Scales' conclusion is also ironic, as Abbott's women problem hasn't previously been linked to a perception that he's too focused on "male issues." Quite the contrary. Abbott's brand of conservatism gravitates to the feminised turf of families, relationships, matters of the heart and body. This is how he got under women's noses in the first place, with his anti-abortion activism, his professed disapproval of no-fault divorce, contraception and pre-marital sex, his repeated gaffes that cast women in the kitchen. This was the difference between the lycra-clad Abbott and the other testosterone-soaked political leaders who have rubbed women the wrong way. Occasional "shirt-fronting" rhetoric notwithstanding, Abbott really isn't a man's man. Former colleagues Peter Costello and John Hewson talked down his economic credentials. On his own admission, he's no "tech-head." Compared to the bare-knuckled industrial relations warriors in the Coalition ranks, Abbott is distinctly vegetarian. Meanwhile his speeches on the Great War and his reintroduction of Knights and Dames suggest a cultural legacy biased toward mother England, a mindset more sentimental than hard-headed.

When he took over as Opposition Leader in 2009, I wrote that he stirred up "weird, confusing and deliciously compelling emotions in the fairer sex."

Alas what might be tantalising during courtship, fades quickly after we close the deal. Once Abbott became Prime Minister our attention turned to the daily grind. So to that mound of dirty socks then. Abbott's remark that axing the carbon tax was his top achievement for women because "women are particularly focused on the household budget and the repeal of the carbon tax means a $550 a year benefit for the average family," was justifiably lampooned as sexist. But as some commentators have pointed out it also happens to be true that women generally assume responsibility for household spending and the weekly budget. And this is where Abbott's analysis is upside down and dismissive of human nature.

Assuming for current purposes that women are indeed grateful for the tax's repeal, that gratitude doesn't take things very far. Once pain is gone, it's gone. The memory of that pain, and the relief at its passing, rarely lingers. Our attention is swiftly turned to avoiding more pain, to assessing threats on the horizon.

Perhaps this is why women – their eye on the household budget – feel their standard of living has declined over the past year and that the economic outlook is grey. For many women, the background noise is financial insecurity: mortgages are large, child care fees keep rising, their labour force participation is lower than men's, their pay lower too and a disproportionate number work as casuals with limited entitlements and no job security. Against this pervasive uncertainty comes the Government mantra that the age of entitlement is over, its assertion that families shouldn't expect to see the doctor for free (the JWS analysis was completed before the Government repackaged their price signal for GP visits), that students should bear more of the cost of a university education, that young people who struggle to find work shouldn't expect immediate assistance.