The missing vital cog

In last weekend’s Australian, Angela Shanahan writes about the hypocritical positions taken by women’s magazines regarding marriage (Shanahan, 2012). She is to be congratulated for an honest look at what feminism actually does, rather than what it proclaims.

She notes that these periodicals promote

…insouciant treatments of lesbian partnerships, promiscuity for both sexes, and mouthing of empty feminism, as they wallow in the latest shrill accusation of misogyny from the Prime Minister…

She then goes contrast this with the sector’s fascination with the latest royal pregnancy, noting that “their biggest bucks are actually made from the aspiration to something as sweetly traditional as a white wedding and a first baby.”

It has to be good for the men’s movement when statements like these are made in the mainstream media by a leading journalist:

But still the wearying “you can have it all” mantra of Helen Gurley Brown is cynically fed to a naive love-hungry readership. The magazine industry’s archly superior view from the metropolitan heights is steeped in callow sexual mores and bathed in the righteous glow of empty feminist ideology.

There is a lot to Shanahan’s insights into marriage. I think that the term “traditional marriage” refers to a time that never was, but certainly have to agree with Shanahan’s view:

Because marriage and family are not made in heaven; they are made on earth of hard slog and values like unselfishness and scrupulous sexual fidelity of both partners.

No, the real world should not impose on their princesses-in-waiting. These publications thrive on what Peter Allamano dubbed The Bold, Independent Woman of Today (Allamano, 2012). These BIWOTs are beautiful, elegant, confident, strong women. Of course, these women cannot possibly be this way on their own. It can only come as a result of purchasing the various advertised products.

A woman who is not salon-perfect, painted, jewellery adorned, perfumed, deodorized and sanitized is not a real woman.  And even with all the gunk on her face and body she is not complete. She needs all the relationship advice books she can get, and the accompanying keep-fit DVD. And, of course, be familiar with all the latest feminist thought on why more women should be running major corporations on a part-time, single-parent friendly basis.

But she’s also reminded that with the wrong accessory or last season’s colours she will instantly lose the dream. They both feed the neurosis and offer the cure, which only fuels the next day’s neurosis.

Shanahan rightly points out that this view of women, and many women’s acceptance and conformance to this view, is actually bad for women. What happens, she says, is that young women, caught between the impossible fantasies of the fairy tale wedding and the sex-in-the-city you-go-grrl with a new man every week, essentially gives up any thoughts of marriage and just has children anyway. Often, this is to multiple fathers.

“None of this is good for the children, and it’s disastrous for women who lurch from one bad relationship to the next.”

Shanahan is on the money with these statements, but is still a red-pill short of reality. There is one vital cog missing in the rose-coloured picture of bliss.

Yes, I’m talking about the lucky guy. Him who is waiting for her royalness at the alter. Him, whose complete ensemble including wedding ring, monkey suit and haircut cost less than her left shoe. He who gets a walk on part on her special day.


According to these magazines, men only exist, in an almost cardboard cut out form, to fulfill these fantasies. For her, he has to be rich, even royal, handsome, strong, passionate, faithful, kind and environmentally aware.

For him, she just has to be herself.

Of course, by “herself” they mean with all the aforementioned products so professionally administered that he-who-hardly-matters is convinced she has that natural look.

Take Woman’s Day’s own view of The Royal Couple of the Hour, or Wills and Kate as we who like to pretend we are on familiar terms call them.

For Kate, she “…will not only become the wife of Prince William, she will also take on the new title of Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge (Woman’s Day, 2012)”. Implied in the titles, of course, are the palaces, estates, servants and a credit card that never runs out.

As for William,

… more attention is being paid to one of Kate Middleton’s most stunning qualities – her hair.

Yes, the marriage literally changes Kate’s life in every imaginable sense. William gets a wife with hair.

But, I am also talking about those “multiple fathers” that Shanahan mentions almost in passing. Yes, the sperm donors. Passion with a wannabe goddess supposedly on the pill, and it only costs 18 years of child support.

For after all, what are multiple fathers if they are not a means for a BIWOT to diversify her income streams?

Some real fortunate guys actually marry her majesty, pay for the horrendously expensive wedding, the exorbitant honeymoon, her legal fees for the divorce, alimony and child support. All in one blissful package.

There is an extra special something that befalls a chosen few: False accusations of abusing her and the kids.

And, in almost every one of these never-to-be-forgotten romances, the woman will have hair.

There’s no mention at all that some of these men might, in fact, have their hearts broken. Not because her magnificence no longer deigns him suitable, but because he can’t see the kids he loves. Those kids who also love him.

I’ll be the first to agree that all of this is bad for the children. There is no doubt in my mind that is bad for the women who slavishly seek fulfilment through constant use of Creme de Foreskin.

Yes, it is even bad for women in general.

I can’t help pointing out, though, that it is also very, very bad for men.

So, it seems Angela Shanahan and others are starting out on a path. They have noticed the smell and are prising open the lid. Even though we’re still not getting much of a mention, her forthright condemnation of feminism has to be good for men in the long run.

For this she should be congratulated.



Allamano, P. (2012). The Bold Independent Woman of Today and the Good Men and Boys in Her Life. Retrieved December 10, 2012, from New Male Studies:

Shanahan, A. (2012, December 8). When the marital fairytale wreaks havoc. Retrieved December 9, 2012, from The Australian:

Woman’s Day. (2012). Royals. Retrieved December 9, 2012, from Woman’s Day:


About Jim Muldoon

Jim Muldoon is an Australian men's human rights activist and Australian Editor for AVfM. He is an advocate for the equal rights and responsibilities for men and women.

View All Posts

Support us by becoming a member

AVFM depends on readers like you to help us pay expenses related to operations and activism. If you support our mission, please subscribe today.

Join or donate

Sponsored links

  • JJ

    “But still the wearying “you can have it all” mantra of Helen Gurley Brown is cynically fed to a naive love-hungry readership. The magazine industry’s archly superior view from the metropolitan heights is steeped in callow sexual mores and bathed in the righteous glow of empty feminist ideology.”

    WOW! Well ladies, here is a word salad for you; grab your favorite word dressing of choice and eat up!

    When talented writer like that who is female, starts writing comments like that; the lowest levels of feminist hell must be able hear the bell toll.

    I wonder if they are listening?

    Watch the Australian FTSU!

    • James

      She does have a wonderful turn of phrase, doesn’t she?

  • 4thtroika

    Every little bit helps.

  • John A

    Great article Jim, but don’t forget that Prince William had to do his military service, while the princesses just need to look pretty, after all, they are the real hair to the throne! (pun intended)

  • Merlin

    “As for William, more attention is being paid to one of Kate Middleton’s most stunning qualities – her hair.”

    I have to say that this is classic media bias. I really have to tune out, (majority of the time) from this predominant narrative on behalf of the feminine demographic. No offence to the decent, non-self absorbed ladies.

    It does get rather tiresome though, to listen to this rhetoric, daily, (yawn).

  • AntZ

    Clever, profound, insightful. And powerful (in a TyphonBlue kind of way).

    Welcome, and may you continue to paint compelling visions with your keyboard.

  • JinnBottle

    Superb article, Jim – and the article you quoted extensively has some possibility, too.

    I think Marriage (hetero marriage, anyway) has become as anachronistic as the Friendly Letter. It’s dead, it’s just that It just doesn’t know it yet. I can’t help but think of Paul’s adage about “getting the toothpaste back in the tube” when I think of (Women &)Marriage these days.

    Yes, the death of marriage has some sad, even ominous aspects to it (I think here of Girl Writes What’s highlighting of pair-bonding as a weapon of leverage for humans since homosapiens began): But, as wives were so fond of saying to their soon-to-be-exes in the 70s, “I think we need some time apart.” Like…until further notice.

    • Kukla

      I agree. Marriage(hetero) is so overrated and useless. I’m glad to see it is slowly coming to an end(hopefully). Then men and women can truly live free from the stress and from each other. Maybe the idea of a Utopia isn’t so farfetched after all.

      As for the whole “pair-bonding” stuff, no matter what ‘science’ I see about it I just can’t believe in it. I just don’t see humans as a pair bonding species. This is one area of science I’m skeptical about.

  • Aimee McGee

    How can we have it all? To be good at something takes an investment of time, and you can’t stick more than 24 hours in a day.
    I still get the odd snide “you are so selfish not having children” – and I am proud to say I am selfish – selfish enough to realise I can’t be both a career woman and a mother as I would want to be for a child of mine. So I’ve selfishly made the choice to do one thing and do it well.
    And “me time” – well if doing community service is me time, I guess I really am a selfish old bat.

  • Booyah

    Oh, she called a contractor instead of the coroner for marriage. Thats so cute in a necrophillic sort of way. I felt that feminism could use a new anagram as well, so I came up with Bold Independent Girl of Today. BIGOT for short.

    It’s great to see mainstream media coverage of these things to some degree. However in every case I’ve seen its been done by pointing out the disadvantages to women. Which still leaves half the problem not even stated. Maybe in this sad day and age this is the only way it can done. I guess at least its moving in the right direction slowly.

  • scatmaster

    I felt that feminism could use a new anagram as well so I came up with Bold Independent Girl of Today. BIGOT for short.

    I am going to copyright that if you don’t.


    • Booyah

      TM 2012 MRM & AVfM.
      lol. public license now :)

  • Tawil

    “And, in almost every one of these never-to-be-forgotten romances, the woman will have hair.”

    Unfortunately, rather than understanding the tragedy in this picture, your article probably just created a run on hair products at the local salon.

    Aside from that, good to see Shanahan getting real, and a great article from you Mr. Muldoon – I hope you write some more on the fiasco of modern relationships!

    • Bev

      Actually she quietly has been chipping away at feminism and female privilege for quite a while and has drawn fire from feminists because of it.


    Hmm still mainstream corporate media….

  • harrywoodape

    Great Shannon. Thanks. Brave and right.

  • Bev

    Accepting rejection from a parent
    Date December 12, 2012 – 8:42AM
    Kasey Edwards

    The article Says many fathers regect their children (bad dads).
    An excerpt:

    “Research shows that girls’ and women’s relationships with their fathers suffer much more after divorce than their relationship with their mothers. Daughters also suffer more rejections than sons.
    A 2011 study published in the Journal of Divorce and Remarriage found that college-age daughters ‘are less likely than the sons to think that their fathers wanted to spend time with them’.
    These daughters also report being less satisfied than sons with the amount of time they had together with their fathers and are less content than sons with their current relationship with their father.
    Daughters are less likely than sons to reconcile or come closer to their dads even years after the divorce.”

    Why are daughters this way? Could it be that “dad’s little princess” gets miffed when dad starts telling them to stand up on their own two feet and start reaching towards adulthood . Boys on the other hand seem to move into a more adult relationship with their parents as they grow up and stand on their own two feet.

    • Bev

      Re this article another good day. I managed to get in more comments(13 out of 84 no rejections) than most and refuted some feminist 101 regurgitations. Will they accept the truth? Hardly so I just keep chipping away and am gratified at getting some support from other commenters.

    • Bev

      This what we are up against.

      Comment by Chris:
      Firstly, I don’t believe in political correctness, and I welcome the bias of Daily Life – it is important that female views are heard and issues are addressed. This article, like others on this site could not be written with reversed gender roles without mass hysteria and the mandatory calls of ‘misogyny’. I understand that many women commenting on this article have been personally hurt by their relationship with their fathers, this is not an attack on how credible their stories are, but I think that this article and the comments that it has attracted a lack of perspective. I, like the extreme majority of the population had an excellent father, and he has helped me to become a good father for my daughter. I also happen to work in a managerial role in the mining industry and a former officer in the Australian army, two industries with disproportionate family breakdown , and have seen first hand the destruction of mens lives, to say they walked away feeling nothing etc as many have implied in the comments shows how little (nothing) that you actually know about men. Rather than the perpeptual ‘blame the men’ why not aim to address the many many issues that inhibit us in terms of relationships. We also could start discussing reality, look at good fathers, put them on a pedestal. I dare say that it would be over the dead bodies of many contributors that the Daily Life would publish a positive fathering story. If this is the case, the problem is not exclusively male.

      Shelby in reply:
      Heres the translation for Chris’ opinion:-
      I like to insult minorities and the subjugated. Daily Life is Biased. It is important that women’s views are heard and issues addressed but women are hysterical. Massively. No media story ever says any bad things about women. Women who comment here about their father’s lack of interaction with them lack perspective. I had a good father therefore, the majority of the population had a good father.
      I am a good father. I have a job. I work with men/fathers who get upset when their marriages break down. They tell me their side of the story. You women who lived with men for years and years as mothers, daughters or wives know nothing about men, but I do because I’m management and I worked in a job with them.
      Instead of blaming the men why not turn this whole thing around because relationships are confusing and then we came blame the children for not being aware of the intricacies of relationships. Look at good fathers. Put them on a pedestal for taking responsibility. Fathers should be paid. Let’s talk about good fathers instead. But you bitches will never go for that on this site which I have invaded and told you what you should be discussing.

      Shelby works in the family court system. by her own admittance. Need I say any more.

  • Lordmep

    Is it really any wonder why feminists like the ones at the University of Toronto are resorting to such desperate aggression. They’re not merely bullying from their pedestals, but getting out into the streets to force their enemies to stop talking. When even non-red pill journalists are able to say such things, it cannot be denied that the tides are shifting.

  • Bombay

    What is up the “dad’s little princess” ? How many fathers are still in an intact family to do that? And how many of those actually do it? How many have the $$ to do it? It does not seem a plausible theory given the numbers.

    Or is it because the mother X hates her sons being male and all and leaves them in the cold. This same mother will solicit a relationship with her daughters and poison them against their father.

    So daughters not happy with bad male father (society poisons them as well). Sons are either poisoned or left on their own in regards to their father.

    • Bev

      Still a lot of blue pill fathers doing it.

  • Dr. F

    Jim Muldoon,

    One thing I have noticed about your writing that I really like is your restraint. Where another might pull out a club and look for a bug you take out tweezers and zero right in.

    Your fine surgery raises the bar well above any feminist medieval leech and blood-letting we’ll ever see.

    Thank you for this mate.

  • andybob

    Excellent post, Mr Muldoon. An article in a major mainstream newspaper that focuses on what feminism does as opposed to what it proclaims is definitely good for men in the long run.

    In fact, it is a startling development, and I join you in congratulating Angela Shanahan for having the courage to put her by-line to it. She would have made quite a few enemies among the herd of hyenas ready to pounce on anything that smelled like a lone stray.

    Your summary of the vast female-pandering consumer machine makes this a superb companion piece to Dr Elam’s seering indictment, “Time for Goddess to Woman Up” and Dr F’s masterpiece of madness, “The Pamper Hamper”.

    This complementary trio of articles prove the astonishing range of perpectives at AVfM. They are virtuoso turns in their own right, but form a stunning harmony when played together.

    Thanks for this witty and insightful contribution, Mr Muldoon. More please.

  • bowspearer

    Jim, I think you’ve nailed something that requires deeper examination. I’d argue that you only zero in on the missing cog right at the end of the article- how compassionate our society is towards men.

    We’re taught in society to devalue our emotions and to be “real men”. The safety value for any man falling out of line with this is that any man who falls out of line with this will be pulled back into line – be it by white knights enforcing the chauvinism of chivalry while defending feminism, or traditionalists pulling any man into line who isn’t being a “real man”.

    Sure there was the SNAG, but it was a feminist driven fad and a mocking satirical facsimile of the real issue.

    Not even the MRA has completely avoided this problem, particularly with the area of male survivors of abuse.

    The fact is that our compassion for our fellow man, our allowance for men to be victims and our allowance for men to be weak at times, are all a litmus test of how much we value men as human beings.

    The fact is that feminism is on a slow demise in terms of popular opinion and when it has gone, we’ll discover that it was never really our main enemy. When we wind up in a similar lace to how things were, we’ll discover just how much more work that needs to be done and how deeply ingrained in the human psyche, what needs to change truly is.

    At that point we need to decide for ourselves just how much of a value we place on compassion towards men and in turn, male dignity.

  • Grunt

    This just in, author Angela Shanahan has filed for divorce from her clueless husband, citing emotional abandonment and physical abuse, among other accusations. More on this developing story during tonight’s broadcast…

    Even the best of them, my friends, even the best of them.