First, there’s the historically-proven disproportionate focus on her appearance.

Clinton is frequently the target of insults about her looks, while more conventionally attractive candidates like Sarah Palin are deemed “the young, trophy running mate.” Really no winning here.

The look-policing continues when people tell Clinton to smile more...

...and also smile less.

There’s also a lot of obviously gendered language used against her.

Describing a woman in sexist terms is proven to reduce her credibility, and make her seem less likeable. Also, just try to think of a male version of the word “whore.”

Even seemingly gender-neutral critiques of her "likeability" have a sexist edge.

As Dana Milbank pointed out in The Washington Post, Clinton does double the work trying to come off as “likeable” while still counteracting the stereotype of women as weak.

“Men can be tough and warm at the same time — think Ronald Reagan,” Milbank wrote, “but for women, it’s a trade-off.”

In fact, Clinton detractors love to label her as “weak” by playing up her health concerns...

Yet criticize others for bringing up her Trump’s sniffles.

They also criticize her for being underprepared for debates...

...While simultaneously being over-prepared, too.

When all else fails, they go the easy route, and label her a crazy old lady.

Clinton is 68. Donald Trump is 70.

Seeing the double standard now?