By Juliana Johnson

It’s no secret that almost any political space is heavily male-dominated. In the year 2023, many find it odd that the feminist movement in America has progressed so far but we have yet to see a woman in the presidential seat. No political body has ever had a majority of women; instead, men have consistently outnumbered women. We only recently had the first female vice president, Kamala Harris, elected in 2020, and the first female general presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, in 2016. This leaves many to wonder, what’s taking so long?

The truth is, it’s no surprise that America has never had a female president, in fact, our political system is designed that way. 

The American political system dates back to the year 1783, when the Red Coats waved their white flag and America was declared free from the shackles of England’s throne, becoming the independent, freedom-flailing nation it’s known as today. From the moment freedom was granted, our founding fathers pledged to bring freedom and justice to all, eventually replacing one ruler with another in the form of the presidential seat, first occupied by George Washington in 1789. 

The hierarchical structure of the American government was one of the most heavily debated topics within the Constitutional Convention. The Convention was originally assembled to combat weaknesses in the first American document of governance, The Articles of Confederation, which originally did not include a national leader. 

This lack of a centrifugal force of overarching power was considered by many to be one of the greatest faults of the articles, as it attributed to states having sovereign power, leading to mass economic trouble across the young nation. Thus, the office of the presidency was born. 

Women were the last things on 18th-century politicians’ minds when they were creating the American political system we all know today. Most notably, in a famous letter written by Abigail Adams to her husband John Adams in 1776, she asks him to “Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.” Her husband most eloquently replied, “I cannot but laugh…We know better than to repeal our masculine systems.”  

This gender exclusionary mindset was commonplace among the Founding Fathers and thus seeped into the documents and legislations they created. Women are never mentioned, or addressed within the United States Constitution, a document which has been used to define our nation’s principles for more than 200 years. Even today, constitutional interpretation is at the forefront of the news, most notably within the Supreme Court’s reconsideration and overturning of past decisions, such as Roe v. Wade in June of 2022. 

But, why does all this matter? It is because Americans are still facing the consequences of all the Founding Fathers’ choices today. 

Whether it is because they were not considered during its conception, or the fact that they legally weren’t allowed to vote until 1920, women often do not feel welcome in political spaces. There is no reason for women to feel as if America’s political bodies were ever meant to house them anyway, especially when its creators found their inclusion “laughable.” 

Though many attempts to disavow the misogynistic nature of these documents and proclaim that we as a country have “turned a new leaf,” we continue to immortalize and idolize historical political figures who would be disgusted by the fact that we even consider women for political positions today. 

Take a look at the White House for example, where the nation’s leader is supposed to reside during their presidential term. The White House displays portraits of past presidents such as Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and our favorite feminist, John Adams. If our country claims to be ready for a female leader, then why do we immortalize the achievements of men with a history of bigotry and misogyny, while completely disregarding their female victims from our history? Is our nation truly as progressive and female-forward as we assume ourselves to be if we value the legacies of these leaders without acknowledging their misogyny?

This unwelcoming environment is not only exclusive to Washington D.C, it’s everywhere. Starting from a young age, young girls are never encouraged to involve themselves in decision-making, or any political structures and are barely taught about female leaders throughout their primary education. 

A 2017 study conducted by Ms. Magazine found that of the 737 individual historical figures taught in K–12 classrooms, only 178 are women, and 3 percent of educational materials actually focus on the contributions of women to history and society.

“Growing up I never saw the image of a woman giving a speech at a podium, so it’s hard to set that goal for yourself,” junior Stephanie Dinh said. “So when you hear a young girl say, ‘I want to be president,’ it sounds more like a pipe dream since it’s never been done before.” Dinh is a captain of the GHC Model United Nations (MUN) team and a member of the Speech and Debate Team. 

If young women do find themselves interested in politics, there are a plethora of after school activities, classes, and clubs they can take part in such as Model UN or Speech and Debate, but even then they still find themselves being sidelined by male students. 

“When I walk into competitions or committees and realize I am one of the very few women there, even in committees about women’s rights, it makes it kind of uncomfortable,” junior and MUN co-captain Fallon Prince said.

America has a long history of mistreating female political candidates and treating them much more harshly than their male counterparts, which doesn’t help young women anymore welcome in political spaces.

Throughout Hillary Clinton’s campaign, for example, she continuously received gendered criticisms such as, “Her voice was too loud or annoying; commentary on her choice of dress, with some people recommending that she only wear dark colors, and others saying she should wear colors to look more cheerful,” according to The Guardian’s analysis on the response to her 2016 candidacy.

“When Hillary Clinton was running for president, one of very few who had ever run for such a male-dominated position, and seeing the sheer amount of hate and backlash she got, was really discouraging for so many,” Prince said. 

Even before Clinton became a presidential candidate, her gender was used as a punching bag for those who disagreed with her policies. At the 2013 California Republican National Convention, people sold pins with the slogan “KFC Hillary Special: 2 fat thighs, 2 small breasts, left wing.”

By no means is Hillary Clinton our country’s most battered victim of political misogyny, but she is a palpable example of how gender can become weaponized in political settings. However, while discussing any issue of feminism, it is important to promote intersectionality and the additional scrutiny that politicians who are women of color and/or a part of the LGBTQ+ community face. 

Black female politicians have historically had their credentials questioned, recently seen in June 2022 with the swearing-in of Supreme Court Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson. During Jackson’s confirmation hearings before the US Senate, she was continually questioned about critical race theory and her constitutional interpretation, instead of discussing her ability to fulfill this position.

“It seems impossible to imagine a Senator – or others of his colleagues, who praised Jackson’s performance in similarly gendered terms – speaking these words to a White, male nominee,” CNN journalist Peniel E. Joseph wrote. 

It’s not a failure of the feminist movement or a personal shortcoming of any female candidate as to why we have yet to have a woman in our country’s top position. There is no quick fix to the deep-rooted misogyny within America’s political institutions, even if we were to fill every seat on Capitol Hill with a woman. 

Our society and governmental bodies are founded on principles of misogyny which they still perpetuate to this day. Until we begin to acknowledge them and the harm they do, this cycle of exclusionary attitudes and gender-based discrimination will continue for another 250 years. 

Thus, if we want to see a “madame president” any time soon, then we better start getting to work.