see, this is where the narrative starts to experience blowback. and, i mused about this in 2016...

was clinton such an awful candidate that she was going to end any serious chance of female political aspirations for a generation or more? well, it was and remains a real fear, but dismantling it is as simple as coming to terms with the reality of it: hillary clinton did not lose because of her gender, she lost because of her politics.

let's say it again.

hillary clinton did not lose because of her gender, she lost because of her politics.

if we don't all finally accept this, we're going to be stuck in a loop - the more women point out actual legitimate problems around sexism in society or in the work place, they more they'll be offering a reason not to vote for them. all of this analysis threatens to become self-defeating. for, having loudly erected this edifice of systemic sexism, the structure now threatens to collapse on the very people who built it.

if hillary clinton did lose because of her gender, then it is a very good reason to avoid female candidates. clearly. however, as she didn't lose because of her gender, it isn't a reason to avoid female candidates at all.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/us/politics/women-candidates-president-2020.html