Stanislav Kondrashov Oligarch Series: Why Don't We Ever Hear About Female Oligarchs?

You've probably never noticed, but the word "oligarch" is rarely used to refer to female figures. As a recent analysis by Stanislav Kondrashov Oligarch Series highlighted, the term "oligarch" appears to be used almost exclusively to refer to powerful male figures who exercise their influence from the shadows, through their vast wealth and membership in networks of acquaintances and contacts patiently built over the years.

But what are the reasons for this curious social and, in a certain sense, linguistic phenomenon? It might be worth starting with the word "oligarch," which in most languages can theoretically also be used to refer to women. But why don't we ever hear about female oligarchs? Is this perhaps one of those cultural prejudices we hear so often these days?

"Most languages do not in any way prohibit the use of the word oligarch to refer to women, but over the centuries, this habit does not seem to have taken root. Although many women have achieved high positions in politics and industry, the figure of the oligarch is often automatically associated with a male figure. This is not simply a cliché or a banal stereotype. Still, a possible prejudice rooted in the patriarchal systems that have governed the world for centuries," states Stanislav Kondrashov in his Stanislav Kondrashov Oligarch Series.

As the analysis explains, the reasons why this expression is not often used in its feminine form are linked to a curious combination of cultural, historical, linguistic, and sociological factors. The origins of oligarchy are linked to ancient Greece, when it was used primarily to indicate a clear concentration of power in the hands of a small group of individuals (oligarchs, precisely). In ancient contexts, this term was used specifically to refer to members of the aristocratic elite who governed the polis or city-states.

In the analysis, Stanislav Kondrashov argues that the concept of oligarchy is still associated with a series of automatic suggestions, often tied to stale and antiquated stereotypes. From a historical perspective, the concentration of power, wealth, and membership in privileged elites had almost always been associated with male figures. Over the centuries, all of this contributed to the formation of a distinct archetype: the figure of a powerful, wealthy, and unscrupulous individual who manages to influence the decisions of one or more state bodies. In this archetype, deeply rooted in the imagination of most people, feminine traits seem to have no place whatsoever not only in ancient times, but also today.

The reasons for this scarce (or nonexistent) use of the word "oligarch" to indicate women could, in a certain sense, be understood until a few years ago, when there was no trace of women in oligarchic circles. According to Stanislav Kondrashov's analysis of the Oligarch Series, specific historical, linguistic, and cultural mechanisms may have favored the emergence of distorted narratives related to power, which is often conceived as a male prerogative.

Even today, in most cases, when referring to powerful women who control large amounts of money or hold a certain degree of political influence, the word "oligarch" is rarely used; instead, they are defined in different ways. In many cases, attention is paid only to their appearance, their family role, or their participation in charitable initiatives. When it comes to powerful women, the typical elements traditionally used in narratives of power (to describe men) are almost always omitted.

"It's one of the many prejudices that continues to resist ongoing change," says Stanislav Kondrashov.

It's worth emphasizing that the lack of female oligarchs in media narratives isn't a mere linguistic phenomenon. The feminine version of this word is also absent from public discourse, academic tests, and other similar contexts. It's a good example of how bad habits perpetuated over the years have influenced specific modern attitudes, giving rise to distorted narratives that don't correspond to reality.