Surely this must rank as yet another victory for the boy's club of diplomacy, a case where female candidates chasing a position of power are judged in a manner different from male peers.

And isn't the very same thing happening with Hillary Clinton in her bid for the White House?

After all, in the 70-year history of the UN, no woman has ever been in charge. Britain's ambassador Matthew Rycroft was eager to see that changed when the search began last year for the next leader.

No ambassador would make a public statement of this type without careful instructions from home.

The exact same sentiment was echoed by Ban Ki-moon calling for a woman to replace him as Secretary General next year as recently as August. And more than 50 countries pledged support for public campaign known as #She4SG.

So we've gone from potent agreement that it's "high time" for a woman, with a trial of an unprecedented process meant to bestow transparency and fairness in the selection, involving public debates and candidate interviews, to the eventual outcome:

Portugal's Antonio Guterres has been formally confirmed by acclamation of the Security Council.

Guterres, a former prime minister, who went on to run a major UN agency, is doubtlessly qualified to do the job.

As was Helen Clark, New Zealand's former PM, who later ran a major UN agency.

Or Irina Bokova, once Bulgaria's foreign minister, who had run a major UN agency.

Or one of five other impressive women who nominated for the job.

For all the talk about breaking glass ceilings and allowing the UN to champion a "Women Peace and Security" agenda, it's the same old story.

"Maybe next time, said feminists the world over - again," says Laura Shepherd from the University of NSW and a specialist in gender politics and international relations.

Shepherd makes the obvious point women are forced to confront.

"Authority and power accrue in the body of white men," she tells Fairfax Media. Women are always judged against a higher standard, against assessments of "wisdom" or "gravitas".

"Not only that they can do the job, but do the job better."

Hillary Clinton is being forced to leap this hurdle, confronted with a buffon in Donald Trump, who is cheered, perversely, for those rare moments he doesn't do something nutty.

But Trump can sing sotto voce sexism by questioning the "stamina" and presidential look of Clinton.

To paraphrase Julia Gillard, for women seeking power, gender isn't everything, it isn't nothing.

There is no doubt a heavy dose of power politics and national rivalry involved in the decision to appoint Guterres. But the notion he has been selected because of his work with refugees is nonsense - the UN agenda is far too crowded for a single issue of the moment to determine its course.

Let's also deal with the matter of geography. Kevin Rudd joked, while pretending not to be seeking the role for himself, because his name was not "Ruddovich", he wouldn't have a chance anyway.

What he meant was the UN tradition of rotating the selection of Secretary-General's from the geographic blocs that divide the organisation.

Eastern Europe has never had a turn.

That would have been a form of affirmative action, deliberately selecting a particularly type of candidate to ensure equity.

The countries on the Security Council decided to buck this tradition anyway.

Instead, they took the predictable path, to once again ignore half the population of the world.