Categories
misogyny MRA oppressed men the spearhead violence against men/women

>On The Spearhead, demanding child support is a “provocation,” and beating a woman’s face in is “justice.”

>

A little over a week ago, a Florida man in the midst of a divorce hearing, apparently upset that he would have to pay child support, reportedly snapped and brutally attacked his wife, leaving her, as one account of the incident notes, “with two black eyes, broken facial bones and split lips.” (You can see the extent of her injuries here.) He’s now being held on felony battery charges. The woman had previously tried to get a restraining order against her husband, but apparently couldn’t convince the court he was dangerous enough to warrant it.

On The Spearhead, sadly but unsurprisingly, it’s the alleged attacker, Paul Gonzalez, who is getting the sympathy. W.F. Price, the site’s head honcho, weighed in on the subject yesterday. In his mind, apparently, the demand that Gonzalez actually provide some financial support for his two children was a provocation of sorts, which led him, as a Marine veteran, to “react … as warriors sometimes do in response to provocation — violently.”

At this point, we know very few details about the case. But that didn’t stop Price from opining confidently on what he imagines are injustices perpetrated against the poor alleged attacker:
What likely happened in that courtroom is that Gonzalez, representing himself, got the shaft. … We don’t know what the child support order was, but it was probably pretty hefty (as usual), and the visitation quite meager. Add to that the fact that his wife was already living with another man, despite having so recently given birth to Mr. Gonzalez’s daughter, and the situation must have seemed absolutely upside-down to the former marine. It was upside down. His wife is obviously a little tramp who has no problem swinging from one dick to another even while raising two babies, and there she was about to get rewarded with an upgrade in lifestyle while the chump father loses his kids and wallet. That’s why Mr. Gonzalez lost it. 
Price does acknowledge, in a cursory way, that “beating your wife is always a bad idea” — though he seems less bothered by the beating than by the fact that in this case the divorcing wife “gets to go on camera making herself out to be a poor, innocent little victim. I highly doubt this woman is innocent.”

The commenters to Price’s article rallied around the alleged attacker. In a comment that got three times as many upvotes as downvotes from Spearhead readers, Greyghost celebrated Gonzalez as something of a hero:

I need to send that guy a prison christmas package. He was getting screwed and struck out. To bad he never heard of the spearhead. If about 10 to 15 percent of crapped on fathers did this kind of thing with some murders mixed in there the talk about fathers would sound a lot like the talk when the subject is islam.

 Piercedhead offered this take:

Gonzalez may well have been overwhelmed by the realization that being innocent of all his wife’s false accusations made little difference to this fate – he still got treated as if he was worthless. In that case, might as well match the penalty with the appropriate deed… 
If the courts won’t dispense justice, someone else will – it’s a law of nature.


That’s right: bashing a woman’s face in is a kind of “justice.” Naturally enough, this being The Spearhead, this comment garnered (at last count) 56 upvotes from readers, and only 2 downvotes. 
Mananon, meanwhile, suggested that the alleged attack had:
something to do with a warrior’s instinct for dignified self-reliance. … Strip a man of his dignity and what else is there left?


DCM, even more bluntly, described Gonzalez as:


a brave man and a hero. 
There will be more and more of these incidents and it will be a long time before women are seen as responsible for them — which they are. …
It will be men who can’t take it any more who will ignite change.


Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) — yes, that’s how he writes his name — took it a step further, saying that: 
the only bit I feel sorry about is that he did not arrange to have someone else kill her such that his chances of being caught were minimal. By doing this in the middle of the court he will be put in a cage for a long, long time. And he does not deserve to be there. HE is the VICTIM.
Every one of these quotes, with the exception of Nolan’s, garnered at least a dozen upvotes from Spearhead readers. (Nolan’s comment so far has gotten no upvotes or downvotes.)
What sort of comment on this case will get you downvoted by the Spearheaders? One like this:

Wow! Nothing justifies violence. I wonder who will care for the baby while the mother recovers. Or doesn’t that matter? 
What a coward. Mad at the judge, goes after a woman. 
Actually advocating murder, no sweat. Suggesting that violence is wrong and worrying about the welfare of the children, outrageous!

If you liked this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

310 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Elizabeth
9 years ago

>I have heard stories about that there 4chan.

Bob
Bob
9 years ago

>"See, even though you are not coming out and saying "the bitch deserved what she got" we can clearly see that is what you think. "Thank you for the armchair shrink and mind-reading session, Miss Cleo. I'll be sure to call your psychic hotline later tonight and maybe get my palms read tomorrow. Or maybe I'll get a tarot reading instead. That might be better."*Factual evidence: She tried to get restraining orders against him multiple times and was denied. You will say that being denied a restraining order is proof that he wasn't that big a threat; I interpret it as proof that she had reason to fear him." I see, so all allegations are by default true simply because you believe they are. This is tres excellente. And "feeling a threat" (or saying you feel threatened) is good enough for you."* Being her husband at the time: I think there's a difference between being emotionally done with a marriage and being legally done with the marriage. If, in your heart, you are already divorced from that person and there's no hope for reconciliation, "I see, so infidelity is also alright when you "feel" you've checked out but really haven't decided to make it official or even tell the other person. Your own feelings are everything after all.>"Of what we know of the ruling, the custody arrangement at the very least was bad enough for him to say he would not pay child support.""Yes, I believe most states have a "no one shall pay more child support than he or she wants to" clause. It's right next to the "no citizen shall pay more in taxes than would be convenient" clause. "Wow Captain Bathrobe, I'm glad you can read at a level I would probably say is less than that of your average third grader. I specifically talked about the custody arrangement being so bad that he said he would not pay support. In no place did I mention any kind of monetary value. Do you see any numbers there, a dollar sign perhaps? Any mention of money or it being "too much"… Oh, no. I guess you don't… I guess this is how an ideologue communicates. It's pretty hard to figure out.

Lady Victoria von Syrus

>Yeah, dude. Feelings matter. People are entitled to their feelings, and to act upon feelings of love, threat, abandonment or whatever. If someone tells me they feel threatened, I believe them. If someone tells me they feel in love, I believe them. If someone tells me they feel hurt and shocked and betrayed, I believe them. If someone tells me that they are going to X because they feel Y, I believe that is their right (all caveats to living in a polite society applicable). If her husband was abusive, threatening or manipulative, why on earth would she be obligated to be faithful to him when she had already made up her mind to divorce him, and was taking steps to make that happen?The woman in this case did certainly not make it official or neglect to tell her ex – I'm pretty sure he was aware that there was a divorce going on. I should clarify – if a married couple has agreed to divorce (or if one member has unilaterally decided to leave), and they are no longer living together… yeah, I don't see anything wrong with dating, as long as your prospective partners are aware that you're currently going through a messy, drawn out divorce. And I don't see anything wrong with a new partner being supportive and attending a divorce proceeding with a violent, unpredictable ex.

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>Bob, your logic is utterly silly. The fact that he objected to the custody agreement has no bearing on whether it was fair or not. I'd say the average third grader would have a pretty firm grasp of that concept. Not so you, apparently.

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>I would also add that infidelity, if that's what occurred, is irrelevant to the best interests of the child. There's no evidence that unfaithful spouses make bad parents. There's plenty of evidence that spousal abusers make bad parents. And, yes, I know you'll say that we don't know for sure if he was violent before the divorce. What we do know is that his soon to be ex-wife was sufficiently afraid of him to try to get a restraining order several times, and that he then assaulted her in a judges chambers. Given his later behavior, I'm inclined to believe that her fears were legitimate. The fact that you insist on viewing him as a desperate person driven to desperate measures by an unjust legal system, rather than your garden variety narcissistic douche bag who snapped when he didn't get his way, suggests that it is you, not us, who are blinded by ideology.

Pam
Pam
9 years ago

>I find it interesting that there doesn't seem to be much of a fuss over the assumption of "best interests of the child" being with the mother when a cohabitating relationship is intact, but when the same assumption is made by the court when a cohabitating relationship has fallen apart and child custody is being determined, it's evil feminist ideology to blame.

Boom Boom
Boom Boom
9 years ago

The Man is the head of the marriage, wife and children NOT the State or some wacko judge.
Theone good outcomeof all this is that the wife with get 0 now and it will cost the State money to house this man.
And don’t worry about who will take are of the kid while the wife gets a bandaid put on at the hospital because the new boyfriend she had been fucking can do that.

Anonymous age 68
Anonymous age 68
9 years ago

Actually, Boobs, here is the good news:

Number of Marriages per 1,000
Unmarried Women Age 15 and
Older, by Year, United States:

1922 99 (found on Web)
1960 73.5
1961 72.2
1962 71.2
1963 73.4
1964 74.6
1965 75.0
1966 75.6
1967 76.4
1968 79.1
1969 80.0
1970 76.5
1972 77.9
1975 66.9
1977 63.6
1980 61.4
1983 59.9
1985 56.2
1987 55.7
1990 54.5
1991 54.2
1992 53.3
1993 52.3
1995 50.8
2000 46.5
2004 39.9
2007 39.2 (Rutgers 2009)
2008 37.4 (Rutgers 2009)
2009 36 (UVA 2010; project moved from Rutgers)

UK runs around 19, NZ runs well under 30. Amazon sells many good books on care and feeding of cats.

Jill
Jill
9 years ago

I am surprised you have not heard of Peter Nolan before:

peternolanpsychopath.blogspot.com

1 5 6 7