Lessons in Childbirth

Since 2022, Russian schools have become a space not only for transmitting knowledge, but also for reinforcing social roles valued by the state. Girls are seen as a demographic resource and are increasingly being assigned the role of mothers-to-be and guardians of “traditional values.” “Patriotic education” classes such as “Important Conversations” present motherhood as a higher mission, and the new discipline of Family Studies encourages students to marry as early as possible and have many children. 

Meanwhile, some regions are introducing yearly targets showing modest but growing numbers of pregnant schoolgirls—indicators to be met and reported on, to which budget payments are tied. These developments are accompanied by public statements from government and church officials to the effect that family and children are more important for girls than education. Overall, schools are gradually being turned into instruments of demographic mobilization where girls are primarily prepared for motherhood rather than for making independent choices about their lives. This is how the current Russian government views schools in the context of militarization.

“Traditional Values” Instead of an Education

Demographic goals are being openly integrated into education policy. In 2024, the Ministry of Education introduced a new extracurricular class, Family Studies, for grades 5–9, i.e. for children who are approximately 11–15 years old. Its objectives, according to the curriculum, are “to instill in students the values of a strong family, marriage, and having many children” and “to promote chastity.” In addition, the nationwide project “Important Conversations,” a series of weekly classes that include units about family values, also rigidly divides gender roles. Girls are assigned the role of “mother and homekeeper,” while boys are expected to grow up into “protectors and warriors.” The wording is very direct: “the mother is the keeper of the house, the guardian of the hearth”; “motherhood is women’s mission.” In contrast, “heroic” Russian soldiers at war in Ukraine are offered as role models to the boys. The message to teenage girls is clear: motherhood is not just one of many possible life choices, it is mandatory. Meanwhile, their male classmates are promised the role of active creators, leaders, and defenders.

In some regions, officials have introduced a system of cash payments for young mothers. In Altai Krai in Siberia, a one-time payment of 100,000 rubles (a little over a thousand euros) has been officially promised to all full-time students who make prenatal care appointments. In Kaluga Oblast in Russia’s West, a similar scheme (one-time payments of 100,000 rubles to pregnant high school and college students) was introduced in 2025, including a target of 123 girls to be covered in the first year, 130 in 2026, and 143 in 2027. In other words, teenage pregnancy is now a performance indicator—by 2027, there should be almost four hundred underage mothers in the region so that officials can report on their success in increasing the population. Similar pregnancy targets have been adopted in Oryol Oblast (490 payments over 3 years), Kemerovo, Altai Krai, Bryansk, Voronezh, and Tver. The federal Ministry of Labor has recommended that such measures be implemented throughout the country, positioning them as support for young mothers in order to improve demographics.

However, many experts consider these initiatives to be deliberately promoting teenage pregnancy. Even women parliamentary deputies are protesting against its normalization, saying that “a child giving birth to a child is tragic, not heroic,” and warning that the payments “send a message: get pregnant and get money.” Nina Ostanina, Chair of the State Duma’s Committee on the Protection of the Family, described the financial incentives for schoolgirls to have babies as “an emergency measure, and in no way an encouragement” and spoke out against “pushing schoolgirls into pregnancy and childbirth.”

Such policies are echoed in the rhetoric of those high-ranking officials who openly speak of education and family as conflicting choices for young women. Politicians at the highest level are casting doubt on the value of education for girls: in 2023, Health Minister Mikhail Murashko stated that delaying childbirth for the sake of education and career is a “well-established vicious practice” that leads to health problems. “We should send a different message: the earlier a woman gives birth, once that’s physically possible and within the Ministry of Health guidelines, the better it is for her and her child,” the minister stressed. 

Earlier, in 2020, Senator Margarita Pavlova proposed “stopping pushing girls towards higher education,” and said that spending a long time discovering oneself was a “side effect of feminism.” “All that self-discovery drags on for years, causing a loss of reproductive function,” Pavlova said, calling for young Russian women to be redirected from universities to early marriage and childbirth.

The influential clergyman Priest Dmitry Smirnov expressed a similar view. “Girls don’t need to go to school; they should learn to be mothers.” He argued on a radio show that it is more important for a seven-year-old girl to learn how to care for a baby than to “read and write,” posing a rhetorical question: “What good is going to school? This way she’ll be all set to be a mom.” Although Smirnov’s words met with backlash, his argument was essentially the same as that of the officials, if more absurd. The only difference was his frankness. 

Officials, senators, and priests agree: education for girls is little important, while fulfilling one’s “womanly calling” at an early age is a virtue.

It is true that the higher a woman’s level of education, the later she becomes a mother and the fewer children she has. A 2023 analysis of data from 28 European countries has shown that education has the strongest influence on the age at which women have their first child and the likelihood of having subsequent children. In a way, it is logical that Russia’s schools are its chosen venue for discussions of motherhood: education is what gives girls the time and space to choose their path in life.

Textbooks Without Women

A study by Glasnaya conducted ahead of the 2025–26 academic year revealed a depressing gender imbalance in Russian textbooks. In passages assigned in the Unified State Exam (USE), which determines high school graduation and college admissions in Russia, women account for only 8.8% of total characters, while male characters appear almost seven times more often (58.2%). The remaining characters’ gender was not specified. In other words, when preparing for the main school exam, girls see virtually no female names among the authors and characters on which the assignments are based. While official and educational texts use older Russian professional titles that are marked by gender (e.g. “actress”), they deliberately refuse to use words coined in the last few decades by the feminist movement to bring visibility to, say, women editors and directors. Moreover, exam-takers who use these words risk losing points for stylistic deviation. In the school curriculum, women hardly ever appear as artists, scientists, or politicians—more often than not, if they are shown at all it is only as accessories to men.

This trend can also be seen in school textbooks on subjects in the humanities. According to Glasnaya’s calculations, women account for only 5% of historical figures (in politics, science, culture, and industry) mentioned in popular social studies textbooks for grades 8–11. Men and their achievements account for the remaining 95%. Of the 38 quotes listed in the “Wise Words” postscripts to each chapter, only one belongs to a woman (Empress Catherine II), even though there are plenty more non-subversive historical women out there. In addition, not a single woman is mentioned in the eighth-grade textbook’s section on Russian scientific achievement today. The authors of the textbooks gloss over contemporary women researchers or conceal their status: for example, Dr. Elena Lobacheva is described as a (grammatically masculine) “contemporary Russian economist,” without any indication of her degree, while her male colleagues are crowned with all their various titles. Readers could well come away thinking that science, history, and culture are almost exclusively the product of men, and women’s contributions to them are negligible.

The literature curriculum also tends to portray women in stereotypical roles. An analysis of USE assignments in recent years reveals patterns of representation: women are either heroic victims (say, steadfast WWII partisans) or passive characters needing to be protected by male warriors. Female characters appear in a limited range of traditional professions: teacher, actress, milkmaid, nurse, secretary. Women are often described only through their status as relatives (of men)—mothers, sisters, or grandmothers. Men’s roles, on the other hand, range from Peter the Great to carpenters and soldiers, not to mention a multitude of famous writers and scientists. Thus, the curriculum structurally perpetuates a lack of role models for girls. Women are either absent or shown exclusively in domestic or secondary character roles.

Experts describe this phenomenon as the “symbolic erasure” of women. Gender researcher Yulia Grishina notes, “The weak representation of women in textbooks signals to students that this group is less important in the public sphere of science, culture, and art; it reinforces gender stereotypes, and perpetuates gender inequality. In other words, not mentioning women implies that the problems women face do not exist and neither do their actions.” 

School textbooks do not simply reflect reality: to a large extent, they construct it. When a girl spends all eleven years of school seeing almost no women historical figures, writers, or scientists, this reinforces existing inequality by presenting it as the norm. It narrows the scope of her ambitions, as she only has a limited number of potential role models in comparison to the abundance of models for boys. And boys ultimately see themselves as entitled to leadership positions, since that is what they are taught in school.

Research shows that representation in educational materials directly influences student motivation and choices. For example, a 2023 study in The Quarterly Journal of Economics finds that the lack of gender or racial diversity in school textbooks leads to limiting students’ perceptions of their own capabilities. If a girl does not learn about women scientists, writers, or politicians, her idea of who she can become remains incomplete. Inclusive educational content broadens horizons, and the presence of women in leadership roles subverts the notion that leadership is a male prerogative. Inclusivity in education is not a matter of “political correctness” but a necessity for equal access to the future.

Practice Makes Perfect

New school curricula are reinforced by daily practices that create a unified ideological landscape. Girls hear the same message from different sources: textbooks, homeroom teachers, extracurricular courses. Classes in history and health and safety increasingly emphasize the “spiritual and moral value of the family” and the need for traditional roles. Meanwhile, the social studies classes that could provide space to discuss human rights, critical thinking, and gender equality are being cut. Their place on the schedule is taken by lessons on patriotism and religion that offer girls the role of “homekeepers” and boys, “the defenders of the Fatherland.” Teachers in Russian schools routinely complain about important general education subjects being axed in favor of specialized courses, an old problem that has grown even thornier with the advent of the war. One Russian schoolteacher spoke about propaganda assignments in an earlier interview with Posle.

In such an environment, repetition matters. “Motherhood is women’s mission” might sound questionable on its own, but it becomes “truth” when repeated over and over again. By using the same phrases day in and day out in homeroom, Important Conversations, and extracurricular activities, schools turn such statements from opinions into “knowledge.” The system leaves girls with hardly any room for doubt or personal choice.

Knowledge Versus Destiny

Russia’s devaluing of its girls’ education seems particularly contradictory if we consider their actual academic achievements.

No recent official statistics broken down by gender are publicly available. In recent years, Russian state agencies’ reports on the Unified State Exam (USE) and Basic State Exam (BSE) have focused on the number of perfect scorers and the average scores by region. The last detailed data is from 2015, when, according to Rossiyskaya Gazeta, girls scored higher on average in almost all subjects. For example, girl students scored 65.7 points on average in Russian language, compared to boys’ 58.6, and 55 points in literature, compared to 45.9. Girls were also ahead in computer science (59.2 versus 56.4); the only subject in which boys slightly outperformed their female counterparts was advanced mathematics. A similar pattern was observed in scores for the BSE, which is taken at the end of ninth grade: girls performed better in most subjects and were more likely to pass with distinction, while boys were more likely to fail.

These trends are confirmed by more recent international studies. In the PIRLS-2021 study, which assesses the reading comprehension and interpretation skills of primary school students, Russian girls scored 14 points higher than boys in reading, while in TIMSS-2019, their differences in mathematics and science scores were minimal. In addition, analytical reviews by the Higher School of Economics have observed that girls tend to have higher achievements in the humanities and choose to continue their education in that area, while boys are slightly more likely to focus on technical fields.

Until 2021, girls consistently made up the majority of Russian university applicants. In the 2021–22 academic year, according to the Ministry of Education and Science, about 52% of successful applicants were women (i.e., over 565,000 female students). In 2022–23, the gender balance in admissions evened out somewhat (approximately 50/50), but the proportion of women among university graduates is still higher: girls are less likely to drop out of school and more likely to complete their programs and receive diplomas. Thus, objective indicators show higher educational outcomes for female grade school and college students. Girls not only get better grades, but are also more likely to continue their education.

Schoolgirls may outperform boys in terms of academic achievement, but the system constantly reminds them that this is not the most important thing. The highest priority is that they start a family and have children as early as possible; everything else is optional. This dissonance undermines girls’ self-esteem and motivation—why try hard if your excellent skills in mathematics or literature will be invalidated anyway?

A One-Track Future

A teenage girl in Russia who dreams of science, sports, or a career can find no support for her aspirations in school textbooks or official discourse. On the contrary, she is led to believe that such plans are an afterthought or even a potential obstacle to getting married young. Instead of freedom of choice, she is offered a preordained future, and she risks being condemned or labelled a “failure as a woman” if she attempts to follow her own path.

During high school, when teenagers usually experiment with different roles and make plans, girls are being pushed toward a single path: family and early motherhood. The conflict between their natural desire for self-fulfillment and the script being imposed can cause anxiety and devalue girls’ real academic achievements: their awards, competition wins, and high test scores become less important than conforming to a gender role.

It should be said that teachers can sometimes compensate for this bias. Those who disagree with the ideological guidelines have to work around the curriculum, looking for additional resources and discussing topics with students that the textbooks don’t cover. But such efforts require personal motivation and a willingness to go against the system. Since the introduction of “patriotic” classes and new curricula, teachers have found themselves in a position where any deviation from the official line could get them reported or fired. Those who try to keep critical thinking alive in the classroom are effectively forced to balance their professional ethics against the risk of persecution.

In the long term, such policies will lead to the preservation of gender inequality in society. The schoolgirls who are starting to think of themselves as “helpers” and “homekeepers” today will be less likely to aspire to leadership positions in science, business, and politics tomorrow. Russia is losing out on their talents and ideas because, during their formative years, they are being told that “that is not a woman’s job.” For the girls themselves, this results in their life choices being limited. Their personal potential, be it academic, creative, or professional, remains unrealized.

***

The policy of using schools as a demographic tool seems simple and convenient for the state: the earlier girls accept their assigned role, the fewer questions they will ask. But there are downsides to this strategy that are already becoming apparent.

First, it reproduces social inequality. Girls are given fewer opportunities to grow and choose, making society at large lose out: there are fewer women researchers, entrepreneurs, and leaders to create change and move the country forward, as well as defend women’s interests.

Inequality entrenched in schools is then reflected in politics. Today, women hold only 17% of seats in the Russian parliament (the State Duma and the Federation Council). In other words, there are barely any women among those who make strategic decisions, who determine public spending priorities, social policy, and science. Meanwhile, studies show that high representation of women in government has a positive effect on economic growth, the level of trust in institutions, and quality of life. If Russian girls are being taught today that education and careers are not a priority, there will be just as few of them running the country tomorrow.

Secondly, such policies perpetuate gender stereotypes that are passed on to the next generation. A schoolgirl who has learned that her achievements are irrelevant will pass on this experience to her own children tomorrow, transmitting misogynistic attitudes to the next generation. This creates a closed loop wherein patriarchal roles are promulgated both by the government and at the grassroots level of the family. This would be the worst possible outcome, but is it really so unrealistic for the younger generation?

Finally, behind the government’s apparent concern for the birth rate lies a refusal to recognize girls’ right to a full education and their general right to make their own life choices, even if that means choosing science or public affairs over having children. Welfare payments and pregnancy targets may temporarily improve Russia’s demographic indicators, but behind those numbers lie the lost opportunities of an entire generation.

‍