Presidents' Day and the Legacy of Exclusion: Why Women Still Struggle for the Oval Office
(a seriously depressing, important, read)
Presidents’ Day and the Legacy of Exclusion: Why Women Still Struggle for the Oval Office
PUBLISHED 2/16/2025 by Ria Deshmukh and Marvelous Maeze
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. 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.
. . . .
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
. . . . .
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.
https://msmagazine.com/2025/02/16/women-presidents-day/