One of the most anticipated political moves of this election cycle will go down on Sunday, when former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton finally announces she's vying to be the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential nominee.
But even before word got out that Clinton's announcement -- slated to come via social media and video -- was imminent, the question of whether the country is ready for a woman to take our highest elected office seemed to linger.
The thing is, it's not only exhausting that we're still asking the question in 2015, it's mystifying that the world's superpower hasn't seen fit to elect a female head of state yet. Meanwhile, women are already in power globally (albeit, not on the scale that men are.)
So, where my ladies at?
A Woman's Place Is In The House And Senate
Female politicians have occupied major elected leadership roles in some of the largest, most prominent economies across the globe for years. From "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, there have been women across the globe consistently and competently commanding the respect of their nations as heads of state.
In the United States, though, we haven't seen much movement toward getting a woman leader, the farthest being the Vice Presidential nominations. When an incredibly diverse nation like the United States has a history of pretty much homogenous leadership, it's definitely a red flag. If we're trying to live up to a patriotic ideal of being revolutionary, we're just not there yet.
Between the Democrat and Republican parties, there are barely enough women being considered for top offices to even attempt a Bechdel test. Clinton's loss to then-candidate Barack Obama (though she earned 48.03 percent of the popular vote, he earned 47.43 percent) in the 2008 Democratic Primary was the closest the U.S. has gotten so far to putting a woman in the Oval Office. But close isn't good enough when we're talking gender representation in government.
It's not a radical idea anymore to elect a woman as president or prime minister or chancellor: Ladies get sh-t done and everyone knows it.
So, maybe, instead of asking if we're "ready," we should be asking, "Why is it taking so f-cking long?"
Why Is It Taking So Long To See A 'Madam President'?
Clinton is an accomplished politician (just as qualified as any other person seeking the Democratic nomination, despite some of the public perception.) And she's just one of countless capable women who could fill the position.
There's also a real problem with the idea of "readiness" when we're talking about Clinton. When we ask if our country is "ready" to be lead by a woman, or if Clinton is "ready" to run our country, it challenges her merit as a female politician for all the wrong reasons. These kind of questions just don't come up when men run for office because their gender is considered the default for people in positions of power.
If we do end up with the first female Democratic nominee this year (and if she's elected our first female president in 2016), she would hopefully be the first of many in our country, helping to dissolve the gender-related biases that tell us who can or cannot be a leader. We shouldn't be satisfied until we see a more accurate representation of our population governing us.
As a country, it would send the worst message if we turned out to be the last horse to cross the finish line. The rest of the world has been ready and willing to put women in power for a while now. So although we missed our chance to be first, America still has time to catch up.
Do you think we're overdue for a female president or is America just not ready after all? Share your thoughts and opinion in the comments section!