This thread is pretty much why BernieBros were never believed when they said that Hillary's mistake was not being more of a populist. If a woman is left, she's too far left. If she's center, she's a neoliberal shill. In reality the reactions have nothing to do with their positions, they're about sexism.
Most Sanders people like Warren. Don't take a few retards on Twitter as representative of the entire base.
(I for one do not deny that there is a stigma against being a woman in academia or politics, and especially both. Hence shtposts like the one I quoted above.)
Fair enough. But while some people are consistent, many progressive-aligned "bros" tend to give establishment men, like Obama, Biden, Schumer, Menendez, Carper, a pass, while NOT giving the same to establishment women, like Hillary, DWS, or Dianne Feinstein. And since progressive men or women of any stripe rarely win, this leaves women in politics in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type situation.
Perez is just as hated as DWS. There's no sexism.
Not for nothing, but Michael Steele got a lot of hate. It's hard to disentangle his race from some of his missteps in managing the RNC, particularly its funds, however.
And people also seem more or less fond of Dean's tenure, while looking negatively on Kaine's.
I'm not even sure if I have a point other than, it might be harder to hold positions of authority within a party as an underrepresented group, but then again, our data set isn't wide enough to isolate those variables from other variables that could be driving dissatisfaction with those individuals (in DWS/Kaine's case: sizeable party losses/non-neutral primary behavior; in Steele's case: fiscal mismanagement).
