Hm.

Is This Really True?

Women candidates must look good to be elected, study claims, while men are judged on competence.

The current election would seem to discredit both parts of that result. First, the frontrunning male candidate has shown no competence at anything he's ever undertaken (besides running for the next higher office, at which he's proven fairly adept), yet he has held a consistent lead. The media surrounding him has made much of his youth and energy, and he's been asked to dance on the air several times.

Meanwhile, the highest vote-getting female candidate of all time was the junior Senator from New York. I wouldn't say anything unkind about a lady's appearance, so please don't take this remark in that way, but she is not a classic beauty. While certainly dignified and respectable, her looks are not the reason why anyone would vote for her.

So: another case where a study 'proves' something the authors would like to believe, against the actual experience of reality?