What Every Woman Should Know about a Woman’s Traditional Path to Power
August 2, 2009
by Anna Belle Pfau
|What Every Woman Should Know is a bi-weekly column on Women’s History.
Corazon Aquino (CBS)
Corazon Aquino, who in 1986 became the Philippines first female head of state during waves of protest after the assassination of her husband, died Saturday. She was 76 years old. Aquino was a beloved icon to many around the world, including many feminists who saw her as a bellwether symbol of what was to come for women. However, despite her record and her global popularity, she continues to be one of a handful of anomalies with regard to female heads of state, and her time in government did not herald a great surge in the election of women to political office. Less than 3% of nations had a female head of state in the 1980s, a number which is only up to 8% today. Nevertheless, her history offers an opportunity to explore a woman’s traditional path to power, which for many women meant following in their husband’s or father’s footsteps.
Corazon Aquino was married to popular Filipino politician Benigno Aquino, Jr., and it was her marriage to him that catapulted her to national attention when he was assassinated. Even as late as the 1980s, most of the women in politics had gotten there because of family connections, particularly that of marriage. There were very few other opportunities for women to get involved. Like many of the women before her, Aquino said she never had political ambitions, but found opportunity thrust upon her by the most unfortunate of circumstances.
What happened in the case of Aquino is a common thread running throughout women’s history. Upon her husband’s death, Corazon Aquino was convinced to run against Ferdinand Marcos in her husband’s stead. She was swept into power by a “people’s revolution” that eventually lead to a democratic Philippines and set off a wave pro-democratic sentiment in the 1980s. Aquino came into office via what scholars refer to as “widow succession.” Widow succession happens when a woman is appointed or elected to her husband’s office upon his death. Though Mr. Aquino did not die in the office of president, he did die pursuing that office. Ms. Aquino declined to run for a second term in office and served six years, surviving no less than six assassination attempts during that time. She stepped down in 1992.
Widow succession has been and continues to be a global phenomenon. Of course, family relations in politics are nothing new, and many of the men who run for office follow in the footsteps of one or more of their male relatives. Al Gore, for example, became senator after his father served nearly 20 years in the seat. Chris Dodd and Evan Bayh, among many others, were also preceded in politics by their fathers. That women would also use family relations to get ahead in politics is unsurprising given this norm. Many of the women who have served have followed in the footsteps of men in their family, and many of them stepped in during the crisis that followed their relative’s death. Did you know, for example, that of the 37 women to have served in the Senate, seven (18%) were appointed to fill the seats of their deceased husbands? Or that 36 (15%) of the 229 women to have served in the House have been appointed via widow succession?
We have lost that history. The stories of these women are not often told, and widow succession is consequently a little-known term. Forgotten are such names as Hattie Caraway (AR), the first woman elected to and to preside over the Senate, who had been appointed to the position upon the death of her husband. Virtually unknown is Nellie Tayloe Ross, the first female governor (WY), who won her office in a special election after her husband died in office. No one remembers Miriam Ferguson (TX) either, or the exciting media coverage of her and Ross’ near simultaneous elections, and the two states’ rush to inaugurate them. Ferguson was elected after her husband was impeached from office. Winnifred Mason Huck (IL) is not a name one remembers from history class, most probably because one has never heard it in history class, but she was the third woman to serve in Congress, the first mother to serve, and followed in her deceased father’s footsteps.
Women and men today need to be aware of this history because our views of marriage and family relations have changed over the last thirty years. Not very long ago the vast majority of women did get married; their success in life may have been incumbent upon it. Today, marriage is a choice, and many women and men choose not to get married even if they do couple up. Today women are able to support themselves and make their way in the world in ways previously denied them. It is important that this younger generation understand where they come from so they don’t make judgments out of ignorance about female candidates who still fit this pattern, which happened to Hillary Clinton just last year. Every woman who is elected creates gains for women in elective representation, no matter who their spouse is or if they have one. Perhaps if they knew this history, people would consider where a woman is coming from before they judge where she is going.
[...] This post was Twitted by thenewagenda [...]
Good article. Actually, there’s a very recent example of widow succession. In 2004 John Ashcroft infamously lost to a dead candidate, Gov. Mel Carnahan, who was killed in a plane crash just before the election. His wife Jean Carnahan was appointed to serve the post.
I have one quibble, however – your inclusion of Hillary Clinton. Despite the overt similarity, she did not fit the pattern. What you have in the Clintons is two brilliant people who both had political ambitions. Hillary may well be the smarter and more qualified, as Bill has asserted. But in the political landscape of the 1990s, she couldn’t have made a serious presidential run. So Bill “took his turn” first.
The point matters because I heard many self-described feminist women decry a possible Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton succession. I pointed out in vain that having the other half of a brilliant pair run when it was finally politically viable wasn’t the same as a man smarting from having just one term in office foisting his son on the nation.
Many of those women supported “great populist” John Edwards, a “feminist” with a lawyer wife – who stayied home raising the kids instead of using her training. Just as “feminist” Obama’s lawyer wife worked a corporate job that helped her husband’s political connections, then made a point of stating that she’d be an apolitical first lady.
Not to denigrate women who got into office via legacy and went on to do an effective jobs. But “legacy” was another meme twisted to undercut the campaign of the best qualified candidate and deny us her full talents at a time they are badly needed.
Thank you for the article! I absolutely love reading your posts, Anna Belle and your ability to inform us of so many unsung heroines.
I see your point, Sister of Ye, but my point about including Hillary Clinton was that she suffered from the unexpected turnaround that our changing views of marriage wrought. She spent her whole young life with this as the model and then, when she followed the process that women used (letting husband go first), the rules suddenly changed for her.
The point of this article is not that women who held an office their husband once did are somehow less than the male counterpart. What I mean to imply is that marriage used to mean something when it came to common values. For a lot of these women, they took up the mantle because they shared the values and ambitions of their husbands, but they lived in a culture that would not accept that from them except in very strictly controlled circumstances. Hillary fits this model because that was the process she knew and the one she followed.
But I hear you on people who like to compare the Clintons to the Bushes when marital relations are categorically different than blood relations. I’ve also heard the infuriating term “aristocratic” applied to the possibility that we might have had two Clinton presidents. All of these arguments are part of what informs this post. The people making these judgments are making them out of ignorance. I hope to help alleviate their burden of ignorance.
Thanks Karen. I am so touched that you enjoy this series!
Great piece Anna Belle. It does seem at times that no woman is ever going to be good enough for some – too good of a wife, not a wife, not a good enough wife …or mother.
Wouldn’t it be fantastic if we could all focus on what unites us rather than divides us!
If they don’t have famous relatives, they slept their way to the top, e.g. Palin. Some progressives said she got to where she was on her looks. Did Oprah Winfrey and Diane Sawyer get where they were because of their looks? They competed in beauty pageants too.
There were some issues that maybe water under the bridge. Still, unlike the other lady president, she will forever be in a venerable place in Philippine history.,Peace be with you!
runescape money
Excellent article, Annabelle!
The reasons why we are seeing a dirth of women candidates for public office are long and complicated, and a deep reflection on how both women are viewed, and how women view themselves.
In our video, Women in Government, Dr. Caroline Heldman (co-editor of Rethinking Madame President: Are We Ready for a Woman in the White House?) posits that one reason women don’t run for office is that women, as a rule discount their skills while men overrate theirs- this leaves women without the confidence to compete on a public level.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-zaf3FM1vQ
Kathryn Jones
MSL
[...] it was his election to the House of Representatives that eventually lead to her career. As we’ve discuss in this series before, many of the women who broke those early political barriers were related to male politicians, most [...]
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 22, 2012 at 11:22 am
February 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...