Kamala Harris was the candidate for many firsts, including the first Black and South Asian woman to run for president as a Democratic nominee.

His resounding and rapid defeat in the presidential race against the Republicans Donald Trump November 5, 2024 means many things to different people, including the fact that American voters are unable to break the glass ceiling and elect a woman as president.

Amy Lieberman, politics and society editor at The Conversation US, spoke with Farida Jalalzai, an expert on women political leaders and gender in politics, to better understand the significance of Harris’ defeat — and how the United States is distinguish themselves from other countries that have had female leaders.

How important was Kamala Harris’s gender in her loss?

I can’t say that was the main reason she lost. But what I can say is that it’s a contributing factor to his lack of support, especially when comparing his performance with Joe Biden’s in the same places and with almost all of the same voting groups which he won in 2020. Gender was part of the electoral landscape in many ways during this election. Trump and his supporters used insulting clichés about what a female leader would look like on the world stage. He used many misogynistic and racist appeals in his campaign and attempted to mobilize voters in ways that would reinforce the patriarchy.

What does Harris’ loss say about the state of gender equality in the country?

I’m not surprised that the glass ceiling for women in politics is still very durable in the United States. This is an example of the country’s limitations in making real progress in women’s empowerment and equality. Of course, the fact that Harris was a woman of color vying to become the first female president of the United States is relevant.

Trump said the country needed a strong man to lead. He portrayed Harris as a liberal extremist and generally conveyed the message that a woman would not be up to the job of president.

When Geraldine Ferraro ran as the first female vice presidential candidate nominated by a major party in 1984, many questions arose about whether she would be tough enough on the world stage. Today, we still wonder if a woman will be tough enough to lead.

How does this election compare to Hillary Clinton’s campaign against Trump in 2016?

In 2016, Hillary Clinton highlighted the historic nature of a woman running for president of the United States — and, sure enough, she received nearly 3 million more votes than him, even though she still lost the election. Harris was reluctant to mention the historic nature of her candidacy. She didn’t mention it during her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August 2024. She recently explained it by saying, “Well, I’m clearly a woman.” What most people really care about is whether you can do the work and whether you have a plan to actually focus on them.

Another important factor is Trump’s political trajectory. In 2016, Trump was still considered an outlier and an extremist. Many political scientists – myself included – didn’t think he would receive the nomination, much less win the general election that year. We now see that Trump is the new norm in the Republican Party. More moderate Republicans, like Liz Cheney, are also no longer in power. The party has become more extreme.

Is the country moving backwards on gender equality or remaining stuck at a standstill?

A few months ago, I would have said that the country is moving forward, but I have the impression that it is going backwards now. This Trump is sexist and racist messages which resonated with a significant number of people – or at least did not sufficiently disturb some – is a cause for concern. Trump also said extreme things about women in 2016, including calling Hillary Clinton a “nasty woman.” This time around, those attacks seemed more normalized, claiming that Harris was in a powerful political position only because she traded sexual favors, for example.

Women have ruled other countries. What makes the United States different?

The United States is a nuclear power and a major military and economic force. These fields are generally stereotyped by some as masculine. The president sits at the top of the American political system and is directly elected. Women leaders often rise to the top through their appointment to the position of Prime Minister in parliamentary systems. One of the vulnerabilities of prime ministers is that their mandate is less secure. Traits deemed appropriate for these roles – seeking compromise, for example – may prove less difficult for women than if they were seeking to become president of a powerful country like the United States on the world stage.

Only two ruling female presidents in presidential systems have been directly elected, and those are in Honduras and Mexico. The first is a former first lady and the second maintains close ties with her predecessor. Although women have served as presidents of countries, several, such as the current presidents of Ethiopia, India, and Greece, are largely symbolic. These positions are very different from those of the American presidency, which plays a more dominant role.

It is also quite rare for a woman to be elected president in a presidential system without being a member of a powerful political family or without being supported by a male predecessor.

When you look at Laura Chinchilla, the former president of Costa Rica, or the former president of Brazil Dilma Rousseff, what connected a lot of these female politicians was that they had a lot of help from their male predecessors.

Cristina Elisabet Fernández de Kirchner, former president of Argentina, had a wealth of political experience before taking office in 2007, but she served immediately after her husband, Néstor Kirchner, became president.

These cases are complex, and many of these women brought their own political credentials and experiences. But there is still a tendency to demand more that female politicians have these connections.

This article was first published by Farida Jalalzai, professor of political science; Associate Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences, Virginia Tech at The conversation.