after the ugliest campaign in recent memory, would any woman in her right mind want to run for president again? short answer: yes. long answer: some will be discouraged. those who run will do so with the full knowledge that we do not live in a post-gender world, any more than we do in a post-racial one. people will long debate how much being a woman factored into hillary clinton<u+2019>s narrow loss. but to those who study gender and politics, certain issues were clear, and they will frame the campaigns of women who may run in the future. it has been a political science truism that female candidates cannot win unless voters see them as qualified for office; men have more leeway. <u+201c>donald trump never held elective office,<u+201d> said debbie walsh, the director of the center for american women and politics at rutgers university. <u+201c>i don<u+2019>t think there<u+2019>s a woman who could get away with that.<u+201d> political scientists saw a double bind: political experience, branded in this election as being part of a clueless or corrupt elite, worked against the woman running for office, while political inexperience helped the man. (exit polls showed that 18 percent of those who voted for mr. trump did not think he was qualified to be president). as a female candidate, <u+201c>you have to prove your qualifications beyond the shadow of a doubt,<u+201d> said adrienne kimmell, executive director of the barbara lee family foundation, which has been studying women<u+2019>s political races for 20 years. <u+201c>how are you supposed to prove your qualifications while still being an outsider? i don<u+2019>t know what the answer is to that question.<u+201d> scholars also noticed that while past polls suggested that voters had dropped their resistance to seeing a woman as commander in chief, exit polls suggested a more nuanced reality. <u+201c>we knew that in 2008 one reason voters were reluctant to support clinton is if they had worries about terrorism, so she became secretary of state,<u+201d> said mirya r. holman, an assistant professor of political science at tulane. <u+201c>but it turns out foreign policy experience does not mean we trust you to protect us against terrorism.<u+201d> she noted that in exit polls, 60 percent of voters who said foreign policy mattered most to them voted for mrs. clinton, while only 39 percent of those who rated terrorism first voted for her. issues aside, the well-documented insults to women that dogged the campaign are likely to make some women reluctant to run. <u+201c>i<u+2019>ve been worried all along that regardless of the outcome we would have created a situation where women would believe the terrain they have to navigate was rife with sexism,<u+201d> said jennifer l. lawless, professor of government at american university. <u+201c>generally when women run for congress and other levels of office they do just as well as men. but nobody knows that, and after this campaign, nobody<u+2019>s going to believe it.<u+201d> ms. kimmell<u+2019>s research has found, however, that women have had a harder time winning an executive office such as governor or mayor than a seat in congress. <u+201c>voters view women differently when they view them as the decision maker as opposed to a decision maker,<u+201d> she said. an even higher bar, then, exists for the presidency. senator kirsten gillibrand of new york said that when she talked to women about running for office, <u+201c>the no. 1 issue is we don<u+2019>t like the negative campaigning. i say, <u+2018>is the issue you are fighting for important enough for you to withstand that?<u+2019> <u+201d> senator gillibrand is one of many democratic women mentioned as potential presidential candidates, along with senator elizabeth warren of massachusetts; senator amy klobuchar of minnesota; janet napolitano, former governor of arizona; senator-elect kamala harris of california and senator-elect catherine cortez masto of nevada. on the republican side, potential candidates include gov. nikki haley of south carolina; gov. susana martinez of new mexico; representative cathy mcmorris rodgers of washington and senator kelly ayotte of new hampshire. senator gillibrand said she was not surprised by the way gender surfaced in this campaign. during her first run for the senate, her opponent initially dismissed her as nothing more than a pretty face, and then circulated an unflattering picture of her <u+201c>with my hair blowing all over, and then they put a green wash over it so i looked like a crazy unhinged witch.<u+201d> some worry that children will draw a sobering lesson. <u+201c>our daughters and sons are watching what<u+2019>s happening in this election,<u+201d> professor holman said. <u+201c>for many this would be their first political memory. that sends a message about what<u+2019>s acceptable in politics, who<u+2019>s acceptable and who<u+2019>s a winner or loser.<u+201d> yet this campaign could also act as a spur, much as the hearings into anita hill<u+2019>s accusations against clarence thomas did for an earlier generation of women. <u+201c>this was much less a function of dissuading me than educating me,<u+201d> said stacey y. abrams, a democratic state representative and minority leader of the georgia general assembly who is widely reported to be initiating a bid for governor. mrs. clinton did win the popular vote, she noted. <u+201c>she did not win over certain segments of certain communities,<u+201d> she said. <u+201c>it<u+2019>s not a question of can a woman win? you have to decide where it worked, where it didn<u+2019>t and anticipate that for the next one.<u+201d> kelly dittmar, assistant professor of political science at rutgers, camden, said, <u+201c>this could have a mobilizing effect on women, who see unfairness, misogyny or the underrepresentation of women in political leadership.<u+201d> so much in this campaign blew up conventional political wisdom that politicians and those who study them are still regrouping. experience was a liability. demeaning or bullying behavior, which memorably doomed rick lazio when he ran against mrs. clinton for the senate in 2000, did not disqualify mr. trump. some voters were alienated in the presidential election when mrs. clinton explicitly positioned herself as a woman who championed issues like families, children and equal pay; others were inspired. if parties court blue-collar voters more intensively next time around, would that hurt women vying to run? this campaign may have signaled that an ambitious woman still prompts resentment and anger among some voters. but ambition is hard to extinguish, no matter how rugged the terrain. susan chira ( @susanchira ) is a senior correspondent and editor on gender issues for the new york times. join her on facebook . follow the new york times opinion section on facebook and twitter (@nytopinion) , and sign up for the opinion today newsletter .
will women still want to run?
susan chira