It is precisely Sanders’s au-naturel-ness that endears him to his young fans: his unkempt hair, his ill-fitting suits, his unpolished Brooklyn accent, his propensity to yell and wave his hands maniacally. Sanders, it appears, woke up like this.
These qualities are what make him seem “authentic,” “sincere” even — especially when contrasted with Clinton’s hyper-scriptedness. Sanders, unlike Clinton, doesn’t give a damn if he’s camera-ready.
This is, of course, a form of authenticity that is off-limits to any female politician, not just one with Clinton’s baggage.
Female politicians — at least if they want to be taken seriously on a national stage — cannot be unkempt and unfiltered, hair mussed and voice raised. They have to be carefully coifed and scripted at all times, because they have to hew as closely as possible to the bounds of propriety available to both their sex and their occupation. They can’t be too quiet or too loud, too emotional or too cold, too meek or too aggressive, and so on.
But they also can’t appear to be trying too hard, either. At least if they want the kind of enthusiastic millennial support that Sanders enjoys.
In which you take an actual complex issue and write the laziest, most offensive story you can about it. Millennials are not supporting Bernie Sanders because of his “unkempt hair” and “ill-fitting suits”. The authenticity factor has nothing to do with physical appearance, but is grounded in the issues and the way that each candidate speaks to us about them (AKA Hillary “just chillin’ in Iowa” Clinton vs. Bernie “I’m going to speak to you like the adults you are” Sanders).
Do women in politics and in virtually every profession face unfair and sexist criticisms that men don’t? Yes, of course we do. And Secretary Clinton has been a victim of this double standard, but if you look at where that criticism is coming from it is not “millennials” and this type of half-baked writing does nothing to address the actual issue and only serves to degrade and dismiss young voters.