A woman has to be exponentially more competent, more careful, more intelligent, more conciliatory, better groomed, and more thoughtful than a man in order to be a serious contender for President. And meanwhile, a man can be an exponentially worse person by nearly all measures compared to a woman and still be a serious contender for the same job.
That's basically the shitty-ass take-away from this article. It asserts that women disproportionately dislike Donald Trump and men disproportionately dislike Hillary Clinton.
Could you even imagine a female candidate existing and being viable whom men actually had legitimate reasons to disproportionately dislike on the basis of gender? One who, say, regularly expressed misandry in the way that Trump expresses his misogyny? Who maybe went on obsessive rants about her male critics being creepy, disgusting, flaccid pencil-dicks - and who still did well in elections?
Yeah, me neither.