Introduction
In contemporary democracy, the United States positions itself as a leader of our era by upholding equality, liberty, and possibility. Over the centuries, the United States has evolved into a prominent global leader in social and political reforms, acting as an example not only for the consistent improvement of democratic processes but also for the continuous innovation of society. However, despite its lofty aspirations and reputation for progressivism, one glaring disparity persists: the gender gap that prevents a female president from sitting in the Oval Office. While other nations have broken the glass ceiling and made female figures occupy cues at the highest echelons, the U.S. remains stuck under a model where it is exclusively men who hold the presidency, and women cannot access that power.
This essay highlights multiple dimensions of the question of a longer delayed succession of female presidents in the U.S., though it has a progressive culture. The analysis of the societal, cultural, and institutional resistance to women holding the position of an elected official at the highest level in the government aims to unravel the complexities of the multifaceted factors that stand against women in this most powerful position.
Historical Context
To understand the current barriers related to gender and the president, one must look far back into history in order to envision the women who led the political revolution. The Suffragette Movement of the late 19th and early 20th century is a significant aspect of American historical development that reflects a vital stage in the nation’s past. It was indeed a movement of passionate people dedicated to fighting for the ballot box for women. And was led by remarkable figures: Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul. All their backbreaking work came to a frontward movement on the day the 19th Amendment was passed and made into the U.S. Constitution, and this historic day opened up voting rights to more than half of the U.S. population. That being said, the breakthrough of the 19th Amendment toward gender parity in politics was not the end. Barely having acquired the right to vote, women came across formidable obstacles while vying for positions in leadership, which are rooted in age-old social norms and institutional stances. The suffrage movement sentiment of feminist subjugation and male domination was still very much alive, thus hindering women’s quest for power and skillfulness.
Structural Barriers
The structural bias implying the unequal status of an American political system marks the primary barrier for a female president. The political process associated with exceptionally high fundraising costs and an-party nomination systems significantly curtails the chances of women candidates who wish to run for the presidency (Conroy et al., 2020). It is evident during the campaign that the female candidates often needed help accessing monetary and political support and party resources. As a result, they have been victims of gender discrimination, which most times alters their visibility during the whole process.
Moreover, the party nomination process poses additional hurdles for female candidates seeking presidential candidacy. The gender gap in giving significant support and fundraising networks traditionally is usually among women and entities with lots of resources, including, but not limited to, wealthy individuals and corporations. Hence, female contenders may only measure against their male counterparts as much as they could if the financial gap is closed, ultimately leaving them with an opportunity to get enough visibility to win the elections.
Gender Bias and Stereotypes
Gender bias and entrenched stereotypes continue to permeate the public perception of leadership, posing significant obstacles for female candidates vying for the presidency. The tradition of the ‘masculine model of leadership, with its strength and assertiveness instead of the presidential effectiveness, is being erroneously equated with it, and this is the main reason why female candidates are victims of bias in their leadership contest. The areas most often criticized about female politics revolve around the assumption that the candidates must prove their competence, likeability, and satisfaction rate.
For instance, during the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton faced relentless scrutiny regarding her temperament, likability, and perceived trustworthiness, often subjected to harsher criticism than her male counterparts (Deckman & Cassese, 2021). The media’s frequently highlighted characteristics of her appearance, demeanor, and reachability only prolonged the prominent gendered themes in leadership, which weakened her potential. The same trend was seen in Elizabeth Warren’s 2020 Democratic primary race, where doubts were raised about her ability to win the presidency, with some pundits implying that a woman cannot win.
Cultural and Societal Norms
The persistence of cultural and societal norms further exacerbates the absence of a female president in the United States despite significant progress toward gender equality. Cautiously shaped behavioral patterns and gender roles are placed by universal societal beliefs, which finally become the main factors for career development in women, and this way, the basis for gender equality among leaders is extinguished (Junn & Masuoka, 2020). The idea of a woman president, which, among other things, implies a break with tradition and triggers resistance from such social layers unwilling to believe in change, contradicts conventional views of power and its limits.
Cultural attitudes towards women in leadership, coupled with prevailing gender roles, create formidable barriers for aspiring female politicians. Most of the time, women find themselves faced with stereotypes that they have to be and appear caring and nurturing partners in society, further fueling the perception that they are unfit for high-level leadership positions (Keohane, 2020). A much different notion of an “ideal” female leader is taken up, i.e., an empathetic, nurturing, and consensus-driven leader. In contrast, the traditional view of presidential leadership inevitably compares with that of a strong, decisive, and assertive leader. Additionally, society still shows gender bias by depicting women as emotionally unstable or not capable of making decisions. This can influence voter perceptions and contribute to discrimination toward female candidates. Women are probably seen as more emotionally inclined or less rational than men, so they have to struggle significantly to break this common stereotype due to the significance of political elections. Furthermore, women runners might be subjected to intensified scrutiny of their family or personal life issues with their marital status, parenting issues, and their looks getting over pedantic attention that male contenders do not.
For example, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, faced intense scrutiny and criticism regarding her qualifications and personal life. Palin’s duty as a mother of five, including a child with Down syndrome, was usually often the media focus, and it threw into light the question of -whether she would balance the family responsibilities with political position’s demands (Krook & Sanín, 2020). Just as there was a campaign focus on women during the 2020 Democratic primary elections, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand was also targeted when her gender-based advocacy came under focus. Nonetheless, the detractors questioned whether the emphasis on sex equality might disadvantage her bid for the presidency.
Intersectionality and Diversity
The intersectionality of gender with race, ethnicity, and class exacerbates the challenges faced by women aspiring to the presidency. Proof of positive change regarding diversification of political representation has been evident. However, the intersecting lives of women from rooms situated in the margins not only reproduce but also enhance the existing blocks. They have specific challenges related to systemic racism and sexism rooted in the historical and contemporary discrimination against Black, indigenous, and women of color. Therefore, to ensure equitable representation, the approach should be mixed. For example, Kamala Harris made history as the first woman, Black woman, and person of South Asian descent to be elected Vice President of the United States in 2020. However, her innovative success, highlighting the recurring injustice to the females of color in America’s political system, tells another side of the story. Women from marginalized communities often contend with intersecting forms of discrimination and bias, which can hinder their electoral prospects and limit their access to positions of power and influence.
Conclusion
The United States’ delayed attainment of a female president reflects a complex interplay of structural, cultural, and societal factors. Though the country preaches theoretically populist and equality slogans, one should recall something that lies so profoundly in the system that it delays women’s rise to the position of president. To overcome them, we should eliminate the significant social barriers, change the old way of thinking about gender, and make political life more representative. The path to the ultimate dream of democracy that lacks gender boundaries starts with collaboration among everyone whose goal is gender equality, and it is only a collective action with the firm sights of the goal.
References
Conroy, M., Joesten Martin, D., & Nalder, K. L. (2020). Gender, sex, and the role of stereotypes in evaluations of Hillary Clinton and the 2016 presidential candidates. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 41(2), 194-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2020.1731280
Deckman, M., & Cassese, E. (2021). Gendered nationalism and the 2016 U.S. presidential election: How party, class, and beliefs about masculinity shaped voting behavior. Politics & Gender, 17(2), 277-300. doi:10.1017/S1743923X19000485
Junn, J., & Masuoka, N. (2020). The gender gap is a race gap: Women voters in U.S. presidential elections. Perspectives on Politics, 18(4), 1135-1145. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592719003876
Keohane, N. O. (2020). Women, power & leadership. Daedalus, 149(1), 236-250. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01785
Krook, M. L., & Sanín, J. R. (2020). The cost of doing politics? Analyzing violence and harassment against female politicians. Perspectives on Politics, 18(3), 740-755. doi:10.1017/S1537592719001397
write