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.

Jocelynne,

'Neither party room nor caucus members are 'faceless'. They are seen and heard almost daily on Senate and House of Representatives broadcasts. Many (some may believe too many) are seen, heard or read about in other media coverage.'

I take it from this that you are suggesting Gillard wasn't installed by an all male group which included five union heavies and party apparaciks: Bitar, Marles, Farrell, Ludwig and Howes as well as three elected representatives Shorten, Arbib and Feeney?

And if you don't think they controlled the factional elected representatives you'd be quite wrong. It's been reported in the media, at least once ... without denial.

The electorate clearly resented and still resents their interference in knifing Kevvy the elected PM and consquently, because they are not all elected and some are clearly faceless, we cannot punish them. So the electorate sees Julia Gillard's ascension as illegitimate. Her subsequent performance at lying to the electorate, the betrayal of the electorate with the purchase of the support from Windsor and Oakshott and the endorsement of Thomson as tainted and the unfolding disgraceful scandal surrounding he and Fair Work are all contributing to her current unpopularity and the Labor Party's 30% standing in the polls.

The only sexist thing about all this ... well look at this comment ... there is only one female mentioned, excluding of course those women used by Thomsopn (alledgely)

And that situation Jocelynne can only be laid entirely at the feet of Gillard and the Australian Labor Party, not K. Rudd, Tony Abbott, The Liberal National coalition, the media nor the wider community.

Her predicament is her own and that of her faceless men.

I think, sometimes, we are too quick to play the sexism card when sticking up for our PM. While it's natural to observe that she's a woman, that isn't necessarily the reason for the public attitude towards her. The author lists quite a number of scenarios in which parties have determined their own leaders, but I don't know that any of these situations are equivalent to the one in which we find ourselves now. I suspect that it's the legitimacy of our government first and foremost that comes under scrutiny; the issue of leadership is secondary. I don't know that gender even comes into it.

Why is the legitimacy of our government questioned?

1) At the 2010 election, the ALP didn't win a majority of seats. They won 72 seats - equal to the Liberals, the Nationals and the LNP's total.

2) In first preference results, the ALP didn't win a majority of votes. They totalled 4,711,363 votes compared to the opposition's 5,370,295.

3) In a two-party preferred race, they had a lead of about 31,000 votes.

4) It came down to a couple of independents to decide who would hold power. This is in keeping with our democratic process, but surely it can be accepted that many would object. Many would also argue that, with the fate of the nation in their hands, the independents should have swung the other way (though, of course, there are valid arguments that they made the right choice). I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

5) Since the election, polling has consistently shown that the government is out of favour.

With all these factors in play, it is reasonable for the media - and the public - to throw a couple of scenarios out. How could things have turned out differently? would the ALP have polled better with a different leader? Can they survive with Gillard at the helm? Would Rudd be a more popular choice? Carr? Swan?

Maybe I'm naive, but I have a feeling that a Julian Gillard in the same position as Julia Gillard would face the same questions.

I should add that, despite my dissatisfaction with our current government, I don't endorse such questions of its legitimacy. It's the way our system works and, as such, what I have to live with. I've lived under much worse systems. My suggestions in the previous post are simply reasons why the legitimacy could be questioned and people could reasonably demand answers.

" There will be no carbon tax under the Govt I lead." There has been nothing but a litany of lies, incompetence and deception ever since.

It was election fraud,just a bad as rigging an election.

The debauchery of sexism directed towards Australia’s Prime Minister from News Ltd’s blatantly discriminatory and soon to be outlawed board of fifteen men and a sole woman, encouraged by a culpable and profoundly incompetent to govern opposition, is unquestionable. If women prime ministers weren’t different from men prime ministers women would never have been discriminated against in achieving the office of prime minister in the first place, as women were for centuries. It follows that ultimately, a male vote for a female candidate to the office of prime minister, and a female vote for a male candidate to the office of prime minister (or a judgement delivered by a male judge to a female defendant or by a female judge to a male defendant for that matter) is delivered from the basis of guesswork as to integrity, intention and ability. It’s precisely this guesswork into which governance has collapsed in the transition from male privilege to parity. The only truly equitable approach to parliamentary leadership is the appointment of conjoint male and female prime ministers, as with the vanguard National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, which takes premium advantage of the differences women and men bring to leadership. As to whether Ms Gillard should respond in like-manner, I would advise her to avoid the privilege driven rhetoric emanating from the mouths of members of my gender, as she should, as is obvious she has in achieving the extraordinary reforms and brilliant economic management she and her colleagues have, if exhibited by members of her own.

Please whistler, putting thoughts of debauchery, & Gillard in the same post makes a man's blood run cold.

Sum things are just too unpleasant to contemplate.

No.

Yes Hasbeen, it's frightfully difficult subject matter but some of us struggle through.

"she has in achieving the extraordinary reforms and brilliant economic management she and her colleagues have, if exhibited by members of her own."

You are obviously delusional.

Thanks for your insightful and succinctly argued repost cohenite, touché!

If Jocelynne can't see that it is Labour that is toxic she should go back to the drawing board. Ms Gillard along with Ms Bligh and Ms Keneally lead a party of very suspect characters. Look at the number of court cases and gaoling of ex Labour Ministers albeit state. Then we have MsGillard protecting trade unionist with at the leat questionable characters.Stop crying wolf and open your eyes.

"Then we have MsGillard protecting trade unionist with at the leat questionable characters."

Ms Gillard has her own 'trade unionist' skeletons:

http://tex2.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form=VicHansard.dumpall&startpage=52&origquery&query=%28+data+contains+%27ALLAN%27+or+data+contains+%27ALLAN%27+%29+and+%28+members+contains+%27ALLAN%27+or+members+contains+%27ALLAN%27+%29&db=hansard91&dodraft=0&speech=10321&mem_selected=LEIGH&activity=Grievances&title=AWU%3A+funds&date1=28&date2=February&date3=2001

Too many fail to understand the feminist position. Women are to be immune from any criticism. Failure or wrongdoing on the part of any woman is the fault of the nearest male. In the absence of a proximate male scapegoat all fault devolves to men collectively.