Even before the campaign, there have been silly blowups over alleged anti-Clinton sexism. Last year, The New York Times Magazine was slammed for a “Planet Hillary” cover that showed Clinton’s face in a flesh-colored sphere, an image that looked odd and unattractive. Indignant critics claimed that no male candidate would be depicted in such an unflattering way. Yet the editor who had approved that cover — a woman, Lauren Kern — pointed to less-than-flattering cover images of men such as Mitt Romney. To Kern, the “planet” image suggested an icon of power.

In the 2013 book “He Runs, She Runs: Why Gender Stereotypes Do Not Harm Women Candidates,” Dartmouth political science professor Deborah Jordan Brooks analyzes survey results which suggest that today, being female is an asset for a political candidate in America: Voters tend to perceive women in more positive terms than men.

Even the notion that female pols are subjected to sexist scrutiny for their looks and dress turns out to be shaky. A recent study by political scientists Danny Hayes of George Washington University and Jennifer Lawless of American University showed that male politicians are no less likely to have their appearance mentioned in newspaper articles — and that voters don’t judge women in politics more harshly over personal appearance.