None of us have any choice in being born: not our gender, who are parents (bio or civil), what our socio-economic situation is, etc. Perhaps most importantly, how attractive and intelligent we happen to be.
Women, way more than men, feel the effect - or lack thereof - of beauty. Good looking women - starting from their teen years - can be hit on 10, 20+ times a day, day after day, year after year. To them, the world is their oyster. Because of this key advantage, they can easily pick and choose among the many suitors the one who will provide the greatest economic security.
However, for many women, unfortunately they will never attract anyone. There's a reason why - until welfare laws were introduced - historically 20%+ of women (40% of men) never had any children. It's why there were "old maids".
But, with the advent of women's rights (starting with the right to vote), those who lacked sufficient attractiveness to find a man could band together to create a sufficiently large enough voting block to vote themselves benefits from the public treasury. Today, we call these women 'liberals', but what they really are are the unfortunates who got a raw deal from nature.
I'd lay 100:1 odds that any good looking female @ a Trump rally either has a successful boyfriend/husband. And the counter is true as well: when you saw photos of hambeasts at a PIAPS rally, they invariably were in groups of other women.
I don't dislike or feel disdain for them, rather I feel pity. In all honesty, they got a bum deal.
Great insight.
Getting back to the writers original question, years ago in the 90's, I noticed this. But not just among women. The conservative men and women pundits/talking heads not only looked better but they dressed better. Their clothes fit better. The women wore makeup; the men combed their hair and had nice hair cuts. Even the older women and men conservatives.