The major tide-turning point against Gillard was the media’s handling of the carbon ‘tax’ affair. Instead of investigating the issue to ascertain what was really being said and done, the media backed Abbot’s version all the way.

It relentlessly cheered on his lies about a carbon ‘tax’ and portrayed them as truth. In stark contrast, it relentlessly smeared Gillard’s honesty about a carbon price mechanism (which she publicly advocated pre-election) and portrayed it as a lie about a carbon ‘tax’ (which it never was and still isn’t).

The jury is out on whether or not the media’s lies about Gillard and the carbon ‘tax’ would have sunk a male politician to the same degree. As males are raised to be competitive, there is a tendency to condone, even encourage, lying in men as a regrettable necessity in getting what they want on the path to success. For females, however, who are raised to be agreeable and compliant, lying in women is viewed as a manipulative and deviant perversity.

Saddest of all is that most of the misogyny against Gillard over the carbon ‘tax’, and just about everything else she did, came from women – most of them, I suspect, venting their inner rage against Julia for all the success she achieved and which they squandered from too much complying and agreeing.

That's just silly. Howard/Peacock/Howard/Downer/Howard and almost Costello were derided for years over their behaviour and many never forgave Keating over Hawke.

It is nothing to do with her being a bloody woman, it is her disgusting divisive policies that should never have implemented.

What a crock of special pleading drivel, a "comedy" reality show using her actions as a plot would not filmed as it would be too far fetched. She is a hopeless failure and has only survived in the fake world of "Emily Listed" Labor patronage, her only "real" job she was sacked from "for cause" related to, as she said, "slush funds".

Howard was and is far more abused even though he saved us from the GFC, not that pretender Rudd. Rudd et al just had to spend the money in one of the few countries with a robust banking system and no debt. Initially writing cheques that were paid for by Howard and Costello but now, of most concern being run up on the kids credit card. Money for schools, hospitals frittered away on repayment and interest.

Marilyn

They were derided, yes, but not by those who wield the major influence over public opinion. Howard, in particular, lied his arse off over just about everything - from the GST to the Iraq war to the real reasons for the NT Intervention (which had nothing to do with child abuse).

Yet the mainstream media, even the ABC, pretended to look the other way. Year in, year out Howard could do no wrong. It was only the lefty blogs and rags with much smaller readerships that took him to task.

The media also vastly overrated the Howard-Costello management of the economy, pretending to ignore the revenue windfalls of the Howard era - especially from the GST, the unnecessary privatizations and the worldwide financial boom - while they seriously depleted funding for infrastructure, transport, health, education, social programs and the environment. Again, only the smaller publications and blogs pointed this out.

Yet Gillard has been blasted and derided for every single decision her government has made under her watch, more often than not for decisions that are sound, wise and sensible for the nation.

Whether this howling double standard is over gender or anti-Labor media bias – or (as I suspect) a combination of both – is debatable. But there is definitely a double standard being practised and it’s well past time the Australian electorate woke up to how they are being manipulated.

I loathed Howard but on racism and human rights Gillard is worse.

Now I reckon in my opinion that being dressed in effigy as a dog licking Bush's balls is far more revolting than being asked if your boyfriend is gay because male hair dressers are gay.

I think accusing a whole class of men who wear blue as those who would silence women and destroy their reproductive rights is an obscenity.

Gillard's downfall was certainly related to gender, but not in any simple goodies vs baddies way. It seems to me that:

* If Gillard had been male, some of her male colleagues would have been more ready to tell her to 'pull her head in' and 'get real' when her ideologically-inflated ego became too obtrusive. Perhaps if there had been more women at a high level in the Labor Party they would have performed the same function; perhaps not.

* If Gillard had been a man surrounded by men -- or a woman surrounded by women -- she might have felt less like a special figure singled out for leadership, and more like the first among equals. This might have prevented some of her more egregious blunders.

* If Gillard had been male she would presumably have been less fixated on the gender issue which -- whatever its merits as an argument -- was clearly a major vote-loser for the electorate.

It's unfortunate that we can't re-create the situation for research purposes with a single male leader largely surrounded by female supporters, and see if that works out in a similar way, but I don't know of any parliament in the world where that is the case yet (Scandinavia, perhaps?). But whatever Gillard's gender-related flaws happened to be, they were surely exacerbated by her choice to surround herself with deferential and essentially second-rate men.