When Hillary Clinton announced her 2016 presidential bid last week, her announcement was met with either applause or criticism from most Americans, but there was also a vocal minority that met it with blatant sexism.

A woman CEO in Texas posted a Facebook status saying, “…A female shouldn’t be president. Let the haters begin . . . but with the hormones we have there is no way we should be able to start a war. Yes I run my own business and I love it and I am great at it BUT that is not the same as being the President, that should be left to a man, a good, strong, honorable man.”

Time also joined in last week analyzing Clinton’s hormones, and the hormones of women her age, explaining, “Biologically speaking, postmenopausal women are ideal candidates for leadership. They are primed to handle stress well, and there is, of course, no more stressful job than the presidency.”

It is fine to criticize Clinton and other candidates on their merits, but to say a woman cannot hold office because of her biological makeup, or that she is better because of it is degrading. We should debate over individuals’ merit, not their hormones.

Media outlets instantly criticized Time for the sexist undertones, even if it was promoting the positives in women’s hormones. The problem here is that Time and this Texas woman would never write or say these things if the candidate was a man. Yes, Time was attempting to abolish the idea that Clinton’s hormones will make her irrational, but hormones shouldn’t even be a part of the debate when it comes to someone’s candidacy, and to play into that was faulty.

Even after ample disapproval, the Texas woman who made the remark that Clinton shouldn’t be president because she’s a woman said in an interview, “I could have deleted it but it stands true, I believe in what I said, there’s an old biblical sound reasoning why a woman shouldn’t be president.”

Every American is allowed to have his or her own opinion, but opinions should be fortified with facts. And this “biblical sound reasoning” is certainly not fact of any sort. The quote this woman — and presumably many others who share her belief — is referring to is Timothy 2:11-12, which reads, “ A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”

There are many passages in the Bible that are overlooked in modern society because they are not applicable today or others that are blatantly distorted, including this passage. Using the Bible or hormones as the sole reason a woman cannot lead just doesn’t add up. What also doesn’t add up is how a woman who owns a company believes another woman cannot lead.

If we cannot change our rationale, women will continue to struggle in gaining leadership roles. Women currently make up 20 percent of Congress, yet are half of our population. This underrepresentation can make politics look like an unpopular and unviable career path for many young girls. And if we keep going at the same rate, women will be underrepresented for the next 500 years according to FairVote, the center for voting and democracy. Critics need to see women for who they truly are, not what they are composed of biologically or what a book written thousands of years ago says that they should be.

If people want to criticize Clinton and other women in politics, criticism must be based off of merit and their actions, just like men. We must hold ourselves to this higher standard, and give women leaders the credit they deserve.

Julia Smith is a junior newspaper and online journalism and sociology dual major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter @jcsmith711.

Published on April 19, 2015 at 10:47 pm