>
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.
>@DaveYes, exactly. I realize this now. But it's a bit more complex than that. See, the reason why I treated his ex as though she had an equal hand in it was because I – in an admittedly strange and roundabout way – didn't want her to look powerless to change her situation. I know it's wrong to put the onus on her to defend herself in a situation where it was completely impossible for anyone to do so, but I didn't want to lower her station relative to her husband by making her out to be a perfectly-innocent victim. I somehow feared that doing so would be detrimental to the feminist cause, because it would dehumanize her to the point where she and her motives are essentially reduced to a sideshow, with the child support payments and her ex-husband's violence taking center-stage. This would seem to send the very patriarchal, demeaning message that "everything hinges on what the man does; what the woman does or thinks is not important". That's why I was trying to find a middle ground. To nullify that message.What's funny (or not so funny) about this is that when I put it so clearly and succinctly, it sounds completely ridiculous.
>There were no charges filed against Ms Nordegren because of a lack of evidence. So to conflate the two makes little sense.
>Bob, I don't think you're going to find many feminists defending Elin Nordegren (and if you do find some, well, I think they're wrong). She should have been arrested. Tiger Woods could have pressed charges; if she attacked him with a golf club, and it seems pretty likely that she did, she should be doing time for it. Tiger Woods seems to be an asshole, but that in no way justifies her attack. From my understanding of what happened, she was not a "desperate woman doing a desperate thing"; she was an angry person doing a violent thing. Much like Gonzales here. Tiger Woods evidently decided that the best thing for his reputation and his endorsement deals was to make this go away as quickly as possible, so he didn't press charges and basically paid her off. Yes, it's true, people (men and women) don't take DV against men as seriously as they should. But the solution to this isn't to take violence against women less seriously, or whatever it is you're arguing or implying here (I honestly don't know).I also have no idea what you're talking about when you talk about "sex apartheid."
>Bob, again, how do you know the ruling was unfair?Is it because you assume it is or because you have read the transcript of the proceedings (if any) and/or the judge's written order?And regardless of the order's fairness or unfairness-do you believe that a man has any right whatsoever to strike a woman just because he is angry with something else?Because that is what you are saying-he was mad at the judge so he tried to beat her to a pulp and that is okay because the ruling that you show zero evidence of knowing what it contained was unfair.
>As Elizabeth points out, there is also the question of evidence. Not, apparently, a big issue in the Gonzales case given the numerous witnesses, the very clear motive, and the obvious evidence of her injuries.
>Bob, at the risk of going off topic, I want to point out that the Tiger Woods case is different because Tiger never said that Elin hit him, despite rampant speculation at the time. Hitting people is really not acceptable, no matter what sex the parties are, except in the odd self-defense situation.Cheating, as far as I know, isn't used to decide child support, although it might be one factor of many considered in determining custody. However, here is the timeline as we know it:Marriage.Wife starts dating boyfriend.Divorce proceedings.If the true timeline is really something like this:Marriage.Wife has secret boyfriend.Wife/husband decide to get a divorce.Final, formal divorce proceedings.that looks a hell of a lot different than this:Marriage.Wife/husband decide to get a divorce.Wife starts dating boyfriend.Final, formal divorce proceedings.Or even this:Marriage.Husband starts dating secret girlfriend(s).Wife/husband decide to get a divorce.Wife starts dating boyfriend.Final, formal divorce proceedings.Thing is, I don't know the details of their relationship. Do you? (Not that the issue of cheating matters re. the issue of beating someone to a pulp. As sallystrange has already pointed out, it doesn't.)
>There was no ruling. This man wasn't objecting to, or infuriated by an unfair settlement for child-support. He beat the shit out of his wife because he was told that he would have to pay child support. The judge told him that he would have to pay child support and he left the the room, came back and beat the shit out of his estranged wife.
>This man wasn't objecting to, or infuriated by an unfair settlement for child-support. He beat the shit out of his wife because he was told that he would have to pay child support.Exactly!! Supporting your children is "unconstitutional":"The two things that triggered him the most were the child support and custody," Scott-Gonzalez, 23, told ABCNews.com. "He advised the judge that he thought child support was unconstitutional." Enraged Over Child Support, Husband Batters Wife in Front of Judge
>"There was no ruling. This man wasn't objecting to, or infuriated by an unfair settlement for child-support. He beat the shit out of his wife because he was told that he would have to pay child support. The judge told him that he would have to pay child support and he left the the room, came back and beat the shit out of his estranged wife."Oh, wow. This guy really was a supreme, Triple-A grade bag of manure, wasn't he? That's just… wow.
>And regardless of the order's fairness or unfairness-do you believe that a man has any right whatsoever to strike a woman just because he is angry with something else?How many times have I been misrepresented of believing this same thing and told you I did not state that or believe that?You all keep dodging the question of fault in divorce and whether it is just to rule in favor of those clearly in fault, the question of whether corrupt family court judges who keep ruling in favor of the party at fault can infact be a risk factor for incidents. Very few people do things for no reason, after all. (and I'm sure you'll misrepresent what I'm saying here for the Nth time)Just because feminists pushed through no fault divorce and summarily abused the hell out of it doesn't mean it's just. A law isn't just simply because it is the law. That is an appeal to authority argument and a bad one at that as you would essentially be saying that Jim Crow laws were just because they were the law. The law is not infallible.
>Yeah, I'm having a little trouble seeing no-fault divorce law as the equivalent of Jim Crow. Though given all the stuff you made up about this case I have no doubt that you can make up a bunch of other stuff to "prove" this.
>“You all keep dodging the question of fault in divorce…” No one is dodging the question; in this instance, the question is irrelevant. He didn’t beat the shit out of her because she was divorcing him. He beat the shit out of her because a judge told him that he would have to pay child support. You have no idea who was at fault in this divorce. You have baseless speculations but absolutely no facts. You’re presuming that she is at fault for the divorce and expecting us to agree with you and address your point from that consensus. You have yet to address the fact –and it’s been pointed out numerous times- that this man was not reacting to unfair settlement or anything of the sort. You came into the conversation begging the question, and I’m paraphrasing, would this man have reacted this way if he had not been treated so unfairly. How was he treated unfairly? Be precise. Is it inherently unfair to decide to divorce your spouse? If it is unfair, then why is it unfair? Is overt violence mitigated -not justified but mitigated- by unfairness? Please remember to show your work. What would a lack of no-fault divorce have changed in this case? Are you arguing that had she not been allowed to divorce him this would never have happened? Here’s a question for you: Obviously, you feel that no-fault divorce is feminist in origin and practice. What do you propose as an alternative? I often see men on these and other forums cite the statistic that women initiate 70% of divorces. Okay. What, in your opinion, are just causes for initiating divorce proceedings against your spouse in a system that does not allow for no-fault divorce?
>@Pam*Reads linked ABC article*Oh my god. That's pretty effed up. I just don't know what to say. To be honest, I'm sorry I ever involved me and my immeasurably stupid ideas in any of this.Of course, an MRA would – at this point – probably try and say that she was lying about the prior abuse, but how could they? The guy's obviously a sick creep.I guess you just can't change human nature without starting from the ground up. Without trying to find some way to make the human organism better. One day soon, human civilization will become an interplanetary one, fueled by rapid advances in computing, materials science and energy production. When that happens, our outdated hunter-gatherer biology will be playing catch-up with all the rest of our advances.
>"What would a lack of no-fault divorce have changed in this case? Are you arguing that had she not been allowed to divorce him this would never have happened?"I am saying as you are trying to misrepresent me once again (isn't that against the blog's rules?) that if he had received a FAIR ruling in divorce that I bet this kind of thing would not have happened.And, nobody should be prevented from divorcing at all. They just shouldn't get a favorable ruling if they are the one who violates the terms of the marriage contract. I think that's fair. Reasons like "I need to FIND myself!" (read: I want another man/woman) shouldn't be a way out that will be locked at favorably, but they should still be able to leave.That means that the one who is at fault should get no alimony, no primary child custody (which means that the one who violated the contract gets the child support order against them) unless the other parent is proven to be unfit or voluntarily forfeits custody, the violator does not get the house or other larger parts of the assets if they are not to be sold off and the proceeds evenly divided.I suppose in amicable divorces where nobody decided to say, fuck the neighbor, and both of them want out–rare as they are and all–then those people could work out the details of how things are split up on a case-by-case basis.Striking down no fault divorce would de-incentivie the unfortunately common predatory problem of some women and some rare men who marry someone and later take them to the cleaners and cut down on the egregious abuses of scummy family court lawyers and judges who have a vested interest in keeping these abuses happening as it generates them revenue.Maybe people will think before getting married and not just do it because other people are or because they have dollar signs in the eyes. Maybe we won't hear horrible divorce horror stories about unbelievable greed or ones like this story. I guess I can dream, can't I.
>When judges issue custody and child support orders, what is 'fair' for the parents always takes a back seat to what is in the best interests of the child. Do children deserve to have food, clothing, tutors and the comforts of modern life? Yes? Then the father is going to pay child support. Do children deserve to be protected from unpredictable, violent assholes with poor judgement? Yes? Then this particular father is going to be on restricted visitation with his children, *and* have to pay child support. Because it's not about him, it's not about her, it's about them, and their right to a good life, and their parents' responsibility to provide that. In that light, in the light of putting the rights of the child above the rights of the parents, I see the ruling as entirely fair. …And on the boyfriend thing? You know, if I were a woman who was terrified of my violent ex husband, and I was dating someone new, I would totally want them there. For one, hoping that his presence would dissuade my ex from doing anything particularly egregious (though that obviously failed in this case), and for two, just for the emotional support. Divorces are rough, and it's understandable to want someone there who's in your corner (and not being paid by the hour like your lawyer).
>I am saying as you are trying to misrepresent me once again (isn't that against the blog's rules?) that if he had received a FAIR ruling in divorce that I bet this kind of thing would not have happened.I'm not misrepresenting you. I'm trying to understand your point. What about this divorce ruling was unfair? You're arguing that this probably happened because this man's divorce ruling was unfair. Other than his wife wanting to divorce him -which he may have felt was unfair- what about this divorce ruling was unfair.What, precisely, about this divorce ruling was unfair? Please provide facts.
>"best interests of the child."This best interests of the child excuse is used far and wide to excuse any number of horrible things including forcing paternity fraud victims to keep paying child support for children that are not even theirs.By invoking it here you also assume that the best interests of the child is always to be with the mother. That's not an ideology-based statement or anything though, I suppose."Do children deserve to be protected from unpredictable, violent assholes with poor judgement?"What proof have you of any violence previous to the incident? I'm not really seeing any. You can sort use this claim of him being a batterer here because he did actually hit her in the court so you can claim a semblance of preponderance of the evidence there I guess, but you have no real evidence.It's strange though because when I see feminists also using this claim to defend murderers whos victims had never actually been proven to lay a finger on their killers, well, it seems to be an overused excuse that would have given Johnny Cochran a raging boner. I wonder how many bloggers are defending Crystal Gail Mangum right now?"…And on the boyfriend thing? You know, if I were a woman who was terrified of my violent ex husband, and I was dating someone new, "I hate to tell you this but… he was still her husband at the time. Kinda makes the implications a bit different than what you're suggesting here. It's not like she was out of a marriage and moving on.
>"What, precisely, about this divorce ruling was unfair? Please provide facts. "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. It is not uncommon at all for men to be denied most all visitation time with their children for no actual reason at all. I'm sure you're going to say that "he's a wife-beater!" but you have no factual evidence of this previous to the incident.
>*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. * Best interests of the child: I think that, in this individual case, it is definitely within the best interests of the child for them to be with their mother. I make no claim about other couples and parents. Whoever has been the primary caregiver up until that point, whether mother or father, should be given primary custody of the children. That often means the mother because our culture encourages women to assume that role. However, if a couple broke up where the husband was a stay at home dad, and had been the one to attend parent-teacher conferences, make the doctor's appointments, stay up with the sick babies, etc… then, yes, he deserves primary custody and she gets to pay child support. * 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, and the only barrier is some legal paperwork, then yes, I feel people are morally justified in dating again. Divorces can take quite awhile to get finalized, and that's a lot of time to go without dating or the attendant comforts therein. And on the unfairness – we know that *this guy* thought that this ruling was unfair. So we can infer that it really was unfair (evidence supporting: none); or we can infer that he's a selfish asshole (evidence supporting: his ex wife's black eyes).
>I said provide facts. Again, you're merely speculating and asking me to accept your speculation as fact. What precisely was the custody ruling? Don't tell me what you believe usually happens in most cases. Tell me about this case. I've had relationships with two men who had significant custody (in one case sole custody) of their minor children. Would I, therefore, be able to prove to you based purely on this "anecdata" that men "usually" receive custody of their children?What do you "…know of the ruling…" for a fact? You presume that Gonzalez did not agree with the custody ruling and this caused his rage. But what we know of the facts, as presented by witnesses, was that Gonzalez: 1) said that child support was unconstitutional and 2) assaulted his wife when the judge moved the hearing to the subject of child support. What, then, makes you believe that he assaulted her because of the custody arrangement?"I'm sure you're going to say that "he's a wife-beater!" but you have no factual evidence of this previous to the incident."You know what I find interesting about this statement? I mean, aside from the fact that you think that you're psychic? You clearly know what factual evidence is, you just think that you're above presenting any.Fascinating.
>We know he thought it was bad but we do not know what it was which means it could be him having to give up all of his wages or as little as $25 a week. What we do know is his reaction was not "I am going to appeal your ruling judge!" Which is the proper response if you disagree with a ruling. What is not proper is leaving the room then coming back in and beating your ex to a pulp.So you are dancing around the issue of his reaction by claiming it is common for men to feel shafted by divorces. So what if they do? How does that excuse what this guy did?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.
>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.
>CB! You returned…was it the freshly cooked bacon?
>11
>Elizabeth, you know I can't stay away from you and your bacon. ;)Besides, there's no bacon on 4chan, or at least none that anyone would want to eat.