The ladies aren’t seduced by Tony. The fellas aren’t charmed by Julia. This election, the nation is politically divided along gender lines.

This whole men not liking Gillard thing is a new political phenomena, says Cameron Stewart in The Australian. His justification comes from yesterday’s Newspoll results, with 42% of men dissatisfied by the PM’s performance, compared to just 33% of women. Writes Stewart:

“…as the campaign enters its second week — and the nation grapples with gender muscling its way into an election for the first time — it’s becoming clear that Julia Gillard may have an equally big problem with men. The Coalition clearly believes the Prime Minister’s problems are greater than the Opposition Leader’s, subtly playing up his status as a family man for an electorate untested on their response to an unmarried, female leader.”

Forget the men, it’s the womens’ vote that matters, writes Dennis Atkins in The Courier-Mail: “What lies behind the fascination with any differences in the way women vote is that in a tight election, like in this contest, a point or two this way or that will matter.”

But women shouldn’t vote for Gillard just because she’s female, because “what has Gillard done for women — except for being one?” asks Susie O’Brien in The Herald Sun.

Like it or lump it, Gillard’s gender does make a difference in this campaign, says Simon Benson in The Daily Telegraph:

“Voters perhaps, contrary to the way they would normally approach a ballot box, are for the first time be conscious of history and the possibility that they could indeed be responsible for the first serving female prime minister being counted among the country’s shortest serving. That more than a desire to simply see a woman in the Lodge is what might be behind this so called “female factor” that is propping up Gillard’s popularity at the moment and not the absurd notion that anyone will vote for her just because she is a woman.”

Are voters frightened of a non-traditional leader? According to Phillip Coorey in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Liberals are certainly hoping so. “Senior Liberals have been backgrounding the media against Ms Gillard, saying her single, childless status and her atheism were problems among more conservative voters and should be highlighted,” he writes.

But the Liberals have their own strong unmarried female leader. And Julie Bishop is making herself known this election — “…if Julia can do it, Julie reckons she can too. Just differently,” says Malcolm Farr in The Daily Telegraph.

This election is seeing a different type of politician and political family. Margie Abbott, Tony’s wife, made her first brief appearance on the campaign trail yesterday. She’s not expected to be a regular feature. Gillard also fought off questions about where her partner Tim Mathieson was, with Gillard pointing out: “He is not a Labor Party official, he’s not a candidate or a minister, so you won’t see him out on the campaign trail.”

It is becoming awkward for Gillard, say Tom Arup and Kirsty Needham in The Age:

“The juxtaposition has finally become unavoidable. In Brisbane, Tony Abbott — who spoke of himself as a family man at Sunday’s televised leaders’ debate — was accompanied by his wife, Margie, as he surrounded himself with children at a childcare centre. In Tasmania, Julia Gillard ventured forth without her partner, Tim Mathieson, who hasn’t been sighted on the hustings since the campaign began more than a week ago.”

Partners on the campaign trail are a whole different ballgame now, but it just reflects society, writes Michelle Grattan in The Age:

“On both sides, it’s a far cry from campaigns of yesteryear, when wives were accessories, seen (though not heard) most of the time. Here we have a working wife making (reluctantly, one feels) cameo appearances, and a partner glimpsed fleetingly. Abbott is trying to distinguish himself as more ‘family’ than Gillard, but he has to keep it subtle. Remember when Liberals poked fun at Gillard’s empty fruit bowl? She had the last laugh on that one.”

Meanwhile, Gillard can’t escape the constant belittling comments about her appearance, including one of the oddest news articles we’ve seen so far in this campaign, focused on Gillard’s apparently large ears. Kate Legge in The Oz says Gillard’s lobes were the most memorable part of the debate:

“Jokes tumbled into the blogosphere with digs at ‘The Lober Party’ and disbelief that such ‘epic’ pouches of skin could have gone unnoticed until now. There’s no law of physics to explain the phenomenon but once a limp or a scar or a tic is pointed out to an audience, that small thing becomes magnified to the exclusion of everything else. For those fixated on Gillard’s ears, she’ll soon start to resemble Star Trek’s Dr Spock.”

It’s not just the ears, the wardrobe and hair criticism also continue unabated.

Gillard’s hair is a warning device to the opposition: “When she has it coloured you just know that something is afoot,” writes Georgina Safe in The Oz. But the wardrobe is improving: “Gillard’s drab and often unflattering wardrobe choices seemed to say, ‘don’t look as me as a woman’. But since she became Australia’s first female prime minister, Gillard is embracing more confident and colourful attire,” says Safe.

From gender wars to questions over partners and childish squabbling, it’d be nice to have some criticism over actual policy. Tim Colebatch in The Age agrees:

“Climate and immigration policies go to ruin while Gillard and Abbott bicker.”