A sound analysis,thank you Cheryl.
The respect due to the Prime Minister and other Ministers in her government is so lacking in the Parliament and I the mainstream press that I stand in admiration of the PM and the independents who have won the vote EVERY sitting day against Tony Abbott and passed 400+ pieces of legislation.

That's character, negotiation and focus on purpose that make me proud of Julia Gillard as Australia's PM.

Excellent piece. One part really got me thinking:

" female elected representatives also have to pass the good housekeeping seal of approval: a good mother, a good cook, a great family organiser and juggler of competing commitments"

Where does this idea that politicians have to be 'perfect' come from? Why is it that we, or the media, or campaign insiders, decide the best person for the job has to have a perfectly clean personal life, stable family, no past slip-ups or seedy behaviour in their youth, etc?

In all honesty, I vote for someone because I want them to do a job, not because I think they'd be good role models or want others to emulate them. That job requires them to understand evidence, the current attitudes and ethos of a population, and bigger global trends in order to put in place the best policy possible. Really, when you think about it why should their personal life matter at all?

You're right that female politicians seem to get it worse. As well as trying to stop this, maybe we should be questioning the whole underlying issue of politicians personal lives coming under scrutiny. Personally, I'd much prefer their professional capabilities and work performance coming under more scrutiny!

"So much so that in the debate to have the Speaker removed he said “another day of shame for a government which should already have died of shame". A disgraceful echo of Alan Jones' recent words about Julia Gillard’s father."

So you're suggesting that Abbott has only used this phrase SINCE Jones used it?

"Female politicians are judged as women first and politicians second". So then, why is Abbott judged as a Catholic first and a politician second? And, by the way, Slipper's comments are those of a gay person (they view hetero-females with arrogant disrespect, as 'breeders'), so we need to invent a new 'gender' here, don't we?
I rather that Abbott becomes PM, at least we have a fair idea of his values; even if one doesn't agree with some of them, at least we know where we stand. Labor has become such a sly and culturally oppressive government, most likely because they are hanging out with the Greens. The howls of political-correctness-hounds are deafening and, quite frankly, frightening.

Is there a method that can be used to know what can be believed, and what can be regarded as anecdotal, hearsay, propaganda or feminist misinformation?

Where are the statistics and referenced research?

"Women in positions of political leadership are often a challenge to the ingrained cultural, sexist assumptions that in order to be considered competent, female elected representatives also have to pass the good housekeeping seal of approval: a good mother, a good cook, a great family organiser and juggler of competing commitments."

Where are the statistics and referenced research?

"Female politicians are judged as women first and politicians second. For men it’s always the opposite"

Where are the statistics and referenced research?

"No male Prime Minister has had this level of deeply personal abuse aimed at him."

What a repugnant morass of dishonesty and smear this is.

Ms Kernot, that you could present this, in this organ, as a piece of objective journalism rather that admit it is what it is, a party political smear job which gives only a passing nod towards honesty is an appalling indictment to The Conversation.

So Tony Abbott once stood in front of someone elses sign? Really? And this brands him as a misogynist? Really? As a long time left wing political activist am I to assume you never, ever, in your entire career, attended a gathering of any sort where a signwas shown, or an opinion expressed, espousing sentiments you might disagree with just a tad?

No?

Really?

You approved every sentiment expressed, every sign displayed, at every meeting, demonstration, gathering you ever attended?

Was the groupthink at every single gathering really that homogenous?

Excuse me if I say what utter twaddle.

As to the big arse comment. Which misogynist made that remark? Would it have damaged your thesis that much if you had acknowledged it was Germaine Greer, that doyen of both leftism and feminism?

Well, actually, yes. It would have destroyed it.

I charge you with being, by failing to mention the source of this comment, a member of the rentamob spewing bile and deceit, knowingly seeking to smear where honest words wouldn’t have achieved the effect you were after.

Your fourth paragraph was a mass of assertions, with one single factual statement in the fifth seeking to justify them.

Your comments about the unpleasant nature of the deep nasty and personal attacks in politics today. You mention one name, associated with one incident. The name being that of an opponent from the other side of politics of course. There is no mention of the unutterably vile abuse which is spewed by your side at their opponents on close to a daily basis. For you to have mentioned that would have been to admit that your team is, without question, the premier player in the premier league, a league with only member. No one, and I truly mean no one, has the stomach to match what comes, not just from the Gillard Government, but from Cabinet, on a regular basis.

But implying it comes from the libs is all just part of the gameplan which you are following with this disgraceful pretence at journalism.

“No male Prime Minister has had this level of deeply personal abuse aimed at him.”

So you slept during the Howard years then?
How was John Howard described? An unflushable….?

I am sorry, but that is such an absurd statement it doesn’t deserve the courtesy of rebuttal.

“another day of shame for a government which should already have died of shame". A disgraceful echo of Alan Jones' recent words about Julia Gillard’s father.”

We both know this comment by Mr Abbott is nothing more than the standard knockabout stuff that you can hear in any Australian Parliament any day of the week. ‘shame’ is a word that politicians on all sides buy by the dozen gross and fling about with gay abandon. The disgrace is that you, still, are choosing to use Ms Gillards fathers death to political advantage.

I have heard similar to it time and time again, give it a rest.

“Sexism, misogyny and deeply personal nasty comments have no place in the parliaments of our nation where a tone of respect and civility ought to prevail”

So what we heard in Parliament yesterday was the Prime Minister spewing smears and bile at the Leader of the Opposition, while at the same time defending a real honest to god misogynist in one of the most important positions in the Australian State.

So long as the Prime Minister sets the tone in this way, while demonstrating via her actions her ongoing contempt for the principles her mouth is advocating, I can’t see any possibility of change.

“Yesterday, it was time for the Prime Minister to confront the orchestrated sexist attacks on her.”

Drivel. No such attacks were made. This is just another, yet another, of those smears which government supporters need, given how rotten this government is. Rotten from the top down.

“And she did so. Impressively.”

She made a fool of herself. She abandoned any principle she might try and kid herself she still adheres to, and spent the last dregs of what little political capital she may still have possessed in defending the truly indefensible.

“In my view the damage has its origins in the Liberal-National coalition members’ and supporters’ refusal to accept the outcome of the last election.”

In a parliamentary democracy it is the unquestionable right of any citizen to act to oppose the government as they see fit. When it comes to the Opposition in Parliament, it is their job to do so, to keep the government on its toes and expose waste, malice, incompetence or fraud - if it is detected. That this opposition, if strong enough or the government weak enough, could bring down the government is a reasonable and acceptable part of the system. That you question the exercise of this right by people you dislike is a matter of concern.

How dare you imply that people have some sort of obligation to support this government in all it does. Whether the government is a model of integrity, or as rotten to the core as the Gillard one, everyone has the right to oppose it. Your opinion on that matter is not just wrong, but contrary to the very principle any democrat should support, by virtue of being a democrat.

As to the issue in general, that this foul government should seek to smear, deceive and lie without compunction is the basis of my contempt. That Ms Gillard is female is of no importance to me. That she, on one hand, and honesty, integrity and probity, on the other, are complete strangers to one another is the basis of my judgement.

As to misogyny, well, you paint the political disputes as about her sex, They aren’t, they are about her character, and there she is severely wanting. That you seek to shield her from attack because she is a girl, and shouldn't be spoken to like that, is a reflection of your approach, not that of any other. I respect Ms Gillard enough to believe I can judge her without her sex being an issue. You clearly don’t. You, I am afraid, are the contemptuous sexist in this matter.

As to Mr Abbott, if in order to attack him the government, and its supporters, need to lie and vilify with baseless smears, instead of attacking with demonstrable facts, then there can’t be much wrong with him.

If you, and the government you support, wish to continue with the bilious and malicious smears, there is little that can be done to prevent it. However, consider, why should anyone believe anything coming from a dishonest, deceitful, duplicitous, vicious, venal, vituperative, vile, venomous, misogynist, misandrous and misanthropic shower like that?

Great work Cheryl.

It's about time we got some civility and respect back in politics.

This asinine article isn't about principle at all, it is about the side you are on.

"And no male mining executive has had his “big arse” discussed on a national television panel"

True, but remember how conservative, job creating, female mining executive Gina Rinehart was vilified in the most blatantly sexist manner, not least for her size, on Q&A? It wasn't her bum they talked about, it was her entire self.

Mention of that doesn't do much for your one sided whining, does it? But hey, that was Reinhart being abused, and giggling lefties doing the abuse, so that's all ok then, isn't it? Like Germaine Greer making the original 'big arse' comment, it doesn't need to be mentioned, might upset your fantasy narrative about the nasty misogynists on the right. No one needs to hear about the oh so real nasty misogynists on the left do they?