The Pink Patriarchy

It's 2028, the 48th U.S. presidential election. You're holding your empty ballot, with the names Kamala Harris, Donald J. Trump, Kanye West, and four others of whom you've never heard. You hold your breath, it's a tough one, and place a check under the name in blue. You hand in your ballot, let out that breath, and pat yourself on the back for being a good feminist, easing your conscience that you have made the world a slightly better place... except you're wrong.

The oligarchic election system intrinsically creates a hierarchical system that favors the rich, the white, and the men. A woman president isn't going to change that, especially when that woman president is backed by a council of men who control her moves, leading her to implement uniquely anti-feminist laws. So no, you're not 'fucking the patriarchy', you're painting it pink.

Individual Level

Candidates like Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton don't represent themselves; they represent the wealthy donors who back up their campaigns and help to put them in power. Most of these donors are rich white men who frankly don't care about advancing women's rights, but rather fund to advance their own interests, have control of the judicial system, back their own endeavors, combat strong lobbyists, and so on and so forth.

No matter how much campaigning goes on (and it goes a long way), voters are still somewhat subject to free thinking, and thus, candidates must try to appease them in order to garner the most votes. Women presidents leverage their femininity to draw in feminist voters without otherwise working on that frontier... and it works.

I'm as excited for President Barbie as the next woman is. However, a person who pledges for opposing Trans-women's rights, hostile living environments for single mothers, criminalization of sex work, and the bombing of innocent women and children in Gaza, who just so happens to be a woman herself, is no girlboss... that's a pimp.

Less than 30% of voters (U.S. Just Facts poll) could answer basic factual questions about the U.S. political system correctly, leaving a significant portion of the voter population less than sufficiently informed in making a morally conscious and politically effective vote. This makes people susceptible to simple campaign propaganda, like the color of a candidate's skin or the gender they identify with, casting their ballot in favor of not looking sexist or racist.

Furthermore, the U.S. elections are known for being shitshows every time, with candidates screaming at each other, throwing insults and names, making meme compilations and whatnot, all to push themselves up, leaving other nations' people to watch and laugh. That is a systematic strategy, to the point where the election is closer to a football match, where the crowd is cheering for their favorite team, not the athletically fittest one, despite it being a sports competition. People nowadays vote for their favorite candidate, unknowing of what laws they pledge to save and chant slogans like their Christmas carols.

Via: https://www.fec.gov/

It's not great policies that make a winning candidate it's money, we all know that. The presidential election budgets have increased logarithmically over the past 50 years, and it's getting into people's minds. There's a direct correlation between campaign budget and voter stats, leaving your average Joe with less free thinking and more opinions sold to the highest bidder.

This shouting match increases the polarization of opinions (you must be one or the other, with us or with them) and thus pushes us further into voting blue or red — completely ignoring the independent candidates, who are oftentimes more egalitarian, more pro-democracy, and more feminist than the staple republican and democrat voters. This, combined with the increasing financial support for the main parties in contrast with the stable support of independents, is the reason why 'independent never wins'.

Via: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections

Conclusion

The U.S. political system is an oligarchy (a system whose power lies in the hands of a few people) rather than a democracy. Democracy is when we have a large plethora of people to hear our concerns and act according to our needs, rather than one president acting based on his supporters' needs. Oligarchies enforce hierarchies that push down people in need in favour of the rich, and by voting in women, we are not combating that, but rather reinforcing it.

Ancient democracy, where there was a council of up to 500 people, is, in my eyes, a more feminist governing system, despite the fact that women couldn't vote, than this modern-day oligarchy. Candidates are backed, for the grand majority, by white men and companies of rich white men. Yes, even women of color. This leads, uncoincidentally, to laws that favor rich white men. I would rather a male candidate backed by women donors than the opposite, without a doubt.

By swearing in a woman to the presidency, you're not 'fucking the patriarchy', you're painting it pink.

---

Disclaimer: This is not a pro-Trump post. I hate that motherfucker.

References:

• https://apnews.com/article/71ffff6d34b0bad8b92cb8e82369d2e8
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/10/independents-two-party-system-house
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/08/robert-kennedy-jr-independent-candidate-republican-voter
• https://www.opensecrets.org/
• https://www.fec.gov/
• https://secure.actblue.com/
• https://winred.com