Should We Stop Advocating for Women?

LtCol Kristi Davis, USMC (Ret.)

In her first guest contribution to Fortis! writer and retired Marine Kristi Davis offers a very personal and at times provocative opinion on the merit of promoting meaningful participation of women based on sex alone.

Most women of my generation are not qualified to be in positions of power or authority. I am a “Boomer,” having missed Gen X by a few years.  Before Title IX allowed little girls to bloody the noses of little boys on the hockey and soccer fields, I was known as a tomboy. Gloria Steinem told us to burn our bras. Few men objected to the fashion of freely bouncing mammaries and protruding nipples under thin T-shirts which only increased the sexual objectification of the ladies.  Such was the liberation of women in the 1970s.  This was an alleged milestone in the fight for women’s equality.

Paradigms are slow to change, but they have s-l-o-w-l-y changed.  For years the adage that a women’s place is “barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen” was said as a joke but there was a hint of belief in that.  It wasn’t until 1974 that women were allowed to get financial credit for a business without needing a man’s signature. In 1984 Representative Geraldine Ferraro and in 2008 Governor Sarah Palin both broke the glass ceilings for vice presidential candidates of their parties. As of 2025, still no female has been selected as presidential candidate by popular vote.

“For years the adage that a women’s place is ‘barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen’ was said as a joke but there was a hint of belief in that.”

Just as electing a Catholic president had been thought impossible before 1960,  John F. Kennedy was elected because he ran on his ideas and qualifications — not on his label as the “first Catholic.” It would have been a certain election failure had he run on “Catholic” as his primary reason to be put into office. How much less push-back might Kamala Harris have received if she had been the vice president because she was determined to be the best person for the job and not there because — in President Biden’s words — she was a “woman”? 

UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s run for office in 1979 was based on her ideas and experience, not on gender. Indira Ghandi was first elected in 1966 as prime minister of India and served until 1984, her campaigns focusing on her temperament and abilities, not on sex.  Would either of these strong and successful women have been elected had they defined their primary qualification as “female”? These women proved that gender is not a virtue -- nor an impediment -- to holding the highest offices. Would Harris’ campaign have been more successful had she run as did Thatcher and Ghandi, touting a platform of ideas and not a campaign of gender entitlement?  Pushing gender as justification for any position is rarely, if ever, successful.

Are “most” women of today the best qualified people to be in positions of power?  More Millennial and Generations X, Z, Alpha, and Beta women are better qualified than were many of my female Boomer counterparts to compete with men.  In the past decade, more females than males are graduating from universities.  Women are now more than half of the college-educated labor force in the United States, despite being less than half of the population. Are not men now the “underrepresented group,” the “marginalized minority”?

In 2013, Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer (COO) Sheryl Sandberg wrote the book Lean In, one of the last best-sellers to provide guidance aimed at women in the corporate world. Since then, books on leadership have largely been gender neutral; challenges in the corporate world are now common to all. In 2016, a well-publicized study in the Harvard Business Review asserted that firms with more women in the C-Suite were more profitable.  The business world scrambled to put more women in the boardrooms, hoping to invoke whatever mysterious magic women had to increase the bottom line. Fast forward to 2024, and with hindsight it has been revealed that correlation did not equal causation. The firms were not profitable because they advocated for women, but rather because they did not discriminate against women. Organizations looked for the best person for the job. By allowing the best candidate for the position to take a seat on mahogany row, the firms became more profitable. Being gender-blind made the difference.

“Firms were not profitable because they advocated for women, but rather because they did not discriminate against women.”

Paradigms are slow to shift. After several years and billions of dollars and man-hours pushing “more participation of women,” has women’s standing in the world changed for the better because of it? In 1990, if a woman was seen in the cockpit of a plane, the assumption was that she had to be outstanding, that she had to be at least as good if not better than a male or else she wouldn’t be there. In 2025 if a woman is seen in the cockpit of a plane, the fear is that is she is probably less competent than a male but is there only because of her gender. Has this new — and arguably justified – doubt helped women?

“In 1990, if a woman was seen in the cockpit of a plane, the assumption was that she had to be outstanding, that she had to be at least as good if not better than a male or else she wouldn’t be there.”

Just as emphasis on increasing sexual attractiveness did not work at the dawn of the fourth-wave feminist movement, recent demands that woman be placed in new positions solely based on sex aren’t working either. The only actions that appear to have a positive effect on an organization is a person’s competence and abilities which allow the self-interest of an organization (and society) is to select the best person for the job.  When gender is a coincidence, and not a qualifier, women achieve equality.

“When gender is a coincidence, and not a qualifier, women achieve equality.”

For Boomers and fourth-wave feminists, their time is past. Gen X women have a fair shot at equality, but some may still lack the experience that their Millennial sisters and those in Generations Z, A and B are obtaining.  By removing diversity hiring, affirmative action discrimination, and the government-funded push for women to “participate” in all sectors of life women will be able to achieve true equality. Synergy, not diversity, must be the desired end-state for organizations. Advocating against the exclusion of women, not for their overt participation, is called for. It is hypocritical to allow discriminatory misandry to replace discriminatory misogyny. It is time to become gender-blind. If women – and men – are qualified for a position, they will find their proper place.