From the year of 1789, our country has been run by 44 presidents with a very common feature: they all belong to the male gender. With this overwhelming presence of testosterone, our country has exploded into the turmoil of civil war, experienced an economic depression of momentous concern and has been subject to terrorist attacks of numerous forms. Because of these occurrences, I understand why Hillary Clinton’s campaign prevailed in the Nevada caucus last week, the Democratic population of the state supporting her with 52.5 percent of the vote to Sanders’ 47.5 percent. But, even as the vehement feminist that I am, I have a concern as to the true reasoning these proponents have for supporting Clinton’s candidacy.
Favoring Hillary’s campaign simply because she is a female is not the right reason to elect her as our president. Recently, there has been a trend, particularly in the realm of social media, of females declaring it “un-feminist” to not support Clinton’s candidacy merely because she would be the first president in the history of our country to be a female. This idea is absurd. By equalizing Clinton’s gender with her right to head the country, we are essentially copying what men used to say for years and years: that gender is a singular factor through which we can decide someone’s capacity to lead. With the election of President Obama, our country made extreme strides toward breaking away from its history of racial inequality. Similarly, feminists across the country believe this is the time for gender inequality to be leveled — but is it because they support Clinton, or just because they support the notion of a female president?
To only elect Clinton because of her gender would be an insult to the actual issues that she champions. It is indubitable that women’s rights would improve with her election — so support Clinton because you believe she will protect your right to choose as proven with Roe v. Wade, and work hard to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act to ensure the wage gap is eliminated. But also remember that there are other aspects to a campaign than women’s issues: Clinton is also leading the country in a surge toward Alzheimer’s research, paid family leave for both men and women, eliminating sexual assault on college campuses and protecting the small business community.
This is not to say that I’m not wholeheartedly thrilled with even the prospect of putting a woman in the Oval Office. After over 200 years, it is certainly time for a woman to prove that she has the same capacity to lead as a man. Do politics need to be feminized? Absolutely. However, I sincerely hope that our citizens are considering electing Clinton for reasons far better than the presence of her reproductive system.