The only thing Kamala Harris has in common with great female leaders of the past: a vagina

Subscriber Exclusive

We’re constantly being told that Kamala Harris is a girl boss. She’s tough, she’s sharp, she doesn’t take any bullshit. She’s a prosecutor! She took on gangs, she took on sex traffickers, she jailed black men for smoking marijuana and then laughed about smoking marijuana. Is there anything more gangster than that?

According to the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) we have to vote for Kamala Harris because America deserves its first female president.

But does America deserve this female president?

It’s ridiculously sexist to argue that women can’t change the world, or that women are less capable than men, or that women can’t be pivotal leaders.

Margaret Thatcher, Rosa Parks, Amelia Earhart, Malala Yousafzai, Marie Curie, Jane Austen, Princess Diana, Queen Elizabeth I, Mother Teresa, Queen Victoria, Harriet Tubman, Golda Meir, Queen Elizabeth II, Susan B. Anthony, J. K. Rowling, Dolly freaking Parton…

You’d be stupid to say that these women didn’t have an immeasurable impact on world politics or culture.

But here’s the thing: these are extraordinary people who happened to be women, in the same way that male leaders of the past have been extraordinary people who happened to be men.

And yes, it’s absolutely true that the path was far tougher to follow for many of these women, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is nothing inherent about having a penis or a vagina that made these people what they were.

Intellect, character and grit are factors that matter. What’s in your pants? Not so much.

After all, for every George Washington there was an illiterate drunk who didn’t know which way was up, and for every Margaret Thatcher there’s a giggling imbecile who thinks that the height of literature is People magazine.

And that brings me to Kamala Harris.