[pluma]

I don't think what's keeping "ordinary men and women" from becoming politicians is the toxicity public figures are exposed to, considering a lot of "ordinary men and women" (but particularly women, gender-non-conforming men and PoC, especially if they're trans) get the same or worse on a daily basis on social media.

If you look at the careers and upbringing of most high-ranking politicians, I doubt the most obvious distinction to common folk would be particular thick skin -- heck, the sitting POTUS isn't exactly thick skinned and that's arguably the most publicly exposed office in the world.

Hint: it's wealth. The distinction is coming from wealth and having connections with wealthy people who supply you with funding and influence.

[katbyte]

It’s wealth and maybe being from a race and sex that generally isn’t raked over the coals for simply being black or a women?

White male politicians don’t get much flak for being white or male.

Black women politician would get so much for both her race and gender.

As a women I’d never want to be in the public eye for this reason.

[ejefz]

>White male politicians don’t get much flak for being white or male.

Obviously you've never had an account on Twitter

[nailer]

This is a new account on HN, but the downvotes are surprising, seeing as most people here have indeed used Twitter before.

[luckylion]

> White male politicians don’t get much flak for being white or male.

"Stupid white men" was a huge success a few years back.

[nailer]

Not disputing the sentiment, but if you're referring to Michael Moore's book, the full title is "Stupid White Men ...And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation!" - ie, he's not being racist or sexist but rather saying that's a very simplistic excuse.