Anonymous said: The difference is THE POLLS. It clearly showed that if Gillard stayed it was going to be a landslide loss to labour. Penny Wong even voted for Rudd to come back in because she said it had to be done to save the party otherwise the libs were going to get in at the next election. I don't think it had anything to do with gender. Why were you surprised when it happened since everyone at uni involved with labour knew weeks before the official announcement was made?
The polls is one of the reasons that the situations are almost identical. Rudd, amongst other things, was polling badly when Gillard took over from him.
I’ve answered a question very similar to this before and my answer is still the same. Gillard was not voted out by her party because of her gender. But the way that the media portrayed her and her failings were often gender-specific and this portrayal was used to manipulate public opinion against her. Thus resulting in the poor polls, thus resulting in the leadership spill.
You cannot deny that the way the media portrays Rudd is markedly different to the way it portrayed Gillard. Like another anon said, we don’t get to hear about Kevin’s fashion choices and no one makes fun of his genitals and so on. To say “I don’t think it had anything to do with gender” is naive at best and ignorant at realistic.
I’m not so much surprised that it happened, as I am angry. (And no one “knew” it was going to happen or when. Even Anthony Albanese was playing a social footy match on the day of the spill and said that if he’d known how the day would unfold he would have prepared differently for becoming deputy Prime Minister. Give them credit for some transparency.)
It makes me angry that there are people like you who turn their head away from sexism and then deny its existence because you don’t see it.
Get your head out of the sand.