>
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.
>So, david, just to clear, when a guy writes this about someone, he's not going to get banned, or called the asshole of the thread? And THASF is okay for writing dissertations that make up half the thread, even though you've mildly told him to stop doing that? SCENE 1 – Outside a Sleazy Bar, Nighttimeginmar: What do you mean I'm getting kicked out! This is a blatant example of the patriarchy keeping a woman down! I swear you'll pay for this!!!Bartender: Sorry lady, no more drinks until you pay your tab. You want me to call you a cab or what?ginmar: OOOH, sure, I'm just a helpless woman who can't call her own transportation! Good thing there's a strong man here to take care of me! Isn't that right? You make me sick! *vomits on sidewalk*Bartender: What? Look, I just meant you're in no condition to drive and-ginmar: Spare me your -BLEARGH- mansplaining! -ARGLBL- You sexist *cough* *cough* small-dicked *hack* bingo card *splutter* MRAs *cough* loser!Bartender: Whatever, lady. You're on your own. *walks back inside*ginmar: That's right, you're just another loser who can't handle a strong woman like me! Ughh… now where did I park… *smacks into streetlamp* Aha! A phallic symbol placed here by the patriarchy to oppress women! I'll get you too, don't you worry *stumbles away, muttering*more tomorrow if I don't get banned 🙂 So that's okay? That's not lashing out? So we're clear. Endless insults are okay as long as they go in just one direction. Fine. Got it. Clear. Oh, and I must remember not to say that ordinary men and not MRAs can be and often are sexist, even though I've been experiencing this my whole life, and I know other women have, too. If I mention other women, I'm speaking for all women. Just wanted to clarify the etiquette.
>Oh my f*cking God Ginmar. Look, I like you–most of the time. But you're wrong here. You're just wrong, and no amount of angry posting will make you right.You said that ANY primarily-male group will be misogynistic. The truth is, SOME primarily-male groups are misogynistic. Hell, I'd be willing to concede that the majority may be so. But it's not 100%. For example, I am working toward a PhD in a department that is primarily male. My colleagues are overwhelmingly male, but they are by no means a misogynistic group.So, there exist SOME primarily-male groups that are not misogynistic. Why can't you just type "Okay, some male-dominated groups aren't misogynistic. Most are though" and MOVE THE F*CK ON WITH YOUR LIFE? You're usually so must more reasonable than this.(And by the way, that random stab at Shakesville was totally uncalled for. Liss and her merry band aren't everyone's cup of tea, but they do a lot of good work, so stop hatin')
>I'm curious, because part of this conversation has turned to PTSD, if the Marine vet was a combat vet or if that makes any difference in whether a person is affected by PTSD.It could be a detail about whether As Ginmar points out, many assholes are drawn to military, police, prison guard or if it might have been a factor that increases the likelihood that a misogynist can't control his impulses.A valid note is that he attacked the person perceived as being most vulnerable, if for nothing else than because of the previous relationship.
>@BeeI just think it's a bad idea to infantilize women by treating them as though they have no control over their lives. That's why I've been trying to assert that two adults have an equal degree of responsibility in a marriage. I think a lot of folks misunderstood me and thought I was trying to make excuses for the man here. I wasn't. I just didn't want anyone to be made out to be a victim. Not the man, because he didn't deserve to be called a victim. When you hit someone like that, you're clearly in the wrong.Not the woman, because she didn't deserve to be treated as though she she were a child. I wanted to recognize her dignity and her sheer toughness by believing that she could have somehow prevented all this from happening.When one says that it's unfair to expect that from her, I feel that they're adopting a defeatist position. They're denying the power and the control she had over her situation. Over her own life.In short, when people say that there's nothing she could have done to prevent this, they're affirming her powerlessness over her life and making her out to be a child. I didn't like that. It didn't sit well with me at all, because I just don't see women that way.I mean, think about this from my point of view. Look at the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Look at all these theories about how human beings communicate. There's a growing body of evidence that shows that objectifying people actually causes them to perform poorly in certain areas. Negative reinforcement and social pressures can actually lower people's self-esteem. Don't you think we're sending the wrong vibes if we try and make every woman out to be a victim? I mean, by adopting such a stance, we're allowing for other women to come along and feel equally-victimized by identifying with her personal struggle. So not only are we essentially creating more victims, we're just reinforcing everything the patriarchy is already saying about women.Christine is not a victim. She's a survivor. I don't want people to look at her and shrink away from the cause in abject fear and horror. I want them to rally behind her and people like her, stronger than ever before. I want people to be emboldened, not disheartened.I don't want to sound condescending, or rude. That's just my two cents on the matter. In fact, that's what I meant to say from the very beginning. I just couldn't find the right words.
>THASF: I am deleting some of your most recent off-topic comments.A couple of rules, just for you: DO NOT BRING UP ANY NEW TOPICS. You can respond to other people, but cannot introduce new topics. Or go on about your autobiography. Two other rules for you: No post longer than three short/medium paragraphs. And no double, triple posts in a row. I will use my judgment as to what counts as an acceptable paragraph. If you write moe than that, edit it down. And one final rule: You can't complain or even ask questions about these rules. If you show me you can do this I'll relax the rules in a couple of days.
>Gimnmar, I generally don't delete comments if they've been responded to. Or without a warning to the commenter first. At the time I considered Ion's comment to be borderline deletable, and didn't delete, but in retrospect that was probably the wrong decision. If Ion or someone else posted something like that now, I'd delete it. And, actually, if I had to do it over again, I'd delete at least one of your more obnoxious comments earlier in this thread as well; certainly that one attacking Elizabeth was over the line. But at this point that comment has become part of the discussion so I won't go back and do it. I call assholes assholes (or douchebags, or whatever — see earlier in this thread for examples, directed at people other than you). Ion can be an asshole; he's not an asshole all the time. You're usually not an asshole, but you've been acting assholish in this thread. As numerous commenters have pointed out, somewhat more politely than I have.
>You are definitely young, Gentle Scholar THASF, to think that anyone has the kind of control over their lives that they can see a punch coming from behind. One punch and she was out cold, unable to defend herself.Powerlessness and childishness are not the same thing, though they can be conflated. I am powerless in the face of an ocean storm, or a bar fight, or a bad cold, or the IRS. Does this make me a child? You need to draw a distinction between, as the prayer goes, the things one *can* control and those one can't. Sucker-punches, in my experience, come under the latter heading."I wanted to recognize her dignity and her sheer toughness by believing that she could have somehow prevented all this from happening."It is a very short step from saying "she could have" to saying "she *should* have" which is how victim blaming starts.
>Also, the woman in question is named Catherine. If you're going to take her part, at least learn her name.
>Ion, I've deleted your latest two comments, and you are banned for the day.
>You can strawman it down to "he just didn't want to pay child support!" all you want, but let me ask you this:Do you think it is just that the system awarded his wife everything in this scenario? No. It is not. It is injustice that a system allows a cheating spouse to get custody, the lion's share of the assets, etc.What recourse did this man have when the court system which is tainted by ideological bias has stripped him of everything and given it to the one who was demonstratively at fault?Again here I see, despite no evidence, claims that he somehow must have been abusive to her previous to this incident. What proof do you have of this? None.This is the same rationale used to excuse female murderers who kill their husbands and then have baseless accusations of abuse against a dead man who both cannot defend himself in a court of law and has no prior history. Yet you would never do the same for a man who killed his wife. Why the lack of consistency.I don't condone what he did or anything, it's pretty awful… and desperate people do desperate things, but why do you think the judge's ruling was just. Perhaps you're suffering from a little just world fallacy there, Futrelle? Or is it just an appeal to authority.
>GinmarIt is not o.k to be a bully, male or female.My opinion of you is that you are a bully. Name calling, constant swearing, dismissing others opinions, trying to tell the board owner how to run his board. This is all the behavior of a bully.
>I'm sorry, Bob. I haven't seen any reports saying that she cheated on her husband before telling him that she wanted a divorce, or saying who was "at fault" for the marriage ending, and I also haven't seen anything stating what the divorce settlement looked like, or what the parties' assets were entering the marriage, etc. Can you provide a link? I'm sure you have evidence to back up your claims, given your criticism of others' comments.For what it's worth, I don't think that he just didn't want to pay child support; I think he's a vicious, violent, ill-tempered, egotistical asshole who felt like he was losing control of what was his by right. Perhaps that's just speculation, but it seems to fit, regardless of any unknown specifics' bearing on the situation. What he did wasn't "desperate," it was brutal and cruel and hateful. An act of desperation would have been aimed toward some resolution. This was just lashing out at the person he blamed for his loss and felt would be easiest to hurt.
>Since none of us have any idea what the judge's order was, how do you know it was unjust Bob?
>Just out of curiosity Bob, what was the judge's ruling? You seem certain that the "…the system awarded his wife everything…".You're making an assertion that you feel does not justify this man's behavior but should be taken in to consideration. So what did the judge award this woman before she was attacked?
>Sorry about goofing up the name. See, I knew I made a mistake when I posted it, I just couldn't put my finger on it.Hmm. The dichotomy represented by the opposed positions held by Bee and Bob here is very interesting. See, this is exactly why I was so keen on pursuing an alternative theory to the whole event; so I could remove any ambiguity or doubt from the situation. I wanted to find an ideal middle ground that would paint both of these individuals as responsible adults, making it impossible for one to argue about who was "more wrong". I think it's plainly obvious that bopping someone on the head from behind like that is pretty goddamn disgusting. You really cannot equate paying child support with beating someone up.
>THASF, you've just explained why so mamy people here have been angry about your comments — there really is no "middle ground" between an attacker and a victim, and there is no possible way to justify his attack on her, no matter what the settlement was or whether she cheated or any of the other things that people like Bob are citing as justification, based on absolutely no evidence. A guy who knocks his wife out with a sucker punch during a divorce hearing, and then keeps beating her — he simply IS "more wrong."
>"I'm sorry, Bob. I haven't seen any reports saying that she cheated on her husband before telling him that she wanted a divorce, or saying who was "at fault" for the marriage ending, "Notice numerous mentions of a boyfriend in the news reports, even though she isn't even divorced yet. Yet there she is with her boyfriend in family court. Come on, Bee, don't be so willfully obtuse.There's also mentions of previously denied restraining orders which are pathetically easy to get with a preponderance of evidence standard, meaning there was absolutely zero proof when they were filed for and the judge did not grant them at that time.Even a feminist lawyer has recently admitted that restraining orders and false accusations of abuse are far too often abused by women.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liz-mandarano/the-worst-thing-a-woman-c_b_837636.htmlThe judge ruled that he would have very little to no visitation. Personally? I would also not wish to pay child support in such circumstances. That is not in the best interests of the child. This is the kind of thing that is in the best interests of the state and even more inexcusably unjust in cases of paternity fraud when forcing a non-father to pay. A child who can rarely if ever see their father is getting no more of a father from a government child support cheque than he/she is from his father's child support cheque."I think he's a vicious, violent, ill-tempered, egotistical asshole who felt like he was losing control of what was his by right."Well, yes, that does fit very well with the feminist narrative that all men are violent animals who use violence to control others, especially women, despite overwhelming proof that they are not anything of the sort. Such as studies conducted by the US military on who would actually fire at their enemy. The US military who by the way literally has to drill men repeatedly over and over, conditioning them until they become unquestioning command-following killers. But violence is an innate male trait if I were to believe your ilk. Do note that this is a military man who has been through such conditioning."An act of desperation would have been aimed toward some resolution. "What resolution does a man have when the judge's ruling says that you are out of your own home that your wife has already moved her boyfriend into, you will rarely if ever see your children again and by the way, enjoy living it up in a crappy studio apartment on the peanuts that will be left after the garnishments? None, really.That is the reality many men face. What resolution is possible when it is the system itself perpetrates such injustice, often in secret trial-like environment of Family Court where the judges have next to zero accountability…? Do tell.And before you try to circumstantially ad hom me here, no. I'm not a divorced man. It hasn't happened to me, and it won't as I learned while seeing this happen to quite a few older guys during my adolescence. They say a wise man learns from his mistakes. I say a wiser man learns from the mistakes of others and never makes those mistakes in the first place.From where I'm standing what he did was an act of desperation from a man who literally had no recourse but to simply silently accept injustice as it is the system itself that is corrupt. Not saying it's excusable, but the man simply had nothing to do other than silently accept a literally oppressive ruling from a family court judge who answers to no one.
>“…..when the issue of child support was brought up Gonzalez—acting as his own attorney—decided to leave the room, according to Michael Dunleavy, the attorney for Scott-Gonzalez….’He goes, I’m not going to pay child support,’ and Judge Rothschild says, ‘You know all parents have to pay child support, we all have to support our children,’ and he (Gonzalez) stalked out of the room,” said Dunleavy…….Upon returning, Gonzalez suddenly started punching his estranged wife, according to those in the chambers.”http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-19/justice/florida.courthouse.attack_1_child-support-chambers-divorce-case?_s=PM:CRIMEThere. He hadn't been ordered to pay an exorbitant amount of money in child support. The judge had not ordered him to pay alimony. He didn't snap and lunge at her out of nowhere. Upon being told what all non-custodial parents know, that they will have to pay child support, this man left judge's chambers (where, incidentally, there was no bailiff) and after several minutes came back into the room and preceded to beat the shit out of his estranged wife in front of two witnesses. There is no alternative theory. The justice system didn't take anything from him. There.
>I've noticed that you've misrepresented my position, Futrelle. You say I'm trying to justify it when I did nothing of the sort and even said this in my first post here.I asked you why you think the kind of ruling here that set this man off is just? Why do you think the party clearly at fault in the marriage should get the favorable ruling in divorce. You'll continue to evade this question while misrepresenting my position, I'm sure.
>Dave, I don't want it to sound like I'm complaining, since I'm willing to do things your way, but I thought I'd mention that you're making the backlog of commenters here look like they're talking to thin air by deleting my posts but not the responses. How is that fair to them?
>Bob, please tell us where you're getting your information about the divorce settlement. I would love to know.Well, yes, that does fit very well with the feminist narrative that all men are violent animals who use violence to control others, especially women, despite overwhelming proof that they are not anything of the sort.No, it fits very well with the actual real-life narrative of the person I called violent actually beating someone else up. Let's be clear here. I did not say anything about men as a whole (nor would I). I am talking about a single person who has proved himself through his very own vicious, violent actions to be "a vicious, violent, ill-tempered, egotistical asshole," like I said.I also don't actually think that DV injunctions in Florida are held to a preponderance of evidence standard. It seems to be left to the judge's discretion based on a totality of evidence test, which means–nothing, for our purposes. I can't really see how anyone can reach any sort of conclusion about Gonzalez' behavior based on the judge not issuing an injunction, unless that person has access to court records that I don't have.
>@ BobWho the fuck cares if the decision was just or not? It's irrelevant. Even if it were the worst decision ever handed down by a judge, was about to be appealed by the ACLU on a fast track for the Supreme Court, the fact remains that dude assaulted his ex, IN the judge's chambers. That's what's at play here. If nothing can justify it, then why the fuck do you keep talking about the decision? The only reason to keep talking about judge's decision, the ONLY reason, is because you think it justifies BEATING UP YOUR EX somehow. Ditto with the comments about the boyfriend: completely irrelevant, unless you want to claim that it's less wrong to beat up a person when they've been cheating on you. No. It's always wrong. That's why assault is against the law. You find non-violent ways to resolve your feelings about it. If you can't then you get arrested because you're a danger to society, as this man clearly is.
>Here's the question, strangesally. Do you think this man would have done this, had he gotten a fair ruling?I agree that you can't justify it but let me you ask this: Did Tiger Woods' now ex-wife spend any time in prison for hitting him with a golf club or is that "different" somehow? Is it okay when a woman hits a cheater or when a woman gets a favorable ruling when the man cheats, because well, he cheated but then also somehow ok when a woman gets a favorable woman when she's the cheater? You seem to lack any kind of internal consistency.Here's a final thought: Why does the justice system practice sex-apartheid? And do you not think that suhc practice are a potential risk for incidences such as this…? You seem to condone injustice.
>Bob, no you didn't explicitly justify it, but you did a familiar little two-step that looks a lot like justification to me: you said you didn't "condone" it, but then basically portrayed him as the wronged party who had no alternative but to lash out at his wife because "desperate people do desperate things."You also presented a bunch of pure speculation as fact in a way designed to paint the woman and the judge as villains. We don't know that she broke up the marriage; you assume she did; you keep going on about the "unjust" settlement though we don't actually know what the settlement was, and apparently the amount of child support hadn't even been discussed yet). Obviously many of those on the Spearhead were much more straightforward about supporting what he did.
>Of course "David", continue to misrepresent me while dodging the question about the courts and judges and their ideological bias. Discard anything that doesn't fit The Narrative.