Things
are good for women right now. Not great, but good. With Nancy Pelosi making
history as the first woman speaker of the House (third in line for the
presidency! gleeful Dems keep pointing out), and the defeat of the South Dakota abortion ban, prospects
for women in America are looking a little
brighter.

There’s
other good — not great — news, too. The new Congress will have more women
than ever before. The addition of at least three women to the House of
Representatives and two to the Senate brings the total number of women in
Congress to 86: 70 in the House, 16 in the Senate.

Still,
though, that’s only 18 percent, nowhere near the percentage of women in the
population. White men still dominate Congress. And the White House. And the
Supreme Court. And that means laws will continue to reflect, for the most part,
men’s priorities. True, all men aren’t alike — preferences for an all-cereal
diet and monopoly of the remote control notwithstanding. And Democratic men are
certainly a step up from Republican men. But still.

Experience
shows that male leadership often means America has money for war but not
for education. It means American has money for jails, but not for job training
and day care. It means money for tax cuts for the wealthy but not for a higher
federal minimum wage. And don’t get me started on gun control and women’s
reproductive rights.

True,
this year an increase in female candidates across the board reversed what had
been a downward trend. And, true, during this election cycle more women ran for
state-level legislative and executive positions (that includes governor,
lieutenant governor, and state attorney general) than ever before. But I
remember the ecstatic predictions in 1992, the so-called Year of the Woman.
Back then, fueled by outrage at the Anita Hill trial, women broke new ground
with four new Senators and 24 Representatives. That brought the total of women
in Congress to six Senators and 47 Representatives. I guess I thought we’d be
farther along by now. Over the years we’ve barely inched forward. We’ve
centimetered forward.

Why is this? Many factors contribute to
whether or not female politicians get elected. Sometimes it’s as simple as
vacant seats. In a country where incumbents are almost always reelected, it’s
hard for newcomers of either sex to win. When several seats are vacant, as in
Congress in 1992, women have a greater chance of assuming power.

But
even before there’s an opportunity, there needs to be a desire. Studies show
that while men often decide independently to run for office, women tend to need
persuading to do so. According to the American Journal of Political Science, 11
percent of women run for state legislative office on their own initiative,
compared with 37 percent of male candidates. Conversely, 18 percent of male
candidates had to be talked into running, while 37 percent of women needed to
be recruited. Groups like the women’s PAC Emily’s List are working to provide
just this sort of support and encouragement.

In
2001, when an abysmally low number of women were participating in politics,
Emily’s List started a political-opportunity program to seek out and train
eligible, pro-choice Democratic women to run for office. Their idea is to
create a “farm team of women for the future,” with an eye toward grooming them
to run for national-level offices, including president.

Another
reason there aren’t enough female politicians at the federal level is that women
start their careers in local and state offices while men jump into politics at
every level. A full 86 percent of current female House members worked their way
up from lower offices.

Something
that worked in women’s favor this election cycle has me grumbling. One reason
women made such gains this year, analysts say, is because we are viewed as
agents of change. Sick of the sad, bad, mad bloodbath that is Iraq and the greed and
corruption that has stained the Republican Party, Americans wanted something
new. And women are seen as incorruptible. Ha!

Until
there are enough female politicians in office for the country to see that we,
too, are power-hungry, corruptible, and perversely sex-obsessed, women will
always be viewed as agents of change. Sure, it works for us. Sometimes. But
it’s patronizing, and it’s the razor-edge of old stereotypes about women. Furthermore,
why should women have to wait until the country is in extremis to gain political advantage?

America will soon have nine female governors, the same number we had in 2004.
I think a country with 50 states should have at least 25 female governors, but
the Center for American Women in Politics isn’t discouraged. Yet. While
statewide positions are often stepping stones to federal posts, governorships,
in particular, often lead to the White House, the CAWP reports. Since the turn
of the last century, eight of the past 18 presidents have been former governors.
That’s something.

And
though nine female governors is not a record, the number of women elected
governor year was: six. Six is good, not great. Forgive me: I’ve been expecting
women to take over the world since I was little. I’m glad girls today have
Pelosi as a role model. I hope they won’t still be counting women’s political
gains in the single digits.

This article appears in Nov 15-21, 2006.