Despite centuries of progress, the American presidency remains trapped in a legacy of white masculinity, reinforcing systemic barriers that continue to keep women—especially women of color—out of the highest office.
Presidents’ Day often conjures images of our founding fathers, men whose legacies in history books portray them as heroic figures. Yet, these white men confined themselves to rooms of power, shutting the doors behind them and leaving the majority of society—women, marginalized groups and nonconforming individuals—without a seat at the table, effectively denying them power and influence.
No man embodies the archetype of leadership in American history more than George Washington—an American hero whose resolve to uphold slavery was so staunch and morally corrupt that he exploited various legal mechanisms to perpetuate the enslavement of Black people. These included (but were not limited to) the frequent transportation of enslaved individuals between his properties to avoid emancipation laws, leveraging gradual emancipation statutes to delay freedom for enslaved people, and ensuring the generational inheritance of enslaved people.
Setting Washington, our nation’s first president, as the bar for heroism and leadership has perpetuated a legacy that normalizes overly masculine, cruel mindsets and glorifies his role while ignoring the exploitation and dehumanization that defined much of his leadership. Although it is obvious these actions are a product of that time, what is less clear is how these actions evolved to stand the test of time.
The injustices perpetrated by the founding fathers are still being felt in today’s social climate, government and policy.
Setting Washington, our nation’s first president, as the bar for heroism and leadership has perpetuated a legacy that normalizes overly masculine, cruel mindsets and glorifies his role while ignoring the exploitation and dehumanization that defined much of his leadership.
The United States is now in its 47th presidency without a woman president. While other nations have seen female heads of state, the U.S. lags behind. Several women throughout history have run, with Victoria Woodhull becoming the first of over 100 women who have thrown their hat in the ring. In recent years, the nation witnessed two highly skilled and qualified women who secured their parties’ nomination for the presidential race, and they both lost to the same man.
How hard do women have to work to be seen as leaders, and what is stopping them from entering the highest form of leadership in the country?
Entitled Masculinity: The Power Structures We Inherit
As we reflect on the legacy of leadership in America, it’s impossible to ignore the enduring association of the presidency with masculinity—specifically, white masculinity. This racial hegemonic masculinity is historically tied to privilege and power, reinforcing harmful hierarchies that marginalize women, people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals and non-traditional gender expressions, fostering inequality, exclusion and a lack of empathy for marginalized groups. Despite its flaws, this anachronistic concept of masculinity remains the prevailing criteria for authority in the U.S. It is the blueprint for how leadership is perceived and exercised—shaping not only the expectations of future presidents but also the broader societal norms around power, dominance and who is deemed worthy of holding positions of influence.
Black women are often forced to navigate a minefield of double standards rooted in toxic masculinity and racial bias. Former Vice President Kamala Harris’ leadership was often met with paradoxical critiques that she was simultaneously too aggressive and yet somehow not strong enough to lead. This duality reflects the negative masculinization of Black women, a phenomenon rooted in misogynoir, i.e., stereotypes that are both racist and sexist.
As highlighted in RepresentWomen’s 2024 brief Breaking Barriers for Black Women Candidates, Black women in leadership are often labeled as “angry,” “domineering” and “difficult,” traits that are weaponized to undermine their authority. While white male leaders are celebrated for their assertiveness, Black women—and many other women of color—are punished for it. This double standard not only limits the potential of Black women in politics but also reinforces the idea that leadership is inherently masculine—and that masculinity, in turn, is inherently white.
Glass Cliff: Women Leaders and the Perils of Power
The “glass cliff” phenomenon is the idea that women are more likely to be promoted, appointed or nominated during times of crisis. A play on the term “glass ceiling,” the glass cliff often sets women up for failure and is an informal barrier that keeps women from leadership positions.
In politics, this means that women are often asked to run in difficult or unwinnable races, solidifying preexisting biases people carry on the electability of women candidates. Kamala Harris’ campaign, as skilled and accomplished as it was, fell victim to the glass cliff phenomenon.
Before Harris became the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, the party’s odds of winning the election were slim. Embodying entitled masculinity, her predecessor President Joe Biden was initially defensive, unwilling to step aside and let Harris run. When he finally did step aside, Harris was left with a mere 107 days to campaign. Harris’ campaign was short, and she still managed to be a competitive candidate, closing the wide gap her party was initially projected to lose by. There’s no way to know if she would have won for certain if she had more time. Harris was given less-than-ideal circumstances. Women of color in the United States are often held to impossibly high standards and given the least opportunities and resources. Substantially investing in these women early on can level the playing field so that diverse perspectives can reach even the highest levels of public office.
Misogyny and the Electability of Women Candidates
Misogyny profoundly affects the electability of women candidates, with societal biases often undermining their leadership abilities and suitability for office—discouraging women by insisting they stay in their lane. Research shows that the concept of “electability” is frequently employed as a guise for deep-rooted sexism, reinforcing the belief that women are less capable of winning elections due to these biased perceptions. Studies show that voters often perceive women candidates as less electable than their male counterparts, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where women receive less support simply due to biased perceptions, even among those who do not consciously hold sexist views, underscoring the pervasive influence of implicit bias.
Women candidates also encounter the “likability trap,” where they must balance assertiveness with likability—a standard rarely imposed on men—creating a double bind that undermines their campaign effectiveness and voter support.
This double standard not only limits the potential of Black women in politics but also reinforces the idea that leadership is inherently masculine—and that masculinity, in turn, is inherently white.
Despite the internal biases many hold on women’s competency in leadership, history and research have shown that society thrives when women are in charge. From presidents Joyce Banda, Michele Bachelet and Claudia Sheinbaum to prime ministers Jacinda Ardern, Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher, women leaders have made indelible contributions to their countries. Their places in the annals of history are cemented, ensuring their legacies endure for generations. These women paved the way for leadership, and it is our responsibility to ensure that even more women can step confidently through those doors opened by their predecessors.
Women Make Great Leaders: Challenging Traditional Norms
There are certain social movements aimed at targeting women, such as the men’s rights movement (MRM), who argue that women are meant to serve. We agree—just not in the way they’d assume.
The conditions placed on women by society make them uniquely qualified to run, win, serve, and lead. According to our partners at the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP), women bring a more collaborative approach to political leadership and policymaking and are willing to work across party lines. A 2025 Harvard Law article argues that the gender discrimination, diminished expectations and heightened opposition women face informs their strength as negotiators, citing women leaders like Madeleine Albright and Angela Merkel as examples.
Women in politics often excel due to their high levels of empathy and emotional intelligence, which enable them to understand diverse perspectives and address the needs of constituents more effectively. This can lead to policies that are more compassionate and people-centered, prioritizing the well-being of the public.
Women are also skilled multitaskers, often managing multiple responsibilities while solving complex problems, which is particularly valuable in the fast-paced, multifaceted political arena. Many women politicians also focus on social issues such as justice, healthcare and education, advocating for inclusive policies that benefit society as a whole. Overcoming gender barriers further highlights their resilience, creativity and determination, qualities that contribute to their effectiveness and leadership in politics.
Respectability Politics: Misogyny Masquerading As Decency
As Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Laurel Thatcher Ulrich famously said, “Well-behaved women rarely make history.” Women face heightened expectations to adhere to respectability politics, where their behavior, appearance and speech must align with traditional standards of modesty and propriety. Even their laughter is up for scrutiny.
These expectations often go far beyond what is demanded of men, who are afforded more leeway in expressing themselves freely to the voting public. This double standard not only stifles women’s authenticity but also undermines their political opportunities, as deviations from these norms are often viewed as unqualified, unprofessional or unelectable.
We must challenge biased standards perpetuated by respectability politics to ensure women are not judged more harshly for embodying the authenticity people crave, allowing them equal opportunities to be elected, thus breaking the cycle of gender inequality in politics.
Change and Equality: A Woman in the Oval Office
As we celebrate Presidents’ Day, we are reminded of the enduring legacy of our nation’s leaders. Yet, we must ask ourselves: How long will it take for women to be fully represented in the highest office of the land? The time has come for change. Against all odds, today, there are 2,469 women serving as state legislators, 151 in Congress, 12 as governors, and 4 as Supreme Court justices. While there is still much work to be done to achieve true parity and secure the highest office—the presidency—nothing is impossible. With consistent advocacy, we will move closer to shattering the ultimate glass ceiling.
It will require collective action, unwavering support and the dismantling of the systemic barriers that continue to hold women back. Let us move forward with purpose, amplifying the voices of women, demanding equality and working toward a future where the presidency is no longer an unattainable dream but a reality. The past or present does not have to dictate the future. One day—hopefully soon—a woman will be president. The next chapter of American history is waiting to be written by a woman. Let’s make sure she has the opportunity to lead.
We encourage you to be heartened by the wise words of two incredible women leaders:
“At present, our country needs women’s idealism and determination, perhaps more in politics than anywhere else.”
—Shirley Chisholm
“No country can ever truly flourish if it stifles the potential of its women and deprives itself of the contributions of half of its citizens.”
—Michelle Obama
Note from the authors: RepresentWomen is committed to finding data-driven methods of building women’s political power. Check out our research library for ways to create a democracy where everyone can fully participate and thrive.
