Gail Collins is one of the New York Times’ chatty and less extreme progressive columnists, which is not to say that her bias doesn’t leap from the page at regular intervals. Her latest effort is “Where, oh Where, Will the First Female President Come From?” (gift link). The sudden interest in this on-its-face sexist query comes from two likely sources: Michelle Obama’s offensive accusation (but she just doesn’t like the United States very much and has been saying so in various ways since she was in college) that the public isn’t “ready” for a female President, and the moronic DNC cant that the only reason Kamala Harris lost (after the worst Presidential campaign ever!) was that she was sort-of black and/or female, take your pick.

The United States doesn’t need a female President, or a male President, or a black President, or a white President, or a gay President, or a short President. The United States needs a competent, ethical courageous and effective President, and what EEOC category or categories that leader fits into should be irrelevant. Now, I have spent decades studying where Presidents come from, and it is true that a lot of the features and backgrounds that seem to create the weird types that tend to become POTUS do not help the chances of aspiring female Presidents, and it will take a remarkable, unusual woman to overcome the template. (But Presidents should be remarkable, shouldn’t they?)

For example, the public’s image of what a President looks and feels like is George Washington. He set the standard, he created the mold. George was white, a male, and physically impressive. He was always regarded as unusually honest and courageous, and he had presence and charisma, those ephemeral qualities that, if you have them, make advancing in this world much easier than if you don’t. The Washington template for Presidents has eroded a bit, but much of it still has impressive influence. It is also not far removed from the universal template for leaders everywhere, and, again, this does not favor women.

Leaders begin leading at a young age, and since the days of cave-dwellers, young leaders have to be bigger, better looking, or smarter than everyone else in their peer group. Being all three is better than two of the three, and two of the three are much better than only one. The impediment to women is the “bigger” factor. Size that is not freakish (and even freakish can work: Lincoln at 6’4″ was in his time like an NBA forward) is impressive (intimidating can be an asset) in men. Women still cope with the instinctual bias of both men and women that being tall isn’t attractive in a female and can seem masculine, while being short or slight doesn’t radiate power. When TV had a short-lived drama about a female POTUS, Geena Davis, who is six-feet tall, played the part. When Harris and Trump had their only debate, Harris’s campaign that the podiums be rigged so that Harris seemed as tall as Trump.

There are also a bunch of Catch 22’s at work. If a beautiful girl is tall, she is likely to be pushed toward modeling or performing. Height and strength may channel her interests into sports. The young women who seek leadership positions early in life tend to be extroverts who are not physically impressive. They may perfect leadership skills and accumulate leadership experience, but are likely to hit “glass ceilings” when they seek elected positions and are competing with men. They won’t seem like leaders, not because they are women, but because of the image of leaders that few women fit.

Ironically, President Trump may be doing more to loosen the rigid American image of national leadership types that any previous Chief Executive by selecting conventionally attractive women for leadership positions. Pam Bondi, Brooke Rollins, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Kristi Noem, Tulsi Gabbard, and Kelly Loeffler are a new template for female leaders: compare them to Clinton’s female Cabinet members Donna Shalala, Janet Reno, Hazel O’Leary and Madeleine Albright.

The first female President is likely to come from a new template of female leadership that does not require that a credible female leader seem as unfeminine as possible and fit the male stereotypes of what a President looks like. That process will take time. Women have not been drawn to politics long enough or in substantial numbers until relatively recently. The talent pool still isn’t very large or deep. Men have a lead of a couple of centuries. Of course, it will only take one break-through female leader to change the template quickly and permanently. It’s too bad that Sigourney Weaver wasn’t interested in politics.

Motherhood is another problem. As Sara Palin discovered, a woman in a political leadership position risk being seen as a neglectful mother. Most of our Presidents were neglectful fathers, but powerful and successful men have been neglectful for centuries. They get a pass. Mothers don’t

This discussion could take volumes, so let me touch on other qualities and qualifications that could produce the first female President, each of which justifies a fuller examination:

• As Collins points out, most Presidents come from State Houses, not the legislature. Governors have a record of executive leadership.
• Male Presidents, which is to say, all Presidents so far, since the advent of mass media usually have been effective public speakers whose voices are pleasant to the ear. Male voices evolved to be more suited for addressing large audiences. Women with high pitched voices, who do not know how to place their voice in the chests, and who sound shrill when projecting have a crippling disadvantage. The problem can usually be solved by training, but the woman at issue has to realize that it’s a problem.
• A Presidential candidates who giggles is not adhering to a valid leadership model. Giggling is a speech pathology that suggests self-consciousness and self-esteem issues. Harris’s infamous cackle is the equivalent of a giggle.
• Male Presidents have usually been the oldest or the youngest of siblings. Middle children seldom become President.
• A familial connection to an already famous or effective leader is a plus, although being a spouse of a President may not be. Hillary’s model of arriving at political prominence only by riding the coat-tails of her husband seems inauthentic and exploitative to many (like me). A strong, vocal, politically engaged Presidential daughter, however, might be a strong candidate if she were also physically impressive. 
• Even with the changing demographics of the country, being ostentatiously ethnic is likely to be a handicap in running for President. Amazingly, we have had just two Presidents whose eyes were not blue, green or hazel! The U.S. has elected no Presidents whose ancestors were Italians, Germans (except Ike, who didn’t seem German since he had led the Allies against Hitler), Asians, Jews, South Americans, Russians or Nordic. A female Presidential candidate would have enough ingrained stereotypes to battle without adding ethnicity to the burden. 

I may examine these and other factors in the future, if readers are interested.