Of course. The UK was ready for a female PM in 1979. I know the US is a lot more conservative than the UK, but polls show like 95% of the country would vote for a female president, and the socons who say they wouldn't vote for a woman will fall in line once the dems nominate a pro-choice candidate and the female republican is the only pro-lifer with a chance to win. Clinton would have won in 2008, Dole could have won in 2000 if she was the nominee, and had someone like Haley been the nominee in 2016 (not Fiorina, she would have lost in a landslide) Haley probably would have been the first female president. Even Poland elected a female PM, and she was part of a socially conservative party.
It was not so much being ready as that in 1979, for the first time, the choices for Prime Minister of the UK included a woman. Either Margaret Thatcher and her party won the election or Jim Callaghan of the Labour Party would continue in office. The 1974-79 era of Labour government had been a problem period for the economy, so the electorate decided it was time for a change rather than keep tight hold of Sunny Jim for fear of finding something worse. I do not recall that Thatcher being a woman made much difference.
