No, you are not.
And I think you miss the point about a man's attitudes about women when you complain that his inappropriate behavior and attitudes toward women is a nothingburger. Women have had to take the back seat whenever there are 'more pressing issues' and have waited for centuries to be recognized as full members of the human race.
Enough is enough, right here, right now.
Personally, I think the choice that is presented here is that you'd rather have a young guy with questionable moral standards replace an older woman with questionable moral standards. I'd rather go with the older woman who has acceptable moral standards and a proven track record but you all have written her off because she's not young.
Somehow I get the feeling there is a strong sense that inequality is okay as long as it is allowed by a young guy who shouts louder than everyone else. I see a lot of cutting the guy a lot of slack because those women are just not reliable when they get older and have no wiggle room at all. And so what if the guy insults women when he thinks nobody is looking?
When are women going to have their rights restored? I don't hear tat topic come up in the conversation and I find that a big problem when considering someone for a long term position that carries a lot of weight when it comes to giving and taking of individual rights... it's not just about the benjamins when it comes to actual rights of bodily autonomy and social mobility - little things like that where the wimmins are just expected to roll over one more time because some guy who has a problem with women also has a good script writer looks like the 'safe bet'. Same as it ever was.
This isn't about purity, it's about moral character and whether the guy can get behind the issues that women need him to care about... he's not making the best impression when it comes to the health and well being of at least half the population. Having a sexist attitude toward half of the population is a problem, a BIG problem.