On November 8th, I, alongside the rest of the world, was prepared for a historic event to take place, for a stride forwards, one step closer to equality: for the first female President of the United States of America.
It would not have only meant a woman leading the free world, but it would have been a moment in time wherein the Heads of States of 11 countries were women, including the Chancellor of Germany, the Scottish Frist Minister, the British Prime Minister, and the POTUS themselves.
The rise of women in politics has taken an endless number of decades, and although Clinton couldn’t make the 45th President a landmark achievement for women’s rights (instead we got quite the opposite…), equality of the sexes has come a long way since the days of the painstaking female suffrage campaigns.
But does it matter? Why should we care that some of our political leaders are of “the fairer sex”? Should we expect more maternal, charitable policies? Should we encourage young girls, and all children, to see them as role models? Should we laud them simply for having shattered the final glass ceiling?
There are questions for every world leader about how we judge their time in office, their successes, failures, and the legacies they leave. Over the coming weeks I am going to look at whether or not the fact these leaders happen to have been born without an Y chromosome should affect how they are viewed. Whether they are looked up to, criticised, and cheered, through both a modern perspective, and a foray further into the past.
One thing is for certain: in the eyes of many, they might hold office, but they still aren’t quite a man.