Smith 2

Why Im Not Voting for Hillary Clinton:

An essay on the gendered position of the Presidency

I remember sitting on top of my desk in Mrs. Stocktons second grade class in Hobart

Elementary School when she asked all of us what we wanted to be when we grew up. This

question is almost hilarious when I think of it now. It seemed so irrelevant then, but now it is my

reality, attending college, and, sometimes, wasting my days away sleeping in rather than

finishing another essay. But I realized something very interesting while atop my desk about the

responses to her question. At least half a dozen students, boys and girls alike, replied that they

wanted to be President of the United States. Aside from the ridiculousness of there being an

entirely too small chance that any one citizen would ever become President of the United States,

I had this thought that none of the young minds, including my own, had yet been tainted by the

gendered stereotypes of the Presidency. The girls in my class were equally determined, and, at

age six, I thought they were equally qualified for the job as I, as a young boy, was.

That year, I remember our school constructing makeshift voting booths where we would

cast our ballots for the next President of the United States. On one hand we could vote for the

incumbent (a word I certainly had no idea of at the time), George W. Bush, or the newcomer,

John Kerry. It was a close race, too! The popular vote was almost perfectly split 50/50, and my

vote somehow mattered in that election. I often voiced my concerns to other citizens, mostly my

fellow second grade classmates, with how I believed George W. Bush was running our country

and how John Kerry was going to turn this country around. My hopes were completely crushed

when the election results were officially posted and Kerry had lost.

What I didnt realize at that young age was that two men were competing for the

strongest position in the entire country, yet several girls in Mrs. Stocktons second grade class
 Smith 3

planned on being the next set of candidates on that ballot. When I look back at every single

President, it concerns me that all of them have been men. Not a single woman has even been the

winning running mate. That is not to say that a woman has never been qualified for the job or

that one did not run. I am sure everyone can recall Hillary Clintons strong effort in the

Presidential race of 2008 or the interesting announcement of Roseanne Barr as a Presidential

contender (Ciscell). These announcements were hailed as almost comical for Hillarys obvious

attempt at the White House and Roseannes comedic personality, but what about Victoria

Woodhull, the first female candidate for the U.S. Presidency ever in 1872, or Charlene Mitchell,

the African-American woman who ran as a candidate for the Communist Party and is now an

advocate for socialism in America (Rogers)? These candidates are almost unheard of because

they did not sell out for the medias attention nor did they fit the mold that Americans wanted.

Women have never received the credit they deserve for their hard work and devotion to

politics, and it goes way beyond the Presidency. Women and their influence in politics, or the

lack thereof, is a global issue. But where does the problem really lie? An examination of

historical and current voter behavior, the modern and past influences on female candidates to run

or not to run, and how electing a woman as the head of this long-time patriarchy will hopefully

act as a catalyst to, as Hillary Clintons campaign sought to do, shatter that highest, hardest

glass ceiling or at least [put] 18 million cracks in it (Clinton). The political process from the

voter to the candidate to the campaign contributors, though some would disagree, is plagued with

inequality for women. By no means will this essay exhaust gender inequality in politics, but we,

as a nation, must solve the issue of gender inequality.

By its very definition, a democracy is supposed to be a government by the people;

however, in America, the government is almost solely represented by only one-half of the
 Smith 4

population, men (Obeidallah). The power of election lies in the hands of the citizens, well,

somewhat if one doesnt take into consideration the many variables that determine who wins an

election, my personal favorite being the electoral college which has some pretty incredible power

to elect the President despite the will of their constituents in many states. For one to truly see

gender inequality in the results of elections, focusing on the individual citizen as a voter is the

best approach. Contrarily, Deborah Brooks claimed that although public assessments of a

candidates communal traits are a significant predictor of candidate preference, they tend to be

less important than evaluations of many other traits associated with leadership. Brooks claim is

flat in that she implies that women lack a certain leadership trait (Brooks). Leadership comes

from support, and the lack of female leadership stems from decades of lacking support for

women by women because they were driven to believe that their votes did not matter.

Initially, the experts dismissed women voters as an unimportant part of the

electorate. Their excuse was that women did not vote in such large numbers as

mena fact the experts were comfortable with since it was entirely in keeping

with their belief that politics was a mans world.

Eleanor Smeal, the Former President of the National Organization for Women, published a

handbook, Why and How Women Will Elect the Next President, which explains virtually

everything that separates a woman from the Oval Office and how we can bridge this gap. Her

book, published in 1984, is an interestingnot outdatedpiece on current gender inequality

issues. Women are strong voters, and the number of female voters proves that women are

politically active and cannot be shut down because of their gender. In her handbook, she echoes

the historical misrepresentation of women voters (Smeal). I think that, although the books

publication was over two decades ago, Smeals book sends a message to women, that they,
 Smith 5

together, are a powerful unit, and to men, that women have the same abilities as them and can be

just as powerful.

For example, interestingly, a study published by the U.S. Census Bureau found that a

higher percentage of women voted over men in their respondents with 43 percent of women

reportedly voting and 40.8 percent of men voting in the most recent Presidential election (File).

In another U.S. Census Bureau report, women have become the not-so-silent majority. Since the

late 1940s, women have outnumbered men by population. So why do women not simply elect a

woman? Perhaps the reasons can be traced to the historical nature of voting. Prior to the

ratification of the 19th Amendment which allowed women the right to vote, men were the only

people who could vote, and, even after the ratification, women certainly were not the majority of

the population. Typically, women were expected to vote according to how their husbands voted,

even if they disagreed. Today, women have felt similar discouraging power in the strength of

their vote.

Take for instance John McCains 2008 bid for the White House where he took Sarah

Palin, a woman rather unfamiliar to America, as his running mate. She was idolized as a

beautiful, maternal figure, not as a powerful, suitable Vice President. Regardless of ones

political ideology, Sarah Palin has proved to be a strong political figure, and a look at what

modern media has painted this ex-governor as is evidence of how destructive the media has

become to women with political power. After McCain and Palins failed campaign, TLC debuted

Sarah Palins Alaska (IMDB). TLC was not cheering her character on as some might presume;

no, they capitalized on her less-than-feminine, created personality of hunting, hiking, and

enjoying the wilderness, making her relatable nature and strength in politics irrelevant to the
 Smith 6

American people. Therefore, female voters no longer felt able to vote for Sarah Palin as she was

no longer a strong, female politician.

Similar to the problem of voter behavior is the destructive form that female politicians are

forced to conform to in order to drive a successful campaign. No longer are politicians

government agents. Politicians, especially female politicians, are celebrities, and this transition

from government agent to celebrity has disabled female participants from becoming viable

candidates. The same sexist idea that women must maintain a certain level of femininity even in

the face of a male contender reads as not woman enough for women to vote for the female

candidate, an idea that has lasted well into current elections. Female candidates find themselves

plagued by gender stereotypes just as often as other females. However, in Deborah Brooks He

Runs, She Runs, Brooks dismisses the idea that female candidates are disadvantaged by these

stereotypes that plague women. Her research found that gendered stereotypes do, in fact, exist

but that the stereotypes of females work to the womans advantage just as often as the male

stereotypes work to the mans advantage (Brooks). Politicians, both men and women, must

maintain theses images that attract those with money. How do male candidates attract

contributions for their campaign? Male candidates, like Donald Trump, act radically, make

irresponsible promises, and trash talk the other candidates. It is merely a game (Solotaroff).

However, the ruse is much more difficult for women in politics. Women cannot simply be

radical. They must maintain a physical image rather than an ideological one. In Brooks book,

her third point of contention is that female candidates will [not] be punished if they dont act

like ladies. Brooks does not believe that if a woman acts manly that she will be downplayed

or underfunded (Brooks). The Barbie doll-bodied, passive (yet not too passive), down-to-earth,
 Smith 7

maternally exquisite woman is the only candidate that America seems to want as the female

candidate, as America has never felt inclined to elect a woman yet.

The same ideas are reflected in the contributions that female candidates receive. In 2008,

more women were elected into the United States House of Representatives than any in history.

However, the elections of 2012 saw a decrease in women members. This is skewed, though,

because women more often run as Democrats and more often win as Democrats. By the

numbers, about half of female Democratic candidates won in the 2012 elections with the

Republican candidates winning just above forty percent. The campaign contributions are startling

in that Democratic females receive the most from contributors. Most of this money, though,

comes from female donors, and female donors most often fund Democratic candidates over

Republican candidates (Weber). The Democratic Party has become the peoples party in the

sense that it stands for the minority groups and their journey to equality. Understandably so,

women flock to the party that most often has supported them, the Democratic party.

The ability for any candidate to run a successful campaign is to have a wealth of

resources and an abundance of contributors. In order for a woman to have both of these, should

she mold to fit what the contributors, not the voters, want? My simplest answer is yes. If a

woman is truly serious about running for any sort of political office, her best approach would not

be to aggressively attack the standards that exist currently for women who are running. Any

attempt at altering the standard would turn contributors away from the female candidate. Brooks

makes another point that women who act like ladies or leaders will not be punished. Brooks

continues with her previous point that women are not punished for being ladies, but, this time,

she makes a stiff claim that women acting as leaders go unpunished (Brooks). Women who take

on leadership roles often are dismissed as bitchy. The double standard that women can be
 Smith 8

ladies and leaders is a fallacy in todays political system; for, the game of politics has very strict

rules that must be followeduntil the candidate has been secured in the office. Once a woman

has been elected, I believe, she will be able to reform the ideas of what it takes for a woman to

compete in politics. The last thing contributors want is there candidate to send out a bitchy image

to ruin the candidates chance in the race to the White House or to taint the contributors images.

Campaigns are about images. For anyone, but most especially women, to maximize

contributions, they might have to become a sell-out. A woman, to win an election, may have to

play dirty and have an image that may not portray who she really is, but, once elected, she will

then has the ability to make some otherwise powerful decisions.

Finally, for us to imagine the country with a woman as Commander-in-Chief, we must

look at the process she must take in order for her to break through the gender myths, plan ahead

for their political agenda, and get out the vote. This process is highlighted in Eleanor Smeals

Why and How Women Will Elect the Next President. The first step in this process is often the

most difficult. Smeals opener for this chapter in her book reads, The quickest way for us to

elect more women to public office is for more women to run as candidates (Smeal) This is the

issue at hand. Women very rarely receive the support and encouragement they deserve and

require to lead a successful political campaign. This is similar to Robin N. Cogers argument in

Why STEM Fields Still Dont Draw More Women (Cutler). If women are not encouraged like

men or taught from a young age that they can succeed, how will they succeed?

This takes me back to the top of my desk in second grade. When several girls and boys

raised their hands and claimed their stake at the Presidency, Mrs. Stockton did not tell us that it

was theoretically impossible. No, instead, she told each one of us that it would take a significant

amount of work, determination, and, most importantly, support in order for us to become the next
 Smith 9

President. Women are not the only ones who need encouragement either. Mrs. Stocktons advice

spoke to all of us, boys and girls alike. It is important that, regardless of gender, that men and

women not only receive the education but also the necessary encouragement to pursue whatever

career that will make them successful. Brooks final claim is that female candidates are not held

to some higher standard than men; however, men are encouraged from an early age to participate

in discussion and to contribute to initiatives. Girls are expected to do those things.

In Allen Merriams Indira Gandhi: Prime Minister he writes about the power of one of

the worlds most powerful women, Indira Gandhi, the previous prime minister of India. In an

interview she said, I dont think being a woman makes any difference at all. Its a question of

putting people in compartments. If you say that this job is only for a man, that man has certain

qualities and capabilities that a woman does not havethen what are these qualities? Indira

stood her ground that she is not a woman who merely won a public office. She is a woman who

has a job to get done. She was qualified and supported. She did not want her peoples votes

because she is a woman. She wanted their support because she was qualified and would do great

things for India (McLeod). Likewise, an election should not show gender at large. It should show

that qualifications matter more than the matter between ones legs.

Smeals next point is composed of several steps that outline a political agenda. The

womens political agenda looks strikingly like the mens; however, she must work harder to

obtain those resources, gain that support, and use the media to her own advantage (Smeal).

Michael Genovese makes a strong point in his book that many of the women who have served in

political offices globally have done so in under-developed or developing countries and that

support for them was driven by political stress and social turmoil. These women, although

mostly funded by inherited wealth, proved to be strong, powerful leaders when their countries
 Smith 10

needed them most (Genovese). But what would it take for a woman to lead a post-modern

country like America? How would she get her contributions?

In the election that is unfolding presently, the two women who are running have gained

power from their reliance on men but have advanced their careers far beyond what the aid of a

man could do. Carly Fiorina, ex-Chief Executive Officer of Hewlett Packard, was born into

wealth as the daughter of a professor and a successful abstract painter; however, although well-

off, Fiorina has proved time and time again from AT&T to HP to the 2016 election that she is not

privileged; she is qualified. With little political experience, she has given candidates like Donald

Trump, who remarks on her looks first and her politics second, and Jeb Bush, who takes the road

most often traveled by his family, a run for their money (Encyclopedia of World Biography). On

the other side of the ticket, Hillary Clinton has had a deep history of public service, and her

marriage to Bill Clinton allowed for quite a bit of advantage. Staying with her adulterous

husband probably was the best idea to keep certain ties in Washington, but that shows her

cunning and wit at its best. Yes, a woman can play that same old game, and, yes, a woman can

run for President even after her husband was a rather unsuccessful one. Hillary comes in with a

new agenda, fueled by success and huge contributions from a network she has been an enormous

part of building (Clinton). Republican or Democrat, these women are strong political contenders

with a thirst to prove that a woman is capable of ruling a developed nation, changing the global

economy, and protecting and providing for Americas future.

The next leader of our great nation could very well be a female. And it is not the lack of

male genitals that sets her apart from the others. It is her ability to withstand the pushback of

society against womankind, her ability to take the problems of man and solve them for humanity,

her ability to reign far-reaching feminism and the hate against it in and translate their radical
 Smith 11

questions into feasible answers for the next generation of women. We should not elect a woman

because she is beautiful or because she represents what a real woman looks like. We should

elect her because she can take on difficult situations, like those of the Presidency, and make those

hard choices. Never rest on your laurels. Never quit. Never stop working to make the world a

better place. Thats our unfinished business (Clinton). A good woman, like any good man,

knows she is more than the shell she walks in, and it is her own mystique that will allow her to

become the next President of the United States.

So, there I was sitting in the hallway of the elementary school in a makeshift voting booth

scribbling down John Kerry as my candidate. I placed my ballot in the voting box and

anxiously awaited the election results, not considering the real result, that this election, like many

others, was another win for men. I doubt either of those men had the girls in my class in mind as

the future of this nation. I doubt they even considered how their election would affect us as

second graders. More than ten years later, that memory of second grade resonates with me just as

clearly as it did then. Gender inequality does exist in politics, and it is plaguing the future of our

country. Being a woman should not guarantee her a win, but being a woman should guarantee

her equal opportunity to win. Im voting for Hillary because she has the balls to take on the

job, not because she lacks the balls to get her elected. Hillarys election would represent a new

hope for women, that the most powerful nation in the world could be governed by a Mrs.

President and that the job of the First Lady may be a position better suited for Bill after all.
 Smith 12

Bibliography

Brooks, Deborah Jordan. He Runs, She Runs: Why Gender Stereotypes Do Not Harm Women

Candidates. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013.

Ciscell, Jim. Top 10 Intriguing Female Presidential Candidates in 2016. 10 February 2013. 07

November 2015. <toptenz.net/top-10-intriguing-female-presidential-candidates-in-

2016.php>.

Clinton, Hillary Rodham. Hard Choices. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2014.

Cutler, David. "Why STEM Fields Still Don't Draw More Women." The Chronicle (2012).

Encyclopedia of World Biography. Carly Fiorina Biography. n.d. 07 October 2015.

<http://www.notablebiographies.com/news/Ca-Ge/Fiorina-Carly.html>.

File, Thom. "Who Votes? Congressional Elections and the American Electorate: 19782014."

July 2015. census.gov. 07 November 2015.

<http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p20-

577.pdf>.

Genovese, Michael A., ed. Women as National Leaders. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc.,

1993.

IMDB. Sarah Palin's Alaska. n.d. 08 November 2015.

McLeod, Marian B., ed. Women in Politics. Wentworth Press, 1974.

 Smith 13

Obeidallah, Dean. The Unbearable Whiteness of Congress. 08 January 2015. 07 November 2015.

<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/08/the-unbearable-whiteness-of-

congress.html>.

Rogers, Kevin. Victoria Woodhull Becomes the First Woman to Run for President. n.d. 07

November 2015. <https://worldhistoryproject.org/1872/5/10/victoria-woodhull-becomes-

the-first-woman-to-run-for-president>.

Smeal, Eleanor. Why and How Women Will Elect the Next President. 1st. New York: Harper &

Row, Publishers, Inc., 1984.

Solotaroff, Paul. Trump Seriously: On the Trail with GOP's Tough Guy. 9 September 2015. 26

November 2015. <http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trump-seriously-

20150909>.

Weber, Sarah Bryner and Doug. Sex, Money, & Politics. 26 September 2013. 08 November 2015.

<http://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/gender.php>.