Elizabeth Warren is our best bet for a woman President

The argument

As reproductive rights remain under attack in the U.S., America needs a woman for President more than ever. America is wracked with a pervasive sense of misogyny, and women need someone in the White House who will advocate for them. Additionally, there is a strong symbolic weight to having a woman President. Having a female Head of State leads to more women entering politics and offers a level of symbolic empowerment to citizens. The electability of woman candidates is often dismissed, but this is a misogynistic view. A woman is more than capable of becoming President of the United States, and more than that, now is the time it should happen. And in fact, being a woman may even give candidates a small advantage in terms of electability.

Context

Warren is now the only female candidate in the top performers of the Democratic race. After Hillary Clinton unexpectedly lost the 2016 election, it is now time for America to have a woman President.

Premises

Counter-arguments

There is no inherent reason a President who is a woman is inherently better for women. What matters is the policies they advocate for. Margaret Thatcher was the first woman Prime Minister in the UK, but her policies did not advance the cause of feminism - for instance, she advanced only one woman to her cabinet in her time as Prime Minister.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] There is no inherent reason a woman President is beneficial or indeed better for women.