Why a female presidency is a long way off -- for the Democrats at least

Donald Trump’s victory showed that racism and sexism are still alive and well in US politics

I wrote this feature for a magazine, but sadly, the editors decided they didn’t want it in the end. It’s too bad, as I worked hard on it, and now kind of feels like the boat has been missed to publish any kind of original analysis on the presidential election results.

But, my parents always taught me not to waste anything, and I spoke to some really brilliant academics — so no point confining it to the dustbin of history. Here it is, free of charge, for all you to consume. Hope you enjoy.

Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

“She’ll be so easy for them. She’ll be like a playtoy. They look at her and say, ‘I can’t believe we got so lucky.’” These were Donald Trump’s words on Fox News, explaining why Kamala Harris could never win the presidency.

The image he painted – a woman reduced to an object by international leaders - was a signal many women will be all too familiar with. It wasn’t her policies or experience he attacked, but her identity – weak, malleable, and easily dominated. Outright sexism barely cloaked in political veneer, Trump was making it clear as day why he felt Harris would never assume the Oval Office."I don’t want to say why," he added with a smirk, "but a lot of people understand it."

For the first time in U.S. history, the nation had a chance to elect a Black woman as its president. But by November 6th, it was clear: Harris, the Democratic nominee and sitting vice president, had lost. Trump, a twice-impeached, convicted felon, had reclaimed the White House.

The moment underscored the unique challenges faced by women in U.S. politics. Harris’s candidacy was historic, built on years of service as a prosecutor, senator, and vice president. Yet, sexism and racism overshadowed her career, weaponized against her at every turn. Trump’s victory revealed the grim reality – in America, experience and competence often pale in comparison to gendered and racialized perceptions of leadership. The question remains: what will it take for the U.S. to break its highest glass ceiling?

Gender and race disparities persist globally, but America’s failure to elect a female president sets it apart from its allies. The UK has had three female prime ministers, while Germany’s Angela Merkel, who served as Chancellor for 16 years, became known as the de facto leader of Europe. In New Zealand, former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern led a globally lauded response to COVID-19, and Finland’s former leader Sanna Marin was hailed for her progressive policies on social welfare, climate action, and gender equality. As Christine Lagarde, President of the European Central Bank, noted: “Female leaders often hold the qualities needed to master this unsettled world: the ability to adapt to complexity, build bridges, create trust, and connect with those unlike themselves.”

The challenges facing women in U.S. politics are deeply rooted in its systems. Historically, both sexism and racism have shaped American institutions, from the long fight for women’s suffrage to the Civil Rights Movement. While progress has been made, significant barriers persist for women seeking leadership roles.

In the U.S, women make up over half the population but remain underrepresented in elite sectors. As of 2023, women held less than 30 per cent of seats in the House and Senate, and a similarly small percentage of Fortune 500 CEO and gubernatorial roles. These numbers, while showing progress, highlight persistent inequalities. A Pew Research Center survey found that most Americans believe women face higher expectations and must work harder to prove themselves, while nearly half of respondents identified gender discrimination and limited support from political leaders as major barriers to female political advancement. 

Lori Marso, Doris Zemurray Stone Professor of Modern Literacy, Historical Studies, and Political Science at Union College, points out that one of the most glaring issues is the lack of societal support systems. Unlike many other developed nations, the U.S. provides limited access to affordable childcare and paid family leave, making it harder for women to balance political ambitions with personal responsibilities. “Women don’t think of themselves as doing these jobs and they don’t have the time,” she says. “The U.S. is unique in not providing support to women in terms of childcare or a sense that it's possible to have a family and a job like this, or be a single mother active in politics [...] if women don't see themselves as really having the time or the ambition or resources to be able to do that, it becomes very difficult.”

The U.S. political system is also designed in ways that disadvantage underrepresented groups. Structural issues like the Electoral College and gerrymandering dilute the power of minority and progressive voters, by concentrating political influence in less diverse regions and reducing the political efficacy of urban, minority, and left-leaning voters, who may be key supporters for candidates like Harris. By contrast, other nations have adopted measures to level the playing field, such as gender quotas and proportional representation, which have helped elect female leaders like Ardern and Marin.

Farida Jalalzai, Associate Dean of Global Initiatives and Engagement and Professor of Political Science at Virginia Tech, highlights the "double bind" women face in American politics, particularly evident in the careers of Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris. Clinton's ascent was significantly supported by her deep ties to the Democratic establishment and her marriage to former President Bill Clinton. However, these same connections fueled criticism from opponents that she was a beneficiary of insider favoritism. Similarly, Harris’s nomination followed a rapid decision by the Democratic Party to fill the spot after Joe Biden stepped down, leading some to question whether she was the best choice or a hasty compromise. This scrutiny underscores the challenge women face: needing to leverage connections for political advancement while being criticized for the very support that male counterparts might utilise without reproach.

Women in politics often face this narrative, Jalalzai says. “You’re constantly looked at in terms of why you’re there. Do you deserve to be there? And then, to what extent are men controlling the levers of power[...] Your credentials will be discounted,” she adds, “even if you have a tonne of political experience.”

The cultural significance of the U.S. presidency also makes it particularly susceptible to misogynistic tropes. Long associated with masculine traits—strength, endurance, and toughness—“the U.S. presidency is steeped in a rhetoric of masculine leadership,” says Jalalzai.  

During the 2024 campaign, the campaign group EMILY’s List issued an open letter urging the media to confront sexist language that undermines female candidates’ qualifications. They wrote: We have seen media coverage that has normalized misogynistic, racist, and toxic discourse, contributing to harmful stereotypes and creating an unequal playing field on which women and candidates/leaders of colour must overcome outsized obstacles.”

Trump’s campaigns have long leaned into this language. He mocked Hillary Clinton’s stamina, declaring she didn’t “look presidential” and lacked the “strength and stamina” for the role. Media coverage of Clinton often veered into personal territory, critiquing her “shrill” voice and speculating about her health after a bout of pneumonia. Harris, too, was subjected to similar sexist attacks, but this time with racist undertones. She was called a “Jezebel” by Christian nationalist leaders, while pro-Trump vendors sold T-shirts with the line “Joe and the Hoe Gotta Go” inscribed on them. At a Trump rally at Madison Square Garden, one speaker said that Harris and her “pimp handlers” would “destroy our country”. Throughout the race, Trump belittled the democrat nominee, claiming she would “meltdown” in the face of male authoritarian leaders. His running mate, JD Vance, escalated the rhetoric, declaring, “We’re going to take out the trash, and the trash’s name is Kamala Harris”. 

There is a reason that this objectionable language did not lose Trump the election — infact, it may have helped. In the U.S, a stark cultural shift is emerging as men and women are growing apart ideologically. A Gallup survey revealed that young American women are now 30 points more liberal than their male counterparts—a shift that emerged within just six years.

Exit polls from the election showed a 10-point preference for Harris among women (54 per cent vs. 44 per cent), but Trump held a matching 10-point lead among men. This divide left commentators questioning the slant of Trump’s campaign, suggesting he capitalized on male dissatisfaction with the progress of feminist movements and galvanising swathes of conservative male voters. 

In an article for UK newspaper The Guardian, public policy attorney Malaika Jabali argued that Trump resonated with “angry men,” disillusioned by the pace of social progress. Trump’s unrepentant bravado, combined with his lawsuits, wealth, and criminal record helped to construct an image of “strength”, while Trump’s outreach to “manosphere” influencers like Andrew Tate and Joe Rogan helped him connect with disillusioned men. “A critical mass of men fell into the arms of so-called alpha males with microphones,” she explains.

Jalalzai agrees, stating that “Trump’s masculinity was on full display during the election”, furthering a “zero-sum view of gender politics”—if women gain opportunities, men lose theirs. This rhetoric was evident in Trump’s framing of Harris as a “DEI candidate,” suggesting her nomination was more about diversity than merit. “This was the type of banter that was completely riddled with misogyny, sexism, and racism,” Jalalzai says.

Of course, gender was not the only issue facing the Democrats in this election. Economic concerns of voters were paramount, as Marso attributes “post-COVID anti-incumbency” sentiment to frustration over the economic impact of the pandemic. Support for the right has surged in response to rising immigration, cost-of-living crises, and geopolitical instability, evident across vast swathes of Europe. She notes that this wing of politics intersects with gender and race dynamics, exacerbating resistance to progressive women, whose policies on equality and racial justice disrupt societal norms. 

Perhaps, then, the Republicans might have a better shot at delivering America’s first female president? Leaders like Nikki Haley, Marine Le Pen, Georgia Meloni, and Kemi Badenoch have successfully navigated male-dominated spaces by emphasizing toughness, nationalism, and family values. Conservative women often benefit from being seen as "honorary men," judged more for their perceived alignment with traditionally masculine traits like strength and decisiveness. 

Marso points to America’s “history of slavery and an inability to reckon with the past,” which she argues entrenches both misogyny and racism, making right-wing women more palatable to U.S. voters. “There are plenty of outspoken right-wing women in Trump’s Republican Party,” she says. “The common thread? They’re right-wing Christians, anti-feminist, and often aligned with white supremacy.”

Jalalzai concurs, observing that conservative women are perceived as less threatening than their progressive peers. “I could see someone like Nikki Haley becoming the first female president,” she says. “She’s conservative, but not on the extreme right, and could appeal to a broad range of people.”

Although both Marso and Jalalzai see a clearer path for a right-wing female president, Marso believes a progressive one is still possible—if the Democratic Party embraces serious introspection. Trump’s victory demonstrated an appetite for radicalism; a new government that would challenge the status quo. She suggests the Democrats need to be bolder. “The Democratic Party needs a reckoning,” she argues. “We need a feminist vision that’s anti-racist, anti-sexist, and challenges capitalism.” When asked what this looks like, she says: “We have to address massive income inequality and the lack of access to healthcare, and now especially women’s healthcare, in this country.”

The 2024 election exposed the deep-rooted challenges female leaders face in modern American politics. In her concession speech, Harris reminded the nation: “Don’t ever stop trying to make the world a better place. You have power. And don’t you ever listen when anyone tells you something is impossible because it has never been done before.” 

Breaking the highest glass ceiling requires a cultural shift and perhaps a bold feminist vision that challenges these systemic inequalities. While the road to a female presidency remains steep, Harris's message - and the success of other female leaders - offers a crucial reminder: progress is built on perseverance. Women have power. It is up to future generations to wield it.