With the final presidential debate behind us, election time is fast approaching. Many citizens chose who they are going to vote for a long time ago, as the differences between the two major party candidates are striking, resulting in little room for uncertainty. Nonetheless, many individuals dislike both candidates and enunciate their choice as simply being "the lesser of two evils" rather than a candidate they genuinely support.

The overuse of this phrase continues to baffle me, as I cannot fathom placing Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on even a remotely level playing field. The differences between the two candidates are stark, ranging from level of experience to use of diplomatic (or offensive) language. But perhaps one of the most influential differences between the two candidates is also one of the most overlooked: their genders.

Clearly, this is a historic election because it is the first time a woman is running for president as a major party candidate. Yet the media and the general public fail to discuss how Hillary Clinton's gender has influenced the election, from the public's perceptions of her qualifications and leadership ability to the prevalence of Trump supporters.

First and foremost, one of the major critiques of Hillary Clinton is that she is cold and untrustworthy. Despite numerous investigations into her email scandal and other affairs she was involved in as Secretary of State returning the same verdict, which generally states she used poor judgment but is ultimately not guilty of any crimes, many people still believe Clinton cannot be trusted as president. Part of this evaluation may be attributable to Hillary Clinton's gender, rather than her actual trustworthiness.

To begin, we must discuss the qualities we believe to be inherent in a good leader. These characteristics usually consist of being independent, determined, and strong-minded, which are traits we tend to attribute to men more often than to women. Thus, being a leader is more compatible with the male gender-role than the female gender-role. Because of this, a woman who wishes to be a leader must forgo some of the qualities of the female gender-role in order to fit our perceptions of a leader. Moreover, a woman in a leadership position must constantly balance her appearance as a leader with her femininity. If she adheres too much to the male gender-role in order to be perceived as a competent leader she will be seen as less of a woman and, by extent, cold and unfeeling. On the other hand, if she appears too feminine, she will not be taken seriously. Therefore, as Hillary Clinton has taken on qualities of the male gender-role to appear more competent, people have criticized her for being cold and untrustworthy.

Another matter to examine is the question of credentials. Simply looking at the qualifications of the two candidates, Hillary Clinton is far above Donald Trump in terms of political experience. Yet people still question Hillary Clinton's ability to be president. Part of this comes to down to evaluating the credentials of a woman as less than those of a man who has the same experience. So even though Hillary Clinton's experience far outweighs the experience of Donald Trump, people perceive the two candidates to be on more even ground because we inherently scrutinize the credentials of a woman more than those of a man.

Finally, it is important to examine the prevalence of Trump supporters. Even though Hillary Clinton is currently polling higher than Trump, there are still a great number of individuals who support Trump. Part of this high prevalence can be attributed to individuals, whether consciously or not, not wanting to vote for a woman. With people's inherent evaluation of a mismatch between being a leader and being a woman and their higher scrutiny or a woman's credentials, as outline above, these people turn to the only other candidate.

Nevertheless, supporting Trump goes further than that: Trump exudes a hyper-masculine gender expression, which appeals to individuals who see a woman as being unqualified to be president. Throughout the primaries, Trump essentially bullied his way to the candidacy, belittling his opponents Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio through feminizing comments. Thus, he embodied highly masculine qualities such as high agency and autonomy, verbal aggression, and subordination of others. Therefore, Trump appeals to people who value these hyper-masculine qualities, which tend to be those who adhere to explicit or implicit sexist ideology.

Ultimately, gender has played a greater role in the election than one might perceive at first glance. Typically, the division in an election is primarily between democrats and republicans. Yet, with a number of republicans renouncing their support for Donald Trump, it is possible the divisive factor in this election is the gender of the candidates rather than the political parties under which they are running. If one asks oneself where the election would be if Hillary Clinton was a man with the exact same credentials and political past, the answer would be vastly different than where the election is now.