Adam Piggott

Gentleman adventurer

Fathers guilty until proven innocent.


this guy looks capable of domestic violence at any moment …

As a man today you do not need additional evidence to understand that when it comes to being a father the odds are stacked heavily against you getting access to your kids if your relationship falls to pieces. The kids’ mother could just about be a meth-riddled lunatic who holds up pharmacies at knife point to feed her habit and she’d still get custody over you. (By the way, that’s not an exaggeration – I know personally of just such a situation where the mother has custody, the only little problem being that she is also in custody.)

An amendment to the law in Western Australia could see apprehended violence orders being granted before any domestic violence occurs.

“What this does is erode the very idea of natural justice and the right to remain innocent until proven guilty,” Dr Zimmermann said. “This has serious consequences in relation to how respon­dents can be forced out of their homes, lose access to their children and other rights, without the requirement for evidence to be provided.”

Dr Zimmermann is being prudent there by using the third person to describe these poor souls losing everything but we really know that he should be using the male pronoun. All that wifey has to do now is go to the police and say that her husband has committed no act of violence towards her but she feels that there exists a future possibility that he might do so, and viola! He gets treated the same as if he had physically abused her.

The addition to the family violence bill aims to “promote a contemporary understanding of the nature and seriousness of family violence”. In the past, family violence went somewhere along the lines of one person beating the shit out of the other. But now we have a “contemporary understanding” of the issue, and family violence today involves unsubstantiated testimony from one person leading to lasting family court decisions.

It’s the real life version of “point and shriek”. In the past if your wife didn’t like you all she had to do was to get a girlfriend to give her a black eye and then she could stand up in court and point and shriek and you’d be stuffed mate. But the proposed amendment would save women having to go to all that pesky trouble of faking evidence. Now she merely has to point and shriek at the awful man standing in the court as she accuses him of being a slumbering monster ready to awaken at any moment and burst into furious anger, and you’re stuffed mate.

Funnily enough, this would probably have the desired effect. I mean, nothing gets up my goat more than some imbecile telling me to calm down when I’m not in a state of agitation which invariably leads me to obtaining a state of agitation. At that point the man probably has nothing to lose and may as well walk over to her right there before the judge and deck her. The outcome is the same either way so you may as well get the personal satisfaction.

This law is merely a logical continuation of feminine primacy. From a young age men are instructed by society at large that women are special beings with unique abilities that must be worshiped at all times. He is taught that he must be a dutiful provider and in order for her to be happy he must give her all that she desires. After all, women can “have it all” as we are told over and over again. This must then follow that she can have the children as well since society sees no need or value in them stinking fathers. Your job as a father is merely to provide her with the children. They are her property which you are required to pay the upkeep and maintenance towards until they are well into adult life.

The final legal step along this progression will be women’s complete right over a man’s sexuality. She will merely have to point out a man in the crowd and he will be legally obligated to provide her with his sperm and financial servitude towards the offspring for the next 30 years, (those damn kids never want to leave home these days). One can only hope and pray that he will not be required to perform coitus, depositing a good dose in a tube a sufficient act to sign away his rights for decades to come.

Of course, if this happens every woman will just single out Brad Pitt to be the father. Oh wait … isn’t he now violent as well? Angelina Jolie should just go to Western Australia as she wouldn’t have to make up stuff about Brad at all. The distinguished “professor of economics” would merely have to point out her husband and in a calm voice state that he was a future violent risk towards her and their children. Job done.


Our politician’s convenient lies.


Corto Maltese – Beauty & Masculinity.


  1. Ken in NH

    Control over male sexuality, maybe. Control over sperm and the product thereof? They are well on their way to that here. In several jurisdictions in the U.S., the law and/or judges will require a man to continue supporting a woman and her child even after he has incontrovertible evidence that she had lied to him and told him the child was his. They will claim that it is in the best interest of the child to keep the same “father” even after it is discovered that it was all a lie and the couple have split. Of course, common sense would tell you in such a situation that the man should be let off or given full custody of the child. A woman who knowingly lied on such a scale should have her parental rights severed regardless of whether the man wants to continue on as the “father”.

  2. Michael Adams

    They are skimming over the fact that a very large amount of the “domestic violence” is committed by women against men.We learn from early boyhood that “boys don’t hit girls.” I never could, even when I was being slapped for some impertinence. I would not call it domestic violence, although it did correspond to the definitions usually applied to men.

    I have helped women in what were described as abusive situations, but as time went by, evidence emerged that the story was not so one sided, after all.

    This presumption of guilt fits the Rousseavian paradigm, that the bourgeoisie and our values are responsible for all the evils in the world. I hear women prattle on about “bourgeois patriarchy,” who have never in their lives been within ten feet of a pre-bourgeois man, who is patriarchy personified.Of course, these are factrs, and facts don’t matter, if they don’t support the party line, now called “the narrative.”

  3. When I was fighting for 50% time with my three kids in 1982 (in California) my soon-to-be ex was psy-oping my kids against me. I wanted desperately to bring this up in court. My lawer told me “she would have to hang rattlesnakes from the celling to have any effect on the judge..

    It was then I knew I was truly fucked. And so it was.

    To this day my two boys refuse to speak or email me. My daughter is only a bit better than that.

    I can’t wait till my ex dies (hopefully before me) so I can piss on her grave.

    • Adam

      My parents got divorced in 1983 and my mother did the exact same thing to us kids. All our father could do was stand back and hope that we would eventually come to see her lies which we did.

  4. Michael Adams

    If I had chosen to divorce, which I did not,( “For better or for worse, in sickness and in health, etc.” Including mental health. I meant it and stuck it out, and things did get better,) but, if I had chosen to do what even my church friends were telling me, I would have had an army of witnesses to back me up. She has few friends, because her general antipathy toward the world does not stop with me. I thought I could have gotten custody, but a promise is a promise.Yes, medications have helped, although some of the underlying fixed signs and symptoms remain. Still, the kids are grown, never separated from their mother, although that might have been a better thing. There was never any physical abuse toward them, although there was tons of emotional abuse and physical and emotional neglect.

    Sometimes I am called a sexist, but I know, now, without any doubt whatsoever, that I was not sexist enough. This was never an equal relationship. I did most of the giving and she did most of the taking. The silly notion that bourgeois men exploit their wives is only true insofar as the narrative says it is.Exploitation is not just an emotional barb to be tossed out. It can be defined mathematically, as taking more than you give. I did not do that at all, not even remotely, and I do not know many men who do. Yes, I know some men who are layabouts regarding housework, but there is often the opportunity here to negotiate a better division of labor, if the wife is willing to yield some control in the how and why departments. If she insists that the laundry be done exactly one way and one only, her complaints about his not doing enough ring a little hollow.

Comments are closed.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

%d bloggers like this: