The New York Times set about to find out why women are left cold by McMahon:
Interviews with nearly three dozen women around the state reveal that many are troubled by what they see as the harshness of the attacks Ms. McMahon has leveled at Mr. Blumenthal, the wall-to-wall advertising she is underwriting with tens of millions of dollars, and her role in the wrestling industry, with its cartoonish and demeaning depictions of women.
It's interesting to see "demeaning" standing there alone, without a "Timesian critics say" qualifier attached to it. (Everything we know about the WWE, we learned from videos attacking Linda McMahon and Mick Foley, so we're going to withhold judgment until further study.) They also quote a woman who appears to oppose McMahon for other reasons:
"That's entertainment," said Donna Candella, 39, a Democrat and lawyer who lives in Naugatuck. "It's not a real sport. And those women choose to be there. They weren't forced to be there."
It sounds like plenty of these women are skeptical of McMahon because they don't know what she stands for besides vague pronouncements about being a businesswoman, although there's also the chance that they judge her more harshly attacking Blumenthal all the time because it's unbecoming of a woman. (The former seems more likely).
But just look at this mother-specific site! Doesn't all that lavender and the pseudo-handwriting font convince you that McMahon is a lady?
For every skillful use of wavy font, there is a post like this, noting that McMahon presided over an empire where women's fights were sexualized and infused with domestic violence narratives.
Blogger Jackson Katz posted this excerpt from the documentary Wrestling With Manhood, whose compendium of Terrible Things Happening To Women Performers On The WWE is far more complete than the one compiled by McMahon's primary challenger. (Warning: graphic.)