Sex, Markets, and Power was packed at its first meeting. Professor Rosenbluth opened her lecture with a photo collection by Elle UK, in which men were photoshopped out of global political institutions: the British parliament, the UN, the US’s Situation Room, the Bundestag. The rooms appeared almost empty. According to a UN Women report, just 22 percent of “national parliamentarians” are women. This, despite the fact that when women are involved in government, more money and resources reach constituent communities, and overall public health improves. This, despite the fact that women constitute about half of the population.

The United States places 75th in the world in female representation in government, according to a list provided by the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The statistics for women of color are even worse: they constitute only 6.2 percent of the 535 members of Congress. There are myriad explanations, but one of them is the reluctance of pundits and voters to appreciate gender as a valid reason for choosing one public official over another. When women voters are accused of supporting Clinton on the basis of their gender, we deflect by reciting a litany of Clinton’s policies. But why should we have to?

I can and will vote for Hillary Clinton at least in part because of her gender. The election of a female president will have a lasting impact on the lives of women, both globally and domestically. Just as the presidency of Barack Obama enabled millions of African-American children to envision themselves within our nation’s highest office, the election of Hillary Clinton will allow women and girls to share in the same dream.

Female supporters of Clinton are often targeted for playing the “gender card.” Clinton is accused of pandering to women because she has been outspoken about her commitment to “women’s issues.” Heaven forbid she acknowledge her own gender identity and speak about dire public health issues like reproductive rights. Her prolonged commitment to female empowerment—both in her global work as Secretary of State, and in her domestic advocacy—should be the marker of a genuine political commitment to human rights, not pandering to a constituency. The concerns of women should be on a national stage, a constant conversation.

Take affordable childcare. As a nation, we are still grappling with the idea of subsidizing a woman’s work outside of the home. Yet it is not until both parents in a family have equal societal support for their careers that women can bridge the wage gap. The phrase “equal pay for equal work” is a misnomer. According to economist Claudia Goldin, the problem of the wage gap isn’t women being paid less for exactly the same job, but rather the series of decisions women are forced to make that land them in lesser-paying jobs. If she is choosing between a higher-paying position that necessitates more hours on the job and a more flexible, lower-paying position, a mother, or a woman considering motherhood, will often choose the latter. This is an economic issue, not a women’s issue, and it is not only limited to greater female representation in the upper ranks of corporations. When women participate more in the labor force at all levels, from CEOs to cashiers, GDP per capita increases.

There will be other socioeconomic effects too, if Clinton is elected president. A female leader of the United States would send a strong message to companies with respect to hiring practices. Despite public avowals to strive for gender parity in the workplace, most companies fall far short. According to the HeForShe Parity Report, “one in four senior leadership and board positions are held by women,” and women “hold 19.2 percent of board seats across S&P 500 companies.” 95 percent of CEOs of the world’s largest companies are men, but stocks perform better if women serve on company boards. Part of the reason is female prowess in collaboration: we are socialized to be better listeners from a young age. According to the Dr. Melvin Konner—a professor of anthropology, behavioral biology, and neuroscience and author of Women After All—women are better dealmakers, and more likely to work and play better with others. They don’t jump into conflict to stroke their egos. They are less likely to be corrupt.

How, then, are we surprised that workplace environments are so often hostile to women? The people setting the tone are men, who don’t have to consider sexual harassment or the challenges of breastfeeding when creating workplace culture. But a revolution in the workforce would defy the dominant political and societal traditions in this country, which devalue women’s labor. We don’t pay for our wives and mothers to devote hours of work to the upkeep of their families, so their unpaid labor—of which women still do the lion’s share—is not considered valuable. There are simply inadequate resources for working mothers and families, and therefore inadequate means of achieving gender parity. They will remain inadequate until a woman ascends to the highest office and implements supportive family policies, and until the American people agree that a woman can occupy the Oval Office.

In her concession speech to Obama, Clinton said: “To build that future I see, we must make sure that women and men alike understand the struggles of their grandmothers and their mothers, and that women enjoy equal opportunities, equal pay, and equal respect… Although we weren’t able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it’s got about 18 million cracks in it, and the light is shining through like never before, filling us all with the hope and the sure knowledge that the path will be a little easier next time.”

This is next time. And the anger that I feel in the pit of my stomach when the right to equal pay and maternity leave are shuffled aside as “women’s issues” has only grown since 2008.

So when I’m told that I’m only supporting Clinton because I’m a woman, I’m deeply insulted, because the implication is that I haven’t bothered to do any real research. That I’m being guided by “sisterhood” and emotion. Or else, that voting for a woman has to be justified in a way that a man’s support of a male candidate does not. But I’m not supporting Carly Fiorina. I’m supporting a woman who has proven her lifelong commitment to policies that support my human rights. She champions an amendment that will safeguard the right of poor women to reproductive healthcare; she has received the endorsements of NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Like any savvy voter, I am defending my interests by supporting a candidate that promises to value them.

I’m supporting a woman whose career merits and demands the recognition of her capacity to lead. If she were male, so many of the jabs at her record would simply not exist. Would she be asked about her partner’s affairs if she were a man? Unlikely. Would the media spend time describing her clothing? Doubtful. In an interview, Lena Dunham—who’s been stumping for Clinton in Iowa—recited a list of sexist, condescending words that are regularly used to describe Clinton. “Shrill. Inaccessible. Difficult. Frumpy. Plastic.” And Donald Trump used the unambiguously phallic “schlonged” to describe her 2008 loss to a male opponent, Obama. Have any of those words been lobbed at male candidates? NPR describes Hillary’s response to a frankly sexist accusation that she had been “dishonest” as “an energetic, finger-pointing defense that might have struck some as defensive.” Even her defense is deemed too defensive.

Any woman knows that when we’re assertive and outspoken, we’re called bitchy. So many people in this country are afraid of answering to a head bitch in charge.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, one of the leaders of America’s suffragist movement, said in 1869: “We need women’s thought in national affairs to make a safe and stable government.” It’s high time the American public actually acted on that sentiment.