Here's a Naomi Klein article on why Clinton's loss shouldn't be reduced to "sexism".

Voters chose a loose cannon of a man with zero government experience over a calm, collected and supremely qualified woman. The root cause of this injustice, many have suggested, can only be sexism -- proof that the glass ceiling protecting the highest reaches of power cannot yet be shattered.

The reaction is understandable. It's also wrong and unnecessarily demoralizing.

...

This election needed a Democrat who could call out, again and again, the myriad hypocrisies and absurdities of Mr. Trump's claim to be a hero for the downtrodden working class. In the debates, Mrs. Clinton landed points when she exposed Mr. Trump's history of outsourcing and tax dodging. But by then Mr. Trump had already spent the summer mocking his opponent for her private parties with oligarchs, painting her own lifestyle as profoundly out of touch with ordinary Americans (which it is).

In short, she landed on many of the right messages, but she was the wrong messenger.

Similarly, there was much to be made of the scandals at Mr. Trump's foundation and at Trump University. But the Clinton Foundation -- and its various entangled relationships between private corporations, foreign governments and public officials -- made Mrs. Clinton's attacks far too easy to turn back at her.

We'll never know what it would have looked like for a woman who is outside the Davos class to have run against Mr. Trump, because voters were not given that option.

...

[emphasis mine]
Here is the biggest problem with elevating sexism to the defining explanation of Mrs. Clinton's loss: It lets her machine and her failed policies off the hook. It erases the role played by the appetite for endless war and the comfort with market-friendly incremental change, no matter the urgency of the crisis (from climate change to police violence to raging inequality). It erases the disgust over Mrs. Clinton's coziness with Wall Street and with the wreckage left behind by trade deals that benefited corporations at the expense of workers.

In this version, it's all about sexism. And that is the surest way to ensure that the Democratic Party's disastrous 2016 mistakes will be repeated -- only next time, with a man at the top of the ticket.

...

That Mrs. Clinton could be defeated by the likes of Mr. Trump remains disgraceful. But Mrs. Clinton was too flawed a candidate for this disgrace to go down in history as a defeat for her gender.

Come January, Donald Trump and the Republican Party will have a great deal of power. Let's not hand them power they have not actually earned -- the power to crush the possibility that the right woman may one day become president.

Hear that, Madeleine Albright? The right woman. Speaking as a woman, we aren't just going to vote for someone because they are female. They actually have to represent the things we want. It's sexist to assume otherwise and appallingly sexist to scold women for feeling this way.