Julia made a number of critical errors that would be less likely in a man?
For a start, she allowed her inherent loyalty to a patently ill Rudd and inherent gentle empathy, to prevent her from organising a spill.
But instead, allowed party power brokers to simply tap Rudd on the shoulder and tell him that he had little or no support.
She was elected unopposed!
Why? Well, because reliable reports indicated that a workaholic micromanaging Rudd had worked himself to a standstill, had suffered some sort of overwork breakdown and that "juveniles" in his office were effectively running the country, with spectacular non-success.
Even then she remained loyal and simply spared Rudd further humiliation, by not confiding in the public her very cogent reasons for deposing Rudd; and it has cost her dearly.
Even so, she was on track for a resounding win until the leakers started leaking.
She was not assisted by the leaks, which not only cruelled her campaign, but the Labour party's future prospects as well.
The leakers apparently didn't give a rats tail pipe for the damage they inflicted on the Party's Prospects, just as long as he/she damaged Julia.
Moreover, the decidedly disingenuous shock jocks and the clearly right wing media, in some sort of primordial feeding frenzy, joined in the almost endless, entirely unfair, carping criticality.
Why? Well arguably unlike other former leaders, the "media" were unable to exert very much control over a very resolute and determined Leader, who may well go down in history as the best and fairest we have ever had?
It is said that only around 30% of the populace understand or even care about politics; that only around 30% understand economics?
Yet all elections are decided by the 40% who understand neither. And regardless of the fact that we are far and away the best led country in the world, with the best performing economy, will simply eject Julia and the party she leads?
Why? Almost entirely due to the fact that they always allow others to do all their critical thinking for them? Rhrosty.

Given that all the indicators demonstrate that, by world standards, the current government is amongst the world's best I am always bewildered by the absolute hatred being generated by both media AND MY PEERS. So I have embarked on a personal crusade to get to the bottom of this dissatisfaction and unfortunately I have discovered, much to my horror, that SEXISM is the real cause of failure to support Julia. I have argued and questioned so many of my peers (working class, middle class and welfare recipients) and the final clincher for me came from a female peer who argued that "Because she is a woman she has let us all down by LYING..." And the more I have delved into this matter it appears that, TO THOSE WHO WOULD NOT NORMALLY ASSOCIATE WITH ANY POLITICAL ACTIVITY that being "A Woman" somehow behoves a higher standard of behaviour than can be expected from us mere males. And to my astonishment this is the theme that a number of my Female Peers return to time and again as the core reason for their dissatisfaction. Those who are more politically aware seem to be under the Rudd Spell as I call it. Yes, a great person who we could all have a beer with but at the end of the day the party has elected, fairly, by the rules, Julia.So whilst I would agree that women Prime Ministers are no different, should not be treated differently or be expected to behave any differently than all in the political classes it appears that at ground level, the ballot box of us masses, there are different, sexist standards being applied.

In truth feminists like Jocelyn Scutt have cornered themselves here. They must believe that Gillard is a good leader as they are psychologically unprepared to accept her failures, because being feminists, their belief system is shattered by a flawed female leader. In fact, Gillards continuing failure as a leader is simply ignored by them and other 'causes' invented simply to keep their mythology going.

In this endeavour,the author has written a long, historically detailed, rambling piece with no apparent link to the current situation and which does not actually provide any evidence for sexism at all.

Her research actually shows that many other PMs have been treated as bad or worse by the media, yet her conclusion is, that in the same situation, Julia would have been treated worse still-no evidence, no reasoning, just a convenient conclusion.

The author is not open to the obvious. Julia Gillard is a poor leader of a dysfunctional Party. No other explanations are needed. Julia Gillard is a person and needs to be judged as one without the ideological baggage dumped on her by those who make money from stoking the fires of the gender wars.

Come off the grass Jocelyn.

It's the nasty, vindictive, spiteful, viscous, lying, untrustworthy, conniving, hateful personality we don't like. We don't actually give a dam what body you wrap around it.

Being totally incompetent doesn't help.

What ever body you put it in, when what's in side makes Keating look soft a cuddly, you've lost most of us.

Gillard makes Hanson look smart; after all Hanson just didn't know what xenophobia meant, Gillard can't even pronounce hyperbole.

I don't know how much weight you can place on sexism (or racism) when analysing media coverage of politicians because all too often these positions are a pre ordained expectations of the audience. I'm not saying they are justified, but rather, media consumption sets out particular rules and expectations and thus are genres onto themselves. They are considered to be the norm, not because they are right, and changing norms over time should be goal of fair and less misogenist media coverage of female politicians. For example Margaret Thatcher was a great media performer and was dubbed the Iron Lady. Her strength of character shifted the way media could report on her, in good and bad times. Gillard appears unwilling to truly commit to her own mantle. Instead what we get is the urban childless female lawyer who because PM. It just doesn't work.