A common topic I saw among Americans this election was the candidates qualification. Sadly yet unsurprisingly there were many men who claimed Kamala Harris was “unqualified” for the job of president and that she was “useless” during her term as Vice President. But if were being serious, when has a vice president ever really done anything of note? Why not look at some of her qualifivations rather than making up a lack thereof. Something many people may not know, or rather choose to ignore, is that Kamala has worked for years in all three branches on government. She was a prosecutor for three decades, then became the first woman ever to be Attorney General of California, then became a senator, and is now finishing her tern as Vice President of the United States.

Former President Trump, on the other hand, was the only U.S president to ever have no political or military service prior to presidency. He was also one of three Presidents to ever be impeached (twice I might add), and earlier this year was the only president to every be convicetd of a felony (34 counts). Yet Kamala is the unqualified one?

So why is it that people sp often call Kamala unfit or unqualfied to be president but the same isnt really said about Trump? Simply put, the answer is misogny. Its an increbily common social phenonon to belittle womens achivements in order to uphold male superiority. Women are even socialized to belittle their own achivements, for if they so they’re deemed too prideful or egotisical.

A saying I think about frequently is something along the lines of “women have to work twice as hard for half as much,” which so closely applies here. Kamala Harris was twice as qualified yet still lost by such a big margin. Its disheartening that for the majority of Americans the choice between a convicted felon and rapist and a woman is a difficult one.