Let’s not waste time debating whether sexism was a factor in Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann’s failed bid for president. It was. Let’s instead focus on what we will do about it. Because something needs to be done.

Not that we wanted to see Bachmann in the White House. God no. But nor do we want to see Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry or any other anti-woman candidate get elected. But why is Bachmann going home and not the other non-Romneys? For several reasons.

First, there is a double standard at work. Susan Mulligan at U.S. News points out, “Michele Bachmann, the Tea Party-approving Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota, has said some crazy things… All of that provides a solid basis for questioning her as a candidate and wondering whether she’s suited for the Oval Office. But has Bachmann said or done anything more bizarre than some of her opponents, including several who are above her in polling in Iowa?” Not really.

Second, women don’t “look presidential.” Remember when Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote, “I can think of no reason why anyone who, for some unaccountable reason, supports Michele Bachmann will not move over to Perry… Perry, who actually looks like a president …” Women don’t look presidential because we’ve never seen a woman president. And people from Iowa (as well as Mississippi) have never elected a woman to their congressional delegation or as governor.  My state of Massachusetts has never elected a woman senator or governor. And the list goes on leaving the Unites States ranking 40th in the world for women’s political empowerment.

Third, the media skews the news. We knew this when Hillary Clinton ran for president. Now we have data to prove it. Paul Bedard, also at U.S. News recently wrote, “Two new scholarly studies that blow the whistle on the industry’s lopsided reliance on male reporters find that the media first belittled (Hillary Clinton’s) effort against Barack Obama, then jumped the gun to push her out of the race earlier than any other recent strong primary challenger.” Remember Bachman’s Newsweek cover photo? Case in point.

One could argue, as a conservative, Bachmann faced a greater challenge than a liberal candidate. As Amanda Marcotte wrote for Reuters, “As a conservative female politician with an evangelical base, Bachmann was forced to hang her ambitions on voters who believe in traditional gender roles. …The problems arise when anti-feminist women start to seek real power for themselves. …That base is unable to grant serious power to a woman, no matter how much she promised to use it to disempower other women.”

Patricia Murphy quotes two such women in The Washington Post. “Jeanne Jennings of Johnston, Iowa, for instance, said Tuesday night that she likes Bachmann very much indeed, but chose to caucus for Rick Santorum instead. ‘I was for Michele Bachmann for a long time. I read her book. Wonderful book, wonderful family, wonderful person,” Jennings said. “But then I just started thinking about being presidential and I don’t know that we’re ready for a woman for president. I think what we really need to do is get Rick Santorum for president and Michele Bachmann for vice president.’” And, “Georgiana Cleveland from Boone, Iowa, said the same: ‘I guess maybe we here are not quite ready for a women president.’”

Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America, wrote about why she backed Santorum at FOXNews.com “Michele Bachmann was a serious candidate, a fierce competitor, and an excellent communicator. She made everyone in the race better, because she made them define their conservative credentials. This wasn’t her year, but mark my words, her day will come.” When?

After Martha Coakley lost the Massachusetts Senate seat to Scott Brown last winter Politico reported on the unions’ response to her candidacy, “Massachusetts labor leaders expressed frustration at the anti-woman bias in their ranks. ‘I’m not voting for the broad’ is the message Teamster leader Robert Cullinane told POLITICO he’s hearing.” With men like that, we need women to rally.

Whether you are conservative, moderate or liberal, electing women needs to be a priority because:

• Women are 51 percent of the population but only 17 percent of Congress and that’s not representative government.
• Last year, 1,100 pieces of legislation about women’s reproductive health were introduced — by a majority male legislative body.
• And our daughters, who we promise can grow up and be anything they want, need to see what they want to be. Where are their role models?

In The Hello Ladies Guide to Sexism in Politics, we talk about why sexism in matters:

Sexism hurts. A 2010 poll by Lake Research Partners revealed that “even mild sexist language has an impact on voters’ likelihood to vote for a female candidate and on how favorable they feel toward a woman seeking office.” The Inter-Parliamentary Union, an organization whose mission is to establish representative democracy across the globe, sees gender parity as the path to democracy stating, “The concept of democracy will only assume true and dynamic significance when political policies and national legislation are decided upon jointly by men and women with equitable regard for the interests and aptitudes of both halves of the population.”

So what do we do?

• We need to call out sexism when we see it. Organizations like Name It Change It allow people to report sexist coverage and then call on the media outlets to change behavior.
• We need to contribute to and volunteer on women’s campaigns. It takes a lot of money and people to get someone elected.
• We need to lose the phrase, I want to support a woman candidate but….,” and vote for women if they are qualified AND support women’s rights.
• We need to run for office.  Organizations like She Should Run, The White House Project, The 2012 Project and Ready to Run offer support and coaching for women seeking office. If not you, then who?