The preferred narrative is gaining increasing evidence. Those who gain benefit from leveraging a cultural shift of modern feminism are working earnestly to retain it.
The phrase:  “you cannot talk down to me because I’m a woman“, traditional -arguably appropriate- ERA feminism, demanded equality in opportunity.  However, that argument has now been dropped.
Modern feminism is leveraged: “you cannot criticize me, because I’m a woman“.
The traditional demands of equality are following a predictable pattern and now invoking leveraged benefit.
Ultimately, this is the modern version of feminism, and one currently being advanced by personalities like Fox News host Megyn Kelly.  Social justice memes demanding a higher position of consideration based on (fill_in_the_blank), where this specific blank is filled with gender.
The objective determinations of skill and competency are now being clouded by lowered expectations forced by the benefactors who gain by lowering the expectation.  It is a dangerous and slippery slope to bar critical evaluation based on lowered expectations due to gender.   Such well-intentioned pathways historically lead to soft-bigotry caused by lessened expectations.
However, if Hillary Clinton is to gain nation-wide elected office her incompetence and inability must be shielded.  This is the basic motive for a growing gender-based narrative as injected into the 2016 presidential race.   The latest attempts by the Washington Post and New York Times are ultimately evidence of this intention.
This preferred and carefully scripted gender bias presents a challenge for candidate Donald Trump who arguably has grown a business career by demanding excellence regardless of any check-box filled by an applicant to the enterprise.
Businessman Donald Trump has demanded excellence within his organization, period.  The gender, age, race, background and all other protected social categories of personage are not parts of the organizational evaluation, his evaluation.    Instead questions of competence -what are the outcomes- are the filter through which Trump evaluations are determined.
It is not accidental the Trump empire remains a private company under the control of the family of Mr. Trump, and Mr. Donald Trump himself.  Those familiar with the business world well understand the benefit of remaining private, and not initiating an IPO to make the company a public stock offering.
An IPO (Initial Public Offering – of stock) would most likely have made Trump Inc worth ten to fifty times more than current valuations.   Easily the Donald Trump empire might have made him worth $100 to $300 billion instead of the current $10 billion. However, that same IPO would open Trump to a loss of control over the enterprise he created.
One of those lost controllables is the way the company presents itself to the general public.  Once you lose the ownership firewall (personal control), you lose the ability to leverage your own outcomes despite societal peer pressure.  A company can be forced to acquiesce to the mob to make a more broad-based “brand identity”.
In essence, exclusivity can be/will be lost.

If you apply this same business consideration to the 2016 presidential race, and Donald Trump’s place within it, you begin to see an emerging analogy for candidate Trump as he enters the public sphere.
Campaign consultants and advisers replace stockholders and the board of directors but the essential arguments, underlying the premise, hold significant parallels.
‘Let Trump be Trump’ has been the private campaign mantra, and has served the campaign well because Trump cuts through the politically correct nonsense of political speak and targets his audience directly.   However, with the nomination in hand, the private campaign is now subjected to the national RNC demands of party participation.
Despite the apparatus of the GOPe being thoroughly dispatched, the RNC is wholly incapable of allowing a candidate to be themselves and operate outside of the traditional controls of the party.
This is the ultimate problem for the republican party apparatus.
It is this writer’s contention the only way to combat the national media construct (the gender narrative framed around a female opponent in Hillary Clinton), is to allow Trump to operate his campaign in the non-traditional space created by his insurgent campaign style.
However, it is also accepted this approach has never been tested within a national platform where the opposition (Clinton), the national media (MSM/Corporate), and Wall Street (globalists) are united in common cause.