An article by researcher Gražina Bielousova on crisis, neoliberal capture, and care practices in Moldovan feminism has been published in the prestigious journal Women’s Studies International Forum.
An article by Dr Gražina Bielousova, a researcher at VU TSPMI, entitled “What remains: Crisis, neoliberal capture, and care among Moldovan feminists”, has been published in the prestigious journal Women’s Studies International Forum. The publication is part of a broader study covering five Eastern and Central European countries experiencing Russian aggression or the threat thereof.
The study examines how left-wing feminists in five countries in the region perceive their social and political role in the face of the threat of Russian aggression. The author emphasizes that both leftism and feminism are often considered “foreign” in this region—leftism is associated with the Soviet past and suspicion of Russia. In contrast, feminism is associated with a supposed Western invasion. Nevertheless, the focus on inequality and social inclusion raised by these ideologies remains highly relevant.
“Feminists operating in these tensions feel the need to clearly articulate their contribution to state-building, community care, and structural justice—both for themselves and for society,” says Gražina Bielousova.
The author emphasizes that Moldova is one of the least researched countries in Europe. The information available about it usually appears as “crisis statistics”: gender-based violence, poverty among women, migration, vulnerable work, etc. Therefore, this study aims to move away from the crisis discourse and see Moldovan women as active political actors, not just as recipients of support. There is still a lack of discussion in the academic field regarding Moldovan women as decision-makers who theorize their own social reality.
The article argues that Moldova is not only a country in crisis but also one known for crisis. This view reflects the broader experience of Eastern Europe, which historian Ivan Berendas calls “history off the rails.” “In Western and regional discourse, Moldova is often constructed as a ‘failed state,’ a weak democracy, a moribund economy, or a fragmented society. However, this image ignores the energy of civil society, informal care networks, local women’s movements, and their ability to use Western support for their own purposes, rather than just implementing externally designed programs,” says the author of the article.
The article also examines the dual role of non-governmental organizations in Moldovan feminism. Bielousova argues that, on the one hand, NGOs provide women with the opportunity to formalize their activities, obtain funding, develop long-term projects, and thus achieve more visible and stable social change. Formal status allows them to both cooperate with and confront institutions, and to have feminist work more recognized and integrated at the inter-institutional level. However, the logic of funding often depoliticizes feminism: most support is allocated not to advocacy or structural change, but to service provision, turning organizations into “firefighters” of social problems rather than analytical critics of their causes. In addition, donors set priorities and performance indicators that do not always correspond to the needs of local women and require that the results achieved be easily “accounted for.” However, much of the care work at the heart of feminist activism cannot be captured in reporting tables—it therefore remains invisible to funders but is essential to the community itself.
Overall, this study contributes to efforts to include the perspectives of Eastern and Central Europe in international left-wing feminist debates, where the region often remains invisible or is perceived only through the prism of Russia and the Soviet Union. This is particularly relevant in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine, as global left-wing narratives often adopt Russian rhetoric about “anti-colonial struggle,” thereby indirectly silencing the voices of feminists in the region.
