Myth: Women have less opportunity in politics.

In a Gallup Poll conducted in July 2014, 63 percent of Americans said they thought the country would be governed better with more female leaders. The United States clearly isn't anti-women in politics. Director of the Women and Politics Institute at American University Jennifer Lawless (Democrat) states, "When women run, they actually perform just as well [as men] on Election Day, they're able to raise just as much money, and generally speaking, their media coverage looks very much the same."

According to a Huffington Post article, Lawless was able to make this commentary after analyzing data from a study conducted in 2011 surveying a national random sample of "equally credentialed" women and men in four fields: law, business, education, and politics. When Lawless lost a Rhode Island congressional seat in 2006, it was because she "was challenging a popular incumbent in the primary." This is a fact she herself noted and was aware of. She wasn't held back from winning the race due to her gender, but because the opponent she faced, James Langevin, had policies that were widely supported by voters. Three of the past six Secretaries of State have been women. There are four female supreme court justices. Currently, there are 79 women who hold statewide elective executive offices in 49 states. According to The Washington Post, only 18% of female legislators considered running for higher office.

As a result of her research Lawless also concluded that "women ages 18 to 25 are 20 percent less likely to consider running for public office." Maybe the representation and opportunity seem low because the number who choose to pursue careers is low. With many college campuses and social platforms promoting equality and feminism, it doesn't seem very likely that these statistics are due to societal ideas of pushing men towards politics and women towards "softer" subjects. Maybe I'm biased because my dad has always been eager to help me understand the political workings of this country and has been the one to advocate a potential career path in the field, but I've noticed similar urging and ambition among my fellow female classmates as well.

Myth: She'll be better because she's a woman. 

"Woman" and "great leader of the free world" are not synonymous terms. Voting for Hillary Clinton (Democrat) or Carly Fiorina (Republican) in 2016 just because they're women goes against the very nature of what feminists are supposed to fight for. If Clinton or Fiorina lose the 2016 presidency, it is absolutely not due to sexism. Whenever someone mentions something about Hillary Clinton running for office, it is almost guaranteed that something will also be mentioned about how she is a woman and therefore will be great. Politics, policies, and procedures should determine who the best candidate is, not gender.

In a blog reflecting on her own experiences during the 2008 presidential election, Brittany Stalsburg writes, "Clinton’s gender is what truly distinguished my choice to vote for her over Obama, and it’s why I already know she will get my vote again in 2016." This mentality cannot continue, and it should not be perpetuated by modern culture and society. If you are going to vote for Clinton or Fiorina, do so because you are passionate about their stance on the economy, healthcare, and foreign policy procedures and what they plan on doing once they take office. Vote for them knowing their politics come first for you, with the fact that they are women as an added bonus.

I'm not against a woman president, and when the day comes that I can support a female candidate's policies as much as I support her male counterparts, then I'll vote for the one who has my best interests in mind. But until then, I think I'll stick with a certain 2016 candidate who represents my own ideologies well. It should be about politics, not appearances. That's something I wholeheartedly believe we need to start remembering.