was criticized for sexism. However, he did not react to these accusations in any way, did not admit guilt, and did not apologize. In subsequent posts about the Forum on the official Facebook page, Kim summed up and outlined the main points of his speech, but neither the “most beautiful girls” nor an apology for these words were mentioned. The head of the Regional State Administration probably does not see a problem with them or simply decided to ignore them.
Conclusions Therefore, this study proposed to consider how politicians who directly resort to it understand sexism. Analysis from this angle allows us to assess how deeply sexists are convinced of the (in)correctness of their views, whether they are ready to defend them in response to public condemnation, or whether they abandon them after the first comment, which may threaten their rating.
Using the inductive logic of the analysis, the behavior patterns of sexists were classified after their sexist act/words became public and were criticized. The first category included those who publicly admit their wrongdoing and try to apologize for their actions or words. It is important that this study did not focus on evaluating these apologies, but on the behavioral strategy itself.
The second category includes those who try to deny or justify their actions. Such sexists usually resort to explanations such as “it was taken out of context,” “you misunderstood me,” or “that’s not what I meant.” Again, the study makes no attempt to assess the sincerity of their beliefs and the depth of their awareness of their guilt vs. fear of ratings. The focus is on the fact that they do not like the label of “sexist,” from which they try to distance themselves.
The third category includes those who can be characterized by the phrase “yes, I am sexist, and I am not ashamed of it.” Here, everyone who does not question the correctness of their views and after public condemnation usually makes even more sexist comments and actions.
Finally, a separate category was identified for those who take an ambivalent position and do not react to accusations of sexism. They simply ignore any criticism, do not apologize or defend their views. In such cases, it is difficult to understand the motives of actions, or rather their absence. Although it can be assumed that the representatives of this category are not so deeply convinced of their views as to endanger their reputation, and are not so brave and aware as to admit their wrongdoing and apologize.
Such a categorization of the behavior and communication strategies of sexists, of course, does not give a complete picture of the motives and beliefs of all politicians regarding sexism. However, it can be used to analyze reactions and make assumptions about how those who resort to sexism understand this phenomenon.
This project is implemented with the support of the Swedish Institute. [1] Online broadcast of the PC of the Regulations 02/16/2022. Online broadcasts Kyiv City Council.
[2] Oleksandr Korniyenko’s first post about his sexist statements. Oleksandr Korniyenko, 06/23/2020.
[3] Oleksandr Korniyenko’s second post about his sexist statements. Oleksandr Korniyenko, 06/24/2020.
[4] Olha Berezyuk’s post about accusations of sexism and the appropriateness of an apology. Olha Berezyuk, 08/13/2021.
Загальнонаціональна хвилина мовчання
01:00
Кожна смерть у війні — не абстракція.
Це люди. Це втрати. Це вибір, на який ми не погоджувалися.
Коли ми пам'ятаємо — це мінімум, що ми можемо зробити, щоб стати нормою.
Пам'ять живе у нас.
– у мові, якою ми думаємо;
– у донатах, які можемо зробити;
– у словах, які не боїмося вимовити.
Жоден із цих жестів не змінить минулого. Але може вплинути на майбутнє.
Вшановуємо наших захисників і захисниць і всіх, хто загинули від російської агресії.
Команда «Гендер в деталях»
Не вимикається.
Цей банер зникне за хвилину.
Але пам'ять має лишитись.
Бачимо, що ви вже провели 15 хвилин на нашому сайті.
Сподіваємося, вам цікаво, і запрошуємо підписатися на наші соцмережі:
