Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton is playing the ‘woman card’ - and so what if she is?

Only 11 US states have ever elected both a female governor and a female senator. Goodness knows American women need an advocate in high places

Hillary Clinton speaks during a campaign rally in Central Falls, Rhode Island (Reuters)

So, now we (almost) know for sure: it’s Hillary versus The Donald. The Establishment versus the The Outsider. The Woman versus The Man.

For that, according to Trump, is all that Hillary Clinton – lawyer, public policy expert, senator, secretary of state and, let us not forget, the former First Lady – has going for her. Her campaign is two dimensional. She’s playing 'the woman card'.

In his pre-victory speech at Trump Tower, the man who will surely contest the presidential election for the Republicans made explicit his trademark lack of respect for his opposite number. “Frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 per cent of the vote. The only thing she’s got going [for her] is the women's card, and the beautiful thing is: women don’t like her,” he said.

If she’s playing the ‘woman card’ and yet women don’t respond to that, that’s not much of a card at all, is it? More like a joker. But logic hasn’t been much of a strong point for Trump so far, so I’ll let that one slip in favour of a closer look how his comments reflect the position of women in US politics today.

The fact that being a woman is being considered as an asset or otherwise for Clinton is no surprise – as a female politician in the US she is, necessarily, an outlier. In 2014, America ranked 98th in the world for the percentage of women within the national legislature, dropping from 59th in 1998. Only 11 states have ever elected both a female governor and a female senator. Importantly, there is no significant link between political leanings by state and their likeliness to have elected a women; it’s a problem right across the political spectrum.

So if Hillary has a gender card in her pack, why shouldn’t she play it? Goodness knows American women need an advocate in high places. Though they make up almost half the workforce (47 per cent), an average salary for a woman working full time in 2014 was $39,621, compared with $50,383 for a full time man. A woman in the US is earning an average of 77 cents for every dollar that a man takes home.

Women make up 74 per cent of cashiers in the US, and 91 per cent of nurses – but just 32 per cent of physicians and surgeons and 14 per cent of police officers. And how can a Western nation allow businesses to dictate that 12 weeks of unpaid maternity leave – unpaid! – is sufficient to support half the workforce in balancing work and family life? You never see a pro-life campaigner touting a placard about that moral question, do you?

Of course, Clinton’s critics among Democrat supporters – those who claim they are ‘feeling the Bern’ – would argue that Hillary is as likely as Trump to take action on any of these points. Even if that is the case (I would personally disagree, but that’s the subject of another column), it doesn’t mean that there wouldn’t be an inherent benefit for all women from her contesting – even winning – the presidency.

Trump is, of course, entirely wrong about one thing here: the claim that Clinton would not be considered a serious candidate if she were male is so ridiculous it is amusing. If she were a man, there would be no other candidate in town. A professional, experienced, polished politician with experience inside the White House? He’d be just the man to see off an ill-equipped challenger fighting the presidency on an ego ticket.

The problem that Hillary faces – or the 'woman card' that Trump perceives her to be playing – is the way people still feel about women and power.

As Hanna Schank wrote for Salon in her excellent essay describing why she intended to vote for Hillary: “I understand what it’s like to be the most qualified person in the room and still be overlooked in favour of the charismatic guy just because, well, you’d rather have a beer with him. And I know that until the world sees what it looks like for this country to have a female president, we’re going to forever be finding reasons not to vote for one.”

There is, as Schank concludes, still so much for American women to fight for. And that fight starts with a woman standing for president, facing down all the criticism levelled at her for having the audacity to do so. Ace or joker, that’s the card.

Clinton, incidentally, may have tactical reasons for dealing it now: women are more likely than men to vote – with an average of 43 per cent turnout, compared to 40 per cent for men.

Yes, there’s a 'woman card” in US politics. Clinton should be proud to play it.

Of course, the best card in Hillary’s hand is also the Trump: when Americans go to the polls in November, she’ll be on the ballot paper as his opponent. I know who I’d put my wager on to fold in the final round.