This double standard seems not only to apply to gender, but also to race. Consider the disparaging things said about Tim Scott, the new senator from South Carolina, a replacement for the retired Jim DeMint. Scott is black, but his race does not endear him to liberals. He probably won't be embraced by the NAACP, whose president accused him of not believing in civil rights, having received an "F" on the NAACP's civil rights scorecard, which judges legislators on their votes on "civil rights" issues. In fact, Scott is just as much an example of the advancement of civil rights for blacks as those female senators are examples of progress for women.
In the end, it isn't about gender or race, but ideology. When they speak of "women's issues," for example, the left seems to think that all women think alike, or should. The same for African Americans and civil rights. I think the right correctly sees content of character and ideas as superior to gender and skin color.
In the interview with Diane Sawyer, Senator Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said that by nature women are "less confrontational." Really? McCaskill must never have met the leaders of the women's movement whose disciples are among her colleagues. The chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., is no shrinking violet.
I'm not betting on estrogen besting testosterone to "get things done," forge compromise and diffuse confrontation, especially given the history of some very uncompromising female leaders like Cleopatra, Catherine the Great, underground railroad "conductor" Harriet Tubman, the late Bella Abzug, D-NY., or British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In fact, these women exhibited more testicular fortitude than some men, which, in the case of the conservative Thatcher, likely had a lot to do with why her male colleagues dumped her as party leader.