By Bob Krauss
Advertiser Staff Writer
I sat beside the wife of a longtime member of the Quarterback Club at the Banquet of Champions while volleyball stars Lily Kahumoku of the University of Hawai‘i and Punahou’s Milia Macfarlane received their outstanding athlete awards last week.
"Volleyball is getting to be so glamorous," said my seat partner.
As a fan of University of Hawai‘i Wahine volleyball, I couldn’t agree more. But I’ve never said it aloud in public, given the attitude toward male chauvinism these days.
"How do you mean?"
"They’re beautiful girls."
"Does that make any difference in sports?"
"Heavens, no! When they’re on the court, they really get into it the way girls do. But when they’re off the court, they look wonderful. You wouldn’t know they’re volleyball players."
Ever since the banquet, I’ve been trying to figure out if glamour has something to do with the difference between boys and girls, though it is no longer politically correct to admit this exists. Would the Wahine be as glamorous if they lost every game and played to empty seats?
I doubt that Kahumoku would get her name in the paper if she couldn’t hit a volleyball like Mike Tyson hits a punching bag.
So what constitutes glamour? What if the Wahine scheduled a game in 1900, when wasp waists and the ability to swoon gracefully were essential skills for glamorous young ladies?
Even if they beat the bloomers off the YWCA squad, the Wahine would probably have been considered freaks.
It’s confusing to a mere male.
Fortunately, I have at hand some research on the subject by the dean of Pacific anthropology, Dr. Douglas Oliver. Turn to Page 602 in Volume II of "Ancient Tahitian Society:"
"The male-female distinction shows up very clearly. ... in many productive activities," Oliver wrote. For example, it was considered male to carry heavy loads of bananas down mountain trails.
However, women didn’t look with favor on males with bulging muscles, "particularly if they tended to knottiness."
Meanwhile, "females were praised for their soft, regular features."
Oliver wisely drew no conclusions. He just presented the evidence. Distinctive movement while dancing were imitative of each other’s body movements in copulation, Oliver reported. Just like disco.
So far as natural ability is concerned, he didn’t find a whole lot of difference.
Both sexes took part in diversions such as traveling, swimming and surfing. There were no sex differences in the manner of chopping, cutting, throwing and paddling.
All of which takes us right back to the UH Wahine. Yet the research still isn’t very enlightening about what constitutes glamour in either a male or a female.
Do you think there’s hope for an ink-stained, white-haired columnist?
[back to top] |
