Elizabeth Warren’s exit reaffirmed that everyone loves a powerful woman as soon as she stops trying to take power away from men. It’s science: A 2010 Harvard study found that “when female politicians are perceived to be power-seeking, voters react negatively with feelings of moral outrage.” There’s no way to run for president of the United States without being perceived as power-seeking, and the outrage directed at Warren tracked perfectly with the study’s findings, as she was accused of offenses like being “too ambitious, too needy, too much.”

Intentionally or not, Warren’s Democratic rivals channeled this sexist outrage against her and were rewarded. Joe Biden called Warren—a woman whose signature was standing in four-hour-long selfie lines and loving every minute of it—“angry and unyielding.” Former South Bend, Indiana, mayor Pete Buttigieg smugly dismissed her—a woman who fought millions of dollars’ worth of lobbying from the Wall Street banks that wiped out a third of household wealth to establish a consumer-protection bureau—as someone who gets “so wrapped up in the fighting that we start to think fighting is the point.”

Buttigieg’s most significant experience was being the mayor of a college town that hasn’t elected a Republican in 50 years, and where he alienated much of the black community. It's hard to imagine a woman running for the presidency with such a short résumé being taken seriously, but Buttigieg was granted a level of deference that was denied to candidates who were female or people of color. When Julián Castro and Kamala Harris attacked Biden, they were met with a collective gasp of “how dare you” from pundits and political reporters. But when Pete attacked Warren, he was automatically granted standing, and his attacks were welcomed: “Pete Buttigieg had his biggest night yet,” The New York Times declared after a debate he spent attacking Warren. When she responded to the attacks, the last part of the trap facing women who seek power was sprung, as she was greeted with headlines like this from CNN: “Warren responds to ‘angry’ charge.”

Completing the vicious cycle, the love came pouring in the minute Warren stopped seeking the power of the presidency. The reaction is already generating think pieces: “Why is Elizabeth Warren’s departure striking such a chord within the Democratic Party?” The Washington Post asked, noting that the reaction to Warren’s withdrawal was much stronger than to the withdrawal of candidates who performed better than she did at the polls.

The tale of the tape is clear for those who open their eyes to it: Warren maintained sky-high favorable ratings among Democrats, while men who had lower ratings garnered more votes in primary states than she did. In California and Colorado, for instance, Warren topped the field in favorability ratings—tying Bernie in California and beating both Biden and Bernie by big margins in Colorado—but finished behind them in the primaries. In another poll, voters were asked who they would choose to make president if they could wave a magic wand and electability weren't an issue, and Warren beat the field. She dispatched an ascendent Mike Bloomberg, fueled by a formidable $500 million campaign, with the flick of her wrist. Polls consistently showed that Democratic voters loved her and wanted her to be president—but they didn't vote for her because they thought a woman could not beat Trump. Given this set of facts, there’s simply no way to discount sexism as a major factor.