Where’s madam president?

Nati Feliciano-Soto, Contributing Writer 

With the results of the most recent election, it seems as if fear, anger, intolerance and the encouragement of division have become of vital importance to American society.

As the United States reflects on a political landscape traditionally divided by issues of identity and representation, one trend remains unsettlingly consistent: Female presidential candidates struggle to gain traction when faced with male counterparts. 

The presidential campaigns of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 — both historic figures in their own right — raised hopes for gender progress at the highest level of government. 

However, despite well-structured, viable campaigns, both ultimately lost out to President-elect Donald Trump. These results point to the inner misogyny that is instilled in both U.S. politics and its prime voters. 

Clinton’s and Harris’ campaigns were marked by both formidable experience and progressive policies that were crafted in the wake of the issues surrounding their elections.

Clinton, a pioneer in many respects, carried an extensive political background: She acted as former secretary of state, U.S. senator, first lady and spent years crafting policies and building alliances. 

While Clinton’s campaign demonstrated depth and inclusivity, Trump’s tapped into frustrations with the status quo and emphasized nationalism and traditional industries. At the time, this approach proved more popular, winning him the election.

Harris’ campaign suffered a similar defeat. Her groundbreaking role as the first Black and South Asian vice president and experience as a U.S. Senator and prosecutor were not enough to overcome Trump’s appeal to a large segment of the American electorate. 

Each woman represented a high level of political qualification and respect, yet it seemed insufficient to overcome a political landscape that, perhaps implicitly, favors male candidates. 

This disparity in public reception underscores the obstacles women continue to face, even those with strong records and polished campaigns.

As a woman, it would be reductive to say these election outcomes were solely the result of gender bias, but research indicates that gender bias continues to influence attitudes in American politics, particularly at the executive level. 

A 2023 Pew Research Center study provided insights into Americans’ views on gender and political leadership. The survey reveals that 63% of women and 42% of men believe there are too few women in high political offices in the U.S. today. Additionally, 31% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning individuals consider it extremely or very important to elect a woman as president in their lifetime, compared to just 5% of Republicans and Republican leaning individuals.

The Latino community, a growing force in American electoral dynamics, also contributes a unique perspective. 

Cultural norms, including the concept of “machismo” — or traditional male dominance — influence voting preferences within certain Latino demographics. 

Machismo values, which emphasize male leadership and authority, can shape views on female leadership and lead to biases that may disadvantage women candidates.

As the only daughter in a Latino household, I experienced the concept of machismo firsthand, particularly in the differences between my upbringing and that of my brothers.

Machismo often manifests through subtle, ingrained behaviors and societal expectations, even in well-intentioned families.

Despite my mother’s well-rounded feminist ideals — a stance shaped in part by her own experiences with a more severe form of machismo in the 1980s — these expectations persisted.

For example, I observed my mother catering more to my brothers, sometimes overlooking actions that might be addressed differently with a daughter. 

In addition, there was an implicit expectation for me to undertake traditional domestic roles, such as cooking and cleaning, and a tacit belief that marriage was necessary to attain the same freedoms my brothers enjoyed, such as going out with friends or traveling independently. 

These experiences highlight how deeply cultural norms surrounding gender roles are embedded, often affecting autonomy and responsibility in ways that reflect traditional values across generations.

These values translate directly into the Latino voter population and reflect how they chose to vote in the most recent election. The thought of having a woman take the Oval Office may scare some of these “macho” men. 

Studies reveal that among Latino communities, where machismo remains influential, there is a preference for male candidates in leadership roles. 

Though Latino support for candidates like Clinton and Harris was certainly not absent, these ingrained cultural beliefs contributed to hesitation about women in the highest office. This was highlighted by the belief among these voters that “women belong in the kitchen.” 

The repeated losses of highly qualified female candidates like Clinton and Harris against unqualified male counterparts reflect more than just political strategies or campaign structures.

They reveal a broader hesitation — rooted in societal biases, cultural norms and traditional gender roles — that continues to limit the possibilities for female presidential leadership in the U.S.

True progress will require an honest examination of the cultural narratives surrounding leadership and a concerted effort to envision a presidency that fully embraces gender equity.