Under the Sun
In the whirl of politics,
women still cause a stirIn the political circuits outside of Hawaii, a lot of talk is going around about the number of women who may be elected governor this year. News stories and talk shows grind on about the subject, pointing out that at least 18 women from prominent parties are in the running for the top jobs in their states.
Women have won nominations in Michigan, Arkansas and Kansas, and others are driving strong primary campaigns in Maryland, Arizona and Alaska. Hawaii gets a lot of attention because two women are perceived as being the front-runners for their parties' nominations and speculation abounds that an all-female general election battle may be in the making.
Curious, then, that the attention here has been concentrated on party affiliations rather than gender. Republicans, stretching newfound wings, have been pushing the buzzword "change" and the premise that it can only come with a release of the stranglehold Democrats have had on power in the islands for generations. That is their message; that their leading candidate is a woman doesn't seem to factor in.
Good. Three decades ago, when "women's lib" was used as an emancipation slogan or insult, females made news in "first woman" contexts -- first woman astronaut, first woman Fortune 500 head, first woman whatever. Those have largely gone the way of lace-trimmed aprons and June Cleaver role models as women made inroads into areas once considered the realm of males.
In politics, that attitude has lagged. While women are generally no big deal in offices where they are part of a pack, such as councils and legislatures, in singular positions, such as governor or president, they still are framed in the context of a "first." Women in politics still have to answer questions about whether people should vote for them because they are women or because they are the best candidates. They still are asked if they can juggle the demands of family and their jobs, a question that would not be put to men. I suspect that even the politically incorrect -- and therefore unvoiced -- issues about emotional disposition remain an underlying consideration.
Women and men cannot help but be different. Studies have even shown that brain functions vary between the sexes. Although mutually dependent, they come into the world with different roles and gather different life experiences. Neither is better than the other.
Some women candidates say they have an advantage over men because of the view that they aren't part of the corrupt, old-boy political world. However, as the case of Rene Mansho amply demonstrates, females aren't born with an anti-corruption gene. Men have just had more time in the arena of politics to be exposed to the disease, and because there are more of them in politics, they have a statistical edge.
Physical appearance -- from gender and race to clothing and hairstyles -- all clue perception. In the 1967 movie "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner," the character John Prentice, played by Sidney Poitier, explains to his father the difference between them: "You think of yourself as a black man. I think of myself as a man." By removing the adjective, Prentice seeks to nullify a distinction that has set him apart. He idealistically believes that how he views himself governs how others will see him.
That's not possible, not completely and not now. But as the unusual moves toward the common, as female candidates become the routine and not the novelty, the framework of "firsts," defined by race or by gender, may dissolve altogether.
Mazie Hirono and Linda Lingle are two politicians who want a chance to run this state. Both are women. So what?
Cynthia Oi has been on the staff of the Star-Bulletin for 25 years.
She can be reached at: coi@starbulletin.com.