Framing is a well-known concept among academics and political campaigners alike. People react differently to issues and events depending on the 'frame' through which they are viewed.
Even some of our best observers of the Canberra scene like Laura Tingle and Lenore Taylor felt obliged to devote end-of-the-week column space to a justification of the negative reporting of Canberra by the Gallery and others in the media.
Tingle and Taylor argue that the speech must be seen in 'context'. The context they refer to here is their frame as political journalists. What matters is not big, society-wide, issues like sexism or misogyny, but the parliamentary contest in Canberra. Describe it as you will the insider game, the horse race - it is this context that requires the special expertise of your political correspondent to interpret for the non-specialist.
To outsiders this context is far too narrow and has been described by Anne Summers amongst many others as a 'bubble'.
Beyond the verdant lawns of the parliamentary triangle the speech tended to be seen in the context of society at large and women's everyday experience of sexism. See Julia Baird's article.
Whether or not you thought Gillard's speech was one of the best speeches ever made in federal parliament, and long overdue, depends a lot on whether your frame is the daily cut and thrust of federal politics or the broader canvas of sexism.
Viewpoints, and frames, are unlikely to change too soon. As Upton Sinclair famously said it is very difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.