Recently, I saw a New York Times article posted on Facebook asking the question, “How important is it to you to see a woman elected president?” The question was a clear reference to Hillary Clinton, the only woman left in the 2016 presidential election. As a supporter of Hillary, the answer seemed obvious to me: Of course, it’s important, and Hillary would be a great woman to hold that distinction. But the comments below told a different story.
“The right woman would be great! Mrs. Clinton is not that woman.”
“Having a woman in the white house is important but ONLY if it's the right woman… There is not a female running that deserves this honor.”
“No! However, the RIGHT woman would be great. We will NOT get that in Clinton. She's the type of female your friends warn you about. Women know this type. She's Not one to have [sic]."
“The right woman, yes. NOT Hillary Clinton. She wins, she will be the last woman ever elected President.”
I scrolled through dozens of these comments, and while some were supportive of Hillary, the vast majority was overwhelmingly negative. What struck me was how so many people were eager to declare their support for a woman as president, but immediately qualified this statement by adding that it has to be the “right” woman. Most of the people spouting this belief (while criticizing Clinton) seemed to think that if we elect the “wrong” woman as president, she will be held up as an example in the future of why women shouldn’t be president. Frankly, this is misogynistic nonsense.
First, I’d just like to point out that we’ve elected a number of subpar white men as president, and yet we keep electing more. Based on that fact alone, electing one sub-par woman shouldn’t automatically disqualify any other woman from ever becoming president. James Buchanan, our 15th president, was a significant contributing factor in the start of the Civil War, and we elected another 28 white men right after him. Unless Clinton secretly plans on nuking the entire country, she really couldn’t do worse than Buchanan. She doesn’t speak for all women either—if we elect Clinton and she turns out to be ineffective, that doesn’t mean the next woman will be. Buchanan is a footnote because he didn’t represent his entire gender—and Abraham Lincoln followed him.
And Clinton is far from being a subpar candidate. She was the First Lady of the United States for eight years, a U.S. senator for another eight years, and Secretary of State for four. She also attended Yale Law School and worked on Jimmy Carter’s successful presidential campaign in 1976. Arguably, she has more experience in Washington and in foreign affairs than any other candidate.
So why all the hate for Hillary? What makes her the “wrong” woman to be our first female president, and what constitutes the “right” woman? Once again, according to the commenters, Elizabeth Warren is the “right” woman. But her most significant difference from Hillary is that she’s not running for president and doesn’t want to be. And, unfortunately, this is probably what makes her the “right” woman in the eyes of many people who claim to want a woman as president: There’s no chance right now of Warren being that woman, so of course she’s perfect. There is a chance it could be Clinton, so of course she’s completely wrong.
This has been the story of Clinton’s entire 2016 presidential bid. She’s faced scrutiny and criticism that the other candidates have been immune to, most likely because she’s a woman trying to break into the boys’ club of the White House. Even back in 2008, Clinton was facing a series of sexist attacks from the media. She’s a bitch, she’s shrill, she’s nagging us, etc.
As a woman, it’s sickening to watch, because I know even the “perfect” female presidential candidate will have to go through the same sexist criticism that the men never have to face. It’s also disheartening because it makes me wonder if women really can be president. I distinctly remember being told when I was in elementary school that “girls can be president, too.” This is something that no one ever had to tell the boys because they always had over 40 different examples of their gender being represented in the White House. But we girls had none, we still have none, and based on the rampant sexism and misogyny that plagues any woman trying to change that, it might be awhile before we have even one example to point to.
The problem with waiting for the “right” woman is that there will never be one woman who’s “right” for everyone. And as I’ve pointed out, waiting for the “right” woman is ridiculous when we’ve elected dozens of men who arguably weren’t “right” for America.
And no, we shouldn’t elect Clinton “just because she’s a woman.” We should elect her because she’s qualified for the job. Whether or not she’s “right” for anyone else, I support her because she’s right for me, and she’s who I want representing me in the White House.
