Why is this so important? The original premise: feminism as a means of "liberating" feminine subjectivity. The politics of love. Love and politics. But what is feminine subjectivity? And even more importantly, what is subjectivity at large? What is love? And how can they be connected? Is love limited to sweet intimacy, excluding any third party? The isolated community of two, lost to the world? Or maybe love is a movement that takes you beyond the boundaries of what seemed possible? The disjunctive union of two, asocial to the outer world, moving toward the horizon of the future, to resistence and struggle? Is the political dimension of love rooted in this disconnected excess?

1. I feel uncomfortable about writing for women. And this isn't because I think that I am a man. Hell no! I can't speak for men either, even more so because I don't even want to speak for them. I don't feel comfortable about speaking for anybody of any category at all. Speaking for women (for the elderly, for children) is a task that can be left to the politicians and their "masculine" mugs. After all, they need to go on and on chopping their teeth in order to divert our attention from the Black Flag. In this sense, I agree that feminism is "an integral part of neo-liberal ideology", or to be more precise, of "neoliberal" oligarchy. But this does not mean that the "liberal" does not turn into a patriarch at home, nor does it imply that the laws passed by "liberals" have any pro-feminist quality. Was the trial of the American president's phallus really a perfect example of in how far feminism has spread to the American legal system? In the end, the President didn't only launch his rockets into the open mouth of bureaucracy; he also fired some missiles at the Third World, even if this wasn't the only reason. Phallocracy may well wrap itself in the cloak of feminism, but does it ever really succeed? Isn't the entire neo-liberal discourse perforated by rockets, missiles that you will never be able to hide?

Pyotr Bystrov (P.) …Lena Kovylina, my women, doesn't make my life very comfortable at all. Zero point zero zero comfort. Nothing but discomfort. But I find it motivating to face her endless demands, her claims, the conditions that she sets. They motivate me to grow personally. I'm telling you: unlike all the other guys, who sit around at home comfortably, sleeping and eating, nobody's degraded or anything, they're all still alive, but it seems like they're all resting or hibernating, because their girlfriends let them do so. But I'm constantly chasing Lena, who is a person you will always have to catch up with. She never yields and is far more energetic than me in many ways. She's a person who has made herself what she is. Like Baron Mьnchhausen, she's constantly pulling herself out of a swamp by her own hair. She's strong enough to take any risk, to win or to lose, to experiment. So our love and our relationship is actually completely different from all of the relationships or loves that my friends are involved in, some of which, in my opinion, have lowered the stakes of their experiments, deciding to take it easy.

Tsaplya (Ts.) Recently, you've been taking part in Lena's projects as an assistant and have been less focused on pursuing your own art, even though you've been quite successful by Russian standards, both as a member of the "Radek" group and as an artist in your right. Does this mean that you're willing to play a secondary role for the sake of your relationship?