>
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.
>Isn't it weird how every one of these threads ends up having a target that everyone else dogpiles on? I was there a couple of times, NWO, THASF… well, I guess it keeps things interesting, otherwise you'd just have a bunch of people agreeing with each other and the whole thing would die after 10-20 comments.
>Agreed, Ion. It's very weird that every one of these threads ends up with someone rambling at 3 comments per 1 comment made by everyone else, virtually none of which manage to A) present a coherent argument, or generally B) present any coherence at all.
>"Kind of sets up an argument for the virtues of eugenics, huh? Like, maybe we shouldn't be breeding people who are going to grow up to be mentally, physically and emotionally-defective?"Wow, that is morally repulsive. It is also factually inaccurate. People with mental illnesses, including people with psychosis, are not more likely to commit violent crimes. Your asinine theories about criminality and head shape were debunked about a century ago. Attitudes like yours are extremely harmful to the wellbeing of people with disabilities. They also do not decrease crime. The opposite, in fact, because they tend to be used as excuses to reduce deterence of perfectly deterable individuals.
>"Wow, that is morally repulsive. It is also factually inaccurate."Hence why I used the terms "kind of" and "maybe". Perhaps there are futuristic alternatives to primitive, immoral eugenics, like in-utero gene therapy, pharmaceuticals or cybernetic augmentations? Note that by cybernetics, I don't necessarily mean stuff like super-powered robo-prosthetics that let you jump ten stories or any of that Hollywood nonsense. I mean something like a small spinal implant that modulates the nervous system, controlling stress hormone releases and preventing paresthesia-like conditions or unexplained, continuous pain/headaches, et cetera.I mean, what about conditions like harlequin ichthyosis or treacher-collins syndrome? Can you honestly say that some of these kinds of congenital disorders shouldn't be eliminated from the populace by any means necessary in order to minimize suffering?I mean, I just don't get it. Where did this guy learn to hit women like that? What lowered his moral and intellectual inhibitions to the point where he would stoop to such savagery? Is it because he's a Marine? Is it because they taught him to be a killer? Is that it?I mean, honestly. Where do these people go wrong? Why can't we find that negative stimulus and eliminate it once and for all?
>"Your asinine theories about criminality and head shape were debunked about a century ago."I wasn't talking about phrenology or anything like that. Rather, I was merely suggesting that the presence of certain phenotypical traits in this individual may be an indicator for growth disorders that may lead to constant physical pain and depression later in one's life. That doesn't make them criminals automatically, of course, but it may be a contributing factor when combined with the stress of modern life.It is a fact that people with certain ethnic backgrounds are more prone to certain genetic diseases and abnormalities. Disorders like sickle cell anemia and thalassemia have higher affected populations in people of African or Asian descent, respectively. Similarly, I believe that there's a whole host of genetic disorders that may be specific to people of Hispanic or Caucasian descent. Now, keep in mind that I'm not proposing genocide or euthanasia or such evil, radical measures as those. Genetic screening combined with voluntary sterilization may be the only "good" eugenics regime possible. It would be even better if we could correct abnormalities during the gestational process. For instance, I have astigmatic eyes. Without corrective eyewear, I can barely read one of those high-contrast green and white road signs when it's six feet in front of my face. Lots and lots of people have this condition, so I'm hardly unique. Can you honestly say that we wouldn't have been better off if medical science had some way to prevent it before we were even born?Sorry, I guess I'm getting off-topic again. I just wish there was some way to explain all the barbarity that goes on in the world. For the record, there isn't. Just human nature, I guess. I mean, think about it. How would a human explain our barbarous nature to an alien race? For that matter, how would a parasite that eats the tongues of fish like Cymothoa Exigua justify its existence to us?See, this is why I hate terms like "disgusting" or "morally repulsive". They imply that a universal standard of repulsiveness exists and that all things should adhere to it. There isn't. We made it up, based on our irrational gut-feelings. Nature is cruel that way.One time when someone tried getting all theological with me, I pointed out things like parasitic worms and insect-killing fungi. I said "are those god's creations too?" The guy actually tried pulling that whole "Those exist because god cursed the earth/They're the invention of the devil!" thing.It was this sort of illogical recourse to conventional "feel-good" notions of morality that made me come to embrace utilitarianism as the ideal. It's because systems of ethics based on gut-feelings about right and wrong do not meet the scientific criteria for falsifiability.Of course, this is the part where most would insist that "humans are emotional creatures, so we need to take our precious feelings into account". Yes, sadly. Humans are emotional creatures. That's why a grown man flipped out and beat his ex half to death right in the middle of a goddamn courthouse. :(Is it wrong to ask for humans to exercise a little logic? A little reason?
>http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/philosopher.htm
>David, don't be afraid to wield the banhammer. The banhammer is your friend.
>Here's another thought, THASF: What if the blue I see, is, like, not the blue you see? What if we both just *call* it "blue" but if I saw through your eyes it'd really be, like, green?Duuuuuude.
>"I mean, I just don't get it. Where did this guy learn to hit women like that? What lowered his moral and intellectual inhibitions to the point where he would stoop to such savagery? Is it because he's a Marine? Is it because they taught him to be a killer? Is that it?"It's called the Patriarchy. Under such a system, men and women are socialized to believe that men are simply better than women by virtue of the fact that they are men. Ever hear about the experiment where children were told that people with a certain eye color were superior? That is how sexism and racism start.A boy is told that men are just 'naturally' more aggressive, that they can't help it. He is taught that it is women's job to 'tame the beast' within him, that is it women's job to always be nice and understanding, because, of course, women are just much better at that sort of thing.Since now the responsibility for a man's behavior and actions is dependent on a woman, it becomes her fault when he lashes out. Or, if he doesn't have a wife or girlfriend, it becomes all of womanity's fault for not being willing to take care of him.Now, if you really want to increase your understanding of the matter instead of just blathering about how mind-boggling it is, trying googling 'Feminism 101.'
>@Darkside CatPsychosis by definition is an uncontrollable altered state. People can commit violent crime under it but it cannot be charged. A Psychiatric patient knocking out a nurse is not going to be charged. It's not a crime due to mental state. However psychotic states and paranoid states do cause people to commit more violent crimes. The important thing to realise about "crazy people" is that they think they are sane. The logic of their thoughts generally is solid EXCEPT for one crucial bit. A simple explanation for THASF?The army is not a place for inculcating young men with a balanced world view in the hopes of turning them into productive members of society.You learn how to kill and how to follow orders. When you go to a war, you practice how to kill and how to follow orders. Only it's not the way how it's supposed to be. It's a lot more yelling and screaming. The enemy often is shooting back at you and no one cares if you crap yourself in fear (oh yes. No one shows that bit in a war movie.) Soon you are jumping at shadows. Often you will come under fire and you cannot do anything because you have no orders and no support. So you just sit there getting shot at with no one to lash out against. At some point something breaks inside you. You fear everything. But you are trained to fight fear with rage so it doesn't show. When you go back home you still are stuck in this mentality where when you are placed outside a comfort zones you wish to physically lash out, because that is all you know. Because all your problems could be solved by punching them before this. It's very hard to control without therapy and without medications. PTSD is the leading cause for divorces and break ups post service. It is also the cause of suicide in many soldiers post war. A lot of abuse is due to this. It's the sufferer's fault because you can control it. It's a case of willpower. But willpower is in short supply when you are a PTSD sufferer. Addictive behaviour is common.Or alternatively he could be a giant abusive arsehole… I would say test him for PTSD and get him the help he needs if he has it. Parole should be linked to his progress as a PTSD sufferer. No parole if he is just a giant berk who hits women.
>Amnesia…The army trains you to solve your problems through force. When you serve in a combat zone you are placed under incredible stress.You are taught in training to obey order and handle a weapon. No one tells you about "what it's like". War is chaotic and no one really follows any rules. No one tells you about "how you will be so scared you will actually lose bowel control". Or how someone will shoot your friend in the leg solely to have him lying there injured so your unit cannot move (you cannot leave him behind). Sometimes you don't have orders to engage despite being under fire and you have to just sit there and hope that amongst all the bullets labelled "to whomsoever it may concern" there isn't one with your name on it. Something breaks inside you and you respond to threats with violence. Because that is what you are trained to do. And it's a fine way to be in the army since your discipline ensures that you only lash out against the enemy. The problem is this mentality is now hardwired. You think like that because it is how combat PTSD works. Your response to fear and stress is violence. Oh there are actual physical changes such as excess testosterone and adrenaline. Clouds your judgement and makes you have wild mood swings. It's why you get therapy and drugs to control them. Not a Patriarchy, just a fact of life. Not everything has to be about male dominated societies. Women who served also respond violently and since men have a lower tolerance for this in relationships they often leave. Women Combat PTSD sufferers are "complete loners" who live in little bubbles of anger. That being said this is the most likely reason for this occurrence. It could be that the man is a raging dick. The Raging Dick option is always a good call. It doesn't have to be patriarchy so much as "the guy is an arsehole".
>And thus THASF dismisses the woman's injuries once again to focus on the poor widdle wife beater, speculating that maybe he came from the planet MOngo and thus suffered space sickness and she shouldn't have provoked him. Or something. But he's not that different from our resident MRAs; they find men fascinating, but women are just punching bags with vaginas. She must have done something to make him pissed off, because to assholes like Ion—who sees only a dogpile on poor widdle dipshit—all guys get the benefit of the doubt. These guys always trust other guys. They value other guys. They hate women. Why don't they just fuck one another and leave the rest of us alone?
>Avicenna, will you quit with the bullshit? You're making excuses for this asshole too and in the process revealing that you get all your information about the military and PTSD from Viet Nam era war movies and fuck only knows what else. Excess testosterone? Anything but to blame the guy himself, I guess. Jeez. Some guys are just desperate to justify one guy attacking a woman. You're one of them. It's vile.
>Here's another thought, THASF: What if the blue I see, is, like, not the blue you see? What if we both just *call* it "blue" but if I saw through your eyes it'd really be, like, green? Duuuuuude.Dude, that just blew my mind. I'm freaking out here! Pass the Cheetos.
>assholes like Ionginmar, are you angry all the time because you got your legs blown off in the war, like Lieutenant Dan? Just wondering.
>Ginmar…1. It's not an excuse. Most combat PTSD sufferers would not accept it as an excuse and seek to correct their aggressive behaviour. Therapy and Drugs. Uncontrolled behaviour turns into this. I do not accept it as an excuse. 2. You can check with PTSD forums and literature. Combat rather than bog standard. There is a difference. 3. This is the internet. Anything I say is completely unprovable. I could be a bored housewife in Guadalcanal not a british medical student in India. You could secretly be a contributer to In Mala Fide playing a silly joke. You have already dismissed information that is sensible as "from the movies". Any proof I give is equally dismissable.4. Quick question. If I were for example… Someone with experience with the disorder in question would that change your mind about how things work.5. If not then go for it. He is evil and and is evil because he is part of the Patriarchy rather than "he is a stupid violent berk who has not sought help for a problem and has not been provided with adequate support regarding the problem". Oh. And PTSD is not an excuse. It's a reason. PTSD related violence is punished as normal because PTSD is controllable with drugs and therapy. Most combat PTSD sufferers have coping mechanisms to deal with anger and rage ranging from drinking heavily to hardcore gardening and binge eating.
>Seriously, Avicenna? Although I couldn't agree more that lack of treatment and even recognition of PTSD is a major problem in the U.S. military, your insistence that PTSD fully explains this asshole's actions is starting to bother me. You seem to be diagnosing him from a few lines in an article. You don't have enough access to or information about Gonzalez to say specifically what the cause of his violence is.Here is an alternative explanation. From my personal experience, I have noticed that a tiny but noticeable minority of people who enter the military (join the police force, become prison guards or border patrol officers, etc.) do so because they think it will give them a good outlet for their already-existing rage. They want to fire weapons at people. They want to exert force. They want to dominate. Now, I have absolutely no way of knowing whether Paul Gonzalez was predisposed to violence before serving at war, just as I have no idea whether he would have been a person who was able to control his violent emotions but for untreated PTSD. I bet you don't either. I say it's probably best not to play armchair psychiatrist, since we just don't have any information that would lead to a correct conclusion about Gonzalez' inner life. Claiming it's PTSD when we don't know what happened just seems to be a distraction from his heinous and violent acts, which, sadly, we do know actually happened.
>Avicenna, what I care about is the fact that you're making excuses for a wife-beating asshole and you're using PTSD as an excuse. You're doing so in a very predictable way which means I couldn't give less of a shit about what or whom you claim you are. You're proving yourself to be a wife-beating apologist, and there's really nothing else to say.
>My guess is that Paul Gonzalez was a mean bully, and he attacked his wife because she was small and an easy target. Bullies don't like to fight someone of equal or greater strength, because they're afraid of losing. I have no idea if PTSD played a part in his actions.If there is something psychologically wrong with him to cause him to be violent, then he needs to get help and work on it. No woman should feel obligated to endure his abuse or feel responsible for fixing him. The mra's continually whine about the end of "marriage 1.0" or traditional marriage. They are mourning the fact that there are now consequences for beating their wives. They are against no fault divorce because they want it to be hard for women to divorce men like them. Paul Gonzalez is probably like any other abusive man. He just happened to show his true colors in a courthouse full of people.
>Has anyone hear read "Where there is no Doctor?"It is a pretty great book, and the subject matter is pretty much exactly what the title says. It is a guide and an education tool for village health workers and volunteers. There is a great chapter about the causes of disease with a picto-graphic at the beginning.In the middle is a sick, malnourished child, surrounded by concerned adults of various professions. The doctor says the child is ill because of a bacterial infection and exacerbated by malnutrition. The NGO worker says the child is ill because there is no adequate clean water supply in the village. The teacher says the child is ill because the mother hasn't been taught how to properly treat diarrhea. The politician says the sickness is due to the fact that no one in the government is willing to spend funds improving a poor mountain village. & Etc. The conclusion is, "There are many factors that cause disease, and that preventative care is better than emergency care."That is what the more linear and logical discussions here brought to mind. The MRA says he beat because he was backed into a corner. Or because she was "pushing his buttons". The feminist says he hits women because that is how society taught him to express his emotions. Was this how his father treated his mother? Did PTSD have an effect on his behavior? Did it matter that his ex-wife had found a new man? Maybe he got a speeding ticket on the way to the court house that morning. We don't know any of these details.We don't know what combination of factors led to *this* act of abuse. But we *do* know a lot about how abuse starts, and how it is perpetuated. Cases like this can only help our understanding of DV if we learn about what actually happened, not by throwing out wild-ass guesses and extrapolating from there.
>Every now and again, the internet provides us with the perfect case study of why Mr. Rogers should not be taken literally.
>Thanks, Kestra. At this point we know almost nothing about this case. The various speculations tell us a lot more about the speculators than they do about the case itself.
>@Kestra:We don't know what combination of factors led to *this* act of abuse. But we *do* know a lot about how abuse starts, and how it is perpetuated. Cases like this can only help our understanding of DV if we learn about what actually happened, not by throwing out wild-ass guesses and extrapolating from there. I completely agree. The Devil, as always, is in the details.
>What, you mean this isn't a multiple choice test? We can pick more than one answer?
>David: Have you finally started deleting THASF's posts? It's like he's got a checklist of irrelevant topics he needs to cover.