>
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.
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.
>God this shit makes me feel sick.We don’t know what the child support order was, but it was probably pretty hefty (as usual), and the visitation quite meagerIf the visitation was meager, I daresay that's reasonable given that he's the kind of guy who's prone to snap and beat the shit out of women. "Don't call me violent or I'll beat you up" is usually the province of kindergartners, guys.Actually advocating murder, no sweat. Suggesting that violence is wrong and worrying about the welfare of the children, outrageous! What pisses me off is that they moan about visitation but clearly don't care about the welfare of the child. That's not what visitation is about for them. It's all about stroking the man's ego and giving him ownership of the fruit of his penis.
>I can't even look at that poor woman's face. That's just horrific.
>It's brutal. I decided to take the picture down and replace it with a link to the picture in the first paragraph.
>yes, that's how he writes his nameProbably a "sovereign citizen."
>I hope this isn't what MRAs mean when they desire the right to strike back at a woman in self defence. Reverse the genders in the case and you'd likely have them spewing out stuff like "Its revealing that women are so comfortable in their dominance over men that, in the rare case when they don't get their way, they snap and respond with violence. If a man were to do the same he'd be locked up and put on death row instantly."*grak* I feel sick just writing a parody…
>From the Spearhead article: Gonzales was not an abuser until he attacked his wife in front of the courtI think there's a joke along similar lines. There's this Scotsman in a bar, recounting all his accomplishments, ending with "But fuck one sheep…"Spearhead again: Here she is blubbering in front of the camera.Interesting characterization of a woman describing the fractured face split lip, and two black eyes that her ex-husband gave her: Blubbering. Interesting. I can't really think of any reason outside of naked, comprehensive hatred for women that one would choose to characterize an injured woman's communication as "blubbering," but maybe that's me.Strip a man of his dignity and what else is there left?Oh right. I forgot that in MRAland, being responsible for the financial needs of one's small children = loss of dignity. Vomit.
>FUCK!
>So much for >insert various MRA types who post here<'s theory that getting a restraining order is as simple as just showing up at court.
>Also, M.Bouffant, Peter Nolan is a sovereign citizen who peddles the paperwork that shows up in court sometimes from people who should know better.Based on his comments, I have a feeling he is going to be spending some serious time in prison or will be suicided by cop. Especially since he says he will beat the **** out of any woman who fails to follow his exact orders despite his refusal to follow anyone else's.
>This may be a case of PTSD which does cause people to react like this. It's very difficult to control and is a possible reason for this behaviour. They do mention "marine veteran".The MRAs have suddenly got a raging hard on for the army. It's the whole "if there was a war on, I would be on the frontlines myself" mentality. Except there is a war going on as we speak. I don't see them posting from Afghanistan.
>I'm waiting for NWO to start claiming that he's posting from a battlefield in Iraq…no Afghanistan…no LIBYA!! He's posting from Libya!!
>The only thing that keeps me from freaking out when I see people say shit like this is the reassurance that the Spearhead dwellers are, by and large, a group of insecure petty minded man children who satisfy their broken emotional needs by venting harmlessly into the internet. I hope.
>They do have the internets. And a fair few soldiers get the "Dear John/Jane" treatment when they get home. And I agree, it's not a nice thing to do to any soldier but since when have people done nice things.
>Ugh. People are just sick. Really? Advocate murder?! REALLY?! That poor woman. I hope that man goes to jail for a long time.
>This isn't a case of PTSD. It's a case of a guy who didn't want to pay child support and didn't want to adhere to a visitation schedule as he informed the judge just before he went on the attack. If he would do this in front of a judge, I wonder what kind of abuse he dished out behind closed doors?
>Why does it not surprise me that they're sticking up for the gutless shitebag waste-of-skin coward who did this kind of damage to a woman? He even had to blindside her on top of everything else. This worthless fuck is probably twice her size but these maggots are cheering him like he took on an MMA fighter and won.
>PTSD sufferers can not want to pay child support too. The rage and complete disregard for social backlash is pretty par for course in military PTSD. It's unacceptable behaviour (PTSD sufferers will tell you that) but it explains it. There is very little support from the military in the USA to PTSD sufferers and indeed negligible screening. This may have been avoided had he been given help as his behaviour to lead to a divorce may have had to do with the disorder as well.
>I think that a lot of the divorces and broken homes that soldiers returning from combat experience are due in part to changing perceptions of violence and warfare itself. In ancient times, it was considered an honor to be part of a soldier's family. Nowadays, it is a source of shame. Like, "Oh, did you know? My hubby kills people for a living."Honestly, who would want to tell that to all their friends these days? When did that happen, I wonder? Is it all this technology, perhaps? Have we made war so dehumanizing and distant that the very concept of honorable warfare has been lost to mankind? Regardless, those more martial-minded times were very difficult for man and woman alike, taking a grim toll on both. I find it quite ironic that a bunch of sheltered adolescents in adult bodies would use the head of a spear as their logo. Do they truly desire for a return to the use of sharp, hand-held implements in war and in hunting game?Now there's a thought. Why don't we have these guys do something uplifting, like donning loincloths and going around spearing boars, deer and lions and crap? Work out the kinks, you know? Because honestly, I can't think of any reason for a fellow man to write so much literal crap other than sheer boredom.If MRAs want men to be tops, why do they sit on their asses complaining all day like a bunch of sissies instead of getting out there and doing all these things that we men are allegedly supposed to be better at?How are you gonna "show dem wimminz how 2 lead an ideal lyfe" if all you can do is congratulate a bunch of degenerate, abusive fucks like Mr. Gonzalez there?Oh, I forgot. MRA's apparently don't really concern themselves with winning over women to their cause. They act as if we're supposed to sympathize with them, when they don't show any sympathy to anyone besides members of their own sex. In many ways, some of the more radical elements of feminism are similar.That's why I subscribe to neither. I'm a humanist. I believe in whatever policy that provides the most utility and personal enjoyment to all members of the species, not just one sex.In fact, I don't even believe in the concepts of objective morality, sympathy, compassion or following one's gut. I place personal utility and the strict avoidance of infringing upon the utility of another first and foremost.Interesting concept, huh? Basically, it works like this. Work towards your own fulfillment and self-interest, but don't screw over other people to get it. Kinda like the golden rule. Do unto others, and all that.I combine this creed with a subjective understanding of morality. Basically, no moral position is any more valid than any other. Take the scenario in this article, for example. It's a no-win situation. She took him for all he was worth, and he beat the crap out of her. They were both completely full of it, if you ask me. Neither was technically more or less right than the other. When you start adding up wrongdoings like that to try and determine which one is more of a crook, you start to realize the failings of our current system. Wouldn't it have been nicer if the two of them had mutually agreed to respect the utility and well-being of the other?But then the question becomes how do you enforce it?
>You see, nature is full of unfair bullcrap just like this. Case in point, animal rights activists. They share many of the same strains as both the men's rights activists and women's rights activists. All three bid that we show sympathy and compassion for what the opposition holds to be a lesser being. Why? What good reason would we have? Would we do it out of the goodness of our hearts? Are humans even capable of such a thing?That same kind of moral panic/gut-feeling/intuition-driven bullcrap has been responsible for everything from witch hunts to the outlawing of recreational pharmaceuticals. Humanity simply can't come up with any valid reason for why some things simply should not be done. We just use the same old tired platitudes like "because it's wrong". What the hell does that mean? What are wright and wrong, exactly, if not totally subjective? See, because I'm pretty sure Mr. Gonzalez didn't think he was in the wrong when he beat that poor lady silly. It would make much more sense to say that they infringed on each other's utility. That they violated the golden rule. Would she have liked it if she had to pay child support to him instead? Probably not. Would he have liked it if his ex beat him silly instead of the reverse? Almost definitely not.And don't say consensus makes it wrong, because consensus does not objectivity make. This is the same reason why I think that the idea of "just wars" is bunk. While you're at it, the whole idea of money is bunk too. Just wars are bunk because there's no such thing as justice in a world where you have things like VX gas, Nuclear Weapons, human experimentation, et cetera. It's only the will of one against the will of another. There's no justice there.Currency is bunk because it wouldn't exist if humans didn't exist. It is not a law of nature. It is not directly linked to the total entropy of our universe. It is just a reflection of our own irrational gut-feelings. Our "trust" in others. I could form a country and start printing my own fiat money and then say I have a million dollars. God knows the Fed does it all the time.If humans are to prosper, we must abandon notions of traditional morality, eliminate dominance hierarchies and strive for technologies that will grant us a post-scarcity society where men and women can be truly equal once and for all. No more worrying about alimony, child support or taxes when all the work's done by robots. What's that, you say? Such a change would lead to vast unemployment and poverty? Hooey! Nobody would have to work anymore. Currency would be totally abolished, in fact!Uhh… I think I've been reading too much Iain Banks. Well, not like that's a bad thing, I guess.But seriously, if you look ahead – like WAY far ahead – the technology to create a post-scarcity utopia is definitely on the table. It's simply a matter of making it there alive and having the wisdom to use it correctly.
>I'm waiting for NWO to start claiming that he's posting from a battlefield in Iraq…no Afghanistan…no LIBYA!! He's posting from Libya!!Simone, your comment clearly indicates that you don't Support Our Troops, which goes to show how hateful feminists are. Also, too, nothing goes better with MREs than MRAs.
>Y'know, Paul Gonzalez may have PTSD, or not. If he does, as a fellow PTSD sufferer, I hope he gets help. And either way, of course the government doesn't provide enough help for its military, and of course the things that people in the military (including his ex-wife) see in war are awful, but of course having PTSD does not excuse away the act of beating another human being to a pulp.But seriously, that's kind of beside the point. What the fuck explains the absolutely inhuman, heartless reactions of W.F. Price and the Spearhead commenters?
>FWIW, she was also a Marine, something that no one on the Spearhead seems to have picked up on. (OF course, if they had, I'm sure they would be claiming that the fact that she couldn't defend herself from this attack means that women are weak and shouldn't be Marines in the first place. In fact, he completely caught her by surprise from behind and knocked her out with his first punch.)http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/Ex-Marine-Beats-Wife-During-Divorce-Hearing-in-Judges-Chambers-119974124.html
>But seriously, that's kind of beside the point. What the fuck explains the absolutely inhuman, heartless reactions of W.F. Price and the Spearhead commenters?Douchebaggery. But we already knew that.
>In before incredibly circular, unrelated-to-the-post argument with an MRA about "Criticizing MRAs is so meaniepants of you, now let's never even acknowledge it when anyone says anything about the substance of those criticisms" starts!But yeah, this is horrible. It's just… it's not even about the man, as usual. It's not really about his child support payments or visitation. It's 90% about the woman and how horrible she was (that TRAMP, living with someone else after separating from her husband–what a filthy, uh, one-timer!) and how good it was that she got beaten. The emphasis on punishing women seems to WAY outweigh the emphasis on making things better for men.It's hard to respect MRA as a rights movement when they say (and when other parts of it don't criticize) things that are horrifyingly aggressive about removing women's rights, and barely at all about expanding men's.
>It is basically a big conspiracy theory. Men never actually do anything wrong, and women are always out to get men. Therefore, if a man snaps and beats his wife in front of a judge, the man must of had a good reason; it couldn't possibly be that the man is crazy, or suffering from PTSD, or whatever. Whatever MRAs make up to support their presupposition is a side matter, one which only accentuates how low they will sink to try to justify their presupposition. Its pathetic, really.