It’s the “Year of the Woman” once again, according to the media.

Rolling Stone magazine, USA Today, the Financial Times and countless others have made the proclamation. Women are important in this election, we’re told, and a woman has a good chance of being our next president. This is our year!

So why does this celebration of women feel so much like a pat on the head by a bunch of condescending men?

“Know a woman voting for Trump? Send her THIS VIDEO,” goes the tagline on a Keith Olbermann video for GQ magazine. In it, he spends more than five minutes lecturing female Trump voters, asking over and over again, in the most obnoxious possible way, “doesn’t it bother you?” about a variety of Trump scandals. He calls it “startling” that Trump has any percentage of the female vote larger than zero.

But why? Why should women be any more outraged by Donald Trump than men? Is Donald Trump mean or rude to women? Sure. But is he any different to men? Does he insult men and call them names? Ask “little Marco Rubio” or “lying Ted Cruz.”

He said he likes soldiers who weren’t captured, disrespecting, in one fell swoop, all prisoners of war — a group made up almost entirely of men. Yet few make the argument that men specifically shouldn’t be voting for Trump, lest they betray their gender.

Inevitably comes the next question: “What about the accusations from women that Trump assaulted them?” Well, if the accusations are believable, then why should only women be outraged by them? It’s not only business owners who grasp the problem when Trump is accused of not paying his venders. If a man accused him of assault, it wouldn’t be just men from whom we expect outrage.

Liberal men like Olbermann think they’re being pro-women when they treat us like some small special-interest group that will have all the same positions and ideals. If he finds Trump’s treatment of women so noxious, why doesn’t he expect other men will, too?

“The woman vote” isn’t some kind of monolithic action by a small segment of the population. In fact, women make up more than half the country — and of voters — and have a variety of reasons for voting however we choose to.

While men get to vote on issues like taxes or foreign policy, “women’s issues” always seem to come down to children and abortions, as if having or not having children is all that we’re about.

Louis CK pushed this line during his appearance on Conan O’Brien’s show last week. CK told O’Brien that Hillary will make the best president because she’s a mother: “A mother — she’s got it! A mother just does it. She feeds you, and teaches you, and protects you . . . We’ve had 240 years of fathers!”

The clip went viral, as Hillary Clinton’s supporters posted it on social media as a great defense of the woman whom they support.

They didn’t seem to notice what an insult it is to imagine that all moms are the same or that having a child uniquely qualifies them for the presidency. Does Sarah Palin’s experience as a mother mean she’s a better choice for president than any father? Something tells me Louis CK would disagree.

Let’s not pretend that there’s some higher respect for women at play here.

I won’t be voting for Donald Trump on Tuesday, but it won’t be “as a woman.” I won’t be voting for him as a conservative. He doesn’t line up with my values. And despite our being the same gender, neither does Hillary Clinton — so I won’t be voting for her, either. We’re both women, we’re both mothers, but that’s nowhere near enough.

As the election of this “Year of the Woman” comes to an end, let’s remember that the last media-proclaimed “Year of the Woman” was 1992, when womanizing Bill Clinton became president with his defender, Hillary Clinton, by his side.

Women deserve more than to be patronized once every few decades in this way. We deserve to be taken seriously as individual voters with a range of issues important to us.

Maybe 2020 will finally be the year for that.