A lot of people on here don't understand what it means for a character in a historical work to display anachronistic attitudes that don't make sense for the society they live in. So let's look at an example story. This is Masha, who lives in the early Soviet Union.

Masha is pregnant out of wedlock. She fears she'll be fired if her boss finds out or she’ll miss shifts if she can’t afford childcare. Without a job, she won’t be able to pay rent and will be homeless. Not wanting to tell her religious mother, she asks an old neighbor for advice.

How many Americanisms did you count in that story?

Let's go through them.

First, the religious institution of marriage was deprecated in the early Soviet Union. It had no concept of illegitimacy; children of single mothers were legally treated the same as any other children.

Masha's boss can't fire her; she has a legal right to employment. Her worries about childcare are also unlikely; since men and women were both expected to work, state-run day cares were common in the Soviet Union.

Masha also needn't worry about homelessness; housing was a guaranteed right and it was illegal to evict someone without providing them another residence. Rent was a small token amount, but even if she couldn't pay it, she still couldn't be evicted.

Masha's mother might well be religious, but it feels un-Soviet for Masha to be ashamed to tell her. Religion was considered backwards and ignorant and Masha would more likely feel superior to her mother and feel the need to educate her out of her views.

Finally, consulting an older neighbor suggests respect for the wisdom of age. But in the early Soviet Union, old people were viewed with suspicion for potentially harboring pre-Soviet views. Young people educated in the Soviet system were considered more authoritative.

So you see that a story that might initially seem rather universal is actually deeply rooted in unconscious assumptions based on American societal norms and makes no sense if you put it in a different culture.