Think about it: why haven't there been many female candidates running since, well, ever? The reason is that it's only a relatively recent development that female politicians have become acceptable. Eight states have female governors right now. There are sixteen female senators, and I don't know how many female representatives; maybe six dozen or so. The fact that there hasn't been a significant female presidential candidate yet is indicative of the fact that there haven't been enough female elected officials having moved their way up the ranks yet.
It's happening, though. I think my generation (the one that the Baby Boomers sometimes derisively refer to as "Generation X") would have no problem voting for a female presidential candidate—at least, no problem based on her gender. I think most Americans won't get hung up on such trivialities, that we won't care about the "historical first [fill-in-the-blank] president," nor will we cling to old saws about women being too emotional or too weak or too worried about her makeup or whatever to run a country.
The ranks are diversifying, gender-wise. Female executives in state governments and in corporations are pretty common anymore, though it's not 50/50. And while there will always be people who would never vote for a woman, there will always be people who would never vote for a black, or for a Catholic, or a Jew, or an Hispanic, an East Asian, a South Asian, etc. To hell with those people; even a constitutional amendment requiring that all presidents be women wouldn't change their minds.
We need to let attitudes change. Damning those who would criticize a woman as automatically sexist hurts the cause of equality. I've had the opportunity to vote for both Christie Todd Whitman and Kerry Healey for governor, but I didn't. It wasn't because they were women, but rather because I didn't like them. I'm willing to consider any female candidate, and I will, sure as I voted for Barbara Hafer to be governor of Pennsylvania in 1990.
It's disingenuous to suggest that the reason more women don't run for president is due to sexism. That's hardly the case—the reason is that there are fewer women standing on the stepping stones next to the Oval Office than there are men. Of all the female governors and senators who are eligible, which ones could run for president? Consider the bench (excluding Canadian-born Jennifer Granholm, of course) :
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS)
Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ)
Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK)
Gov. Linda Lingle (R-HI)
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX)
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Not a heckuva lot, are there? And with some of them, I'm aware that I'm really reaching. A list of male politicians in similar positions would be much longer. I believe if there were an equal number of female governors and senators, the pool of presidential candidates would reflect that. Basically, why settle for a poor candidate for Hillary Clinton rather than wait until a good female candidate steps up? We're making progress in perceptions of gender equality, and we should accept that. There's no reason to get desperate.
My mother once asked me if I minded having a female boss. I told her I didn't, but she said she didn't like it, that she just felt more comfortable with male bosses. She said that with two daughters she felt maybe she should look at this differently, but she couldn't get past that. That sentiment extended to female doctors, female ministers, and, of course, female politicians. My mother was born in 1934, for the record. This attitude is disappearing in this country, but I honestly believe that as more of the younger generations approach voting age, attitudes will necessarily change. Electing a symbol instead of a leader for one or two terms won't make a spit of difference.
Comments are closed on this story.