Elizabeth Warren’s departure from the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary contest has prompted a slew of questions.

Many of them center on this fundamental point: Do we judge women differently than men who seek public office?

My own answer is, regrettably, yes. We do. It needs to stop. How do we cross that line? I haven’t a clue.

Sen. Warren had a boatload of ideas and solutions to problems. She is an excellent campaign debater, as former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg learned to his extreme anguish; she peeled the bark off of Bloomberg and then he dropped out after face-planting in the Super Tuesday cascade of primary elections.

She was far from the only fine female candidate for president. None of them made the grade. Not Kamala Harris, or Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar or Tulsi Gabbard (who’s still in the race for reasons no on can seem to figure out). They all come from significant backgrounds; they’re all women of accomplishment.

The media tend to attach different-sounding labels to female candidates than they do to men. A male who’s loud and brash is seen as “aggressive”; a female is described as, oh, let’s see, “brassy.” A male who is tough on campaign staff is called “demanding”; a female is called “overbearing” or “domineering.”

Do you get my drift?

The media and the public need to apply identical standards to women and men. They need to accept the notion that candidates of both genders are equally fit to do the tough jobs required of them in the public office they seek.

Are we going to cross that threshold in my lifetime? Well, I am not so sure, given my advancing age. My sons and my granddaughter stand a much better chance of seeing it happen.

I want desperately to see that day arrive before I check out.