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

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

>

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

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

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

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

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

 Piercedhead offered this take:

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


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


DCM, even more bluntly, described Gonzalez as:


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


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

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

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

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

310 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ginmar
10 years ago

>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.

Simone Lovelace
10 years ago

>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')

Cynickal
10 years ago

>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.

*THASF*
10 years ago

>@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.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>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.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>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.

Kestra
10 years ago

>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.

Kestra
10 years ago

>Also, the woman in question is named Catherine. If you're going to take her part, at least learn her name.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Ion, I've deleted your latest two comments, and you are banned for the day.

Bob
Bob
10 years ago

>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.

Kave
10 years ago

>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.

Bee
Bee
10 years ago

>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.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>Since none of us have any idea what the judge's order was, how do you know it was unjust Bob?

Nobinayamu
10 years ago

>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?

*THASF*
10 years ago

>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.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>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."

Bob
Bob
10 years ago

>"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.

Nobinayamu
10 years ago

>“…..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.

Bob
Bob
10 years ago

>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.

*THASF*
10 years ago

>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?

Bee
Bee
10 years ago

>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.

strangesally
10 years ago

>@ 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.

Bob
Bob
10 years ago

>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.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>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.

Bob
Bob
10 years ago

>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.

*THASF*
10 years ago

>@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.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>There were no charges filed against Ms Nordegren because of a lack of evidence. So to conflate the two makes little sense.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>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."

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>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.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>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.

Bee
Bee
10 years ago

>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.)

Nobinayamu
10 years ago

>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.

Pam
Pam
10 years ago

>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

*THASF*
10 years ago

>"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.

Bob
Bob
10 years ago

>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.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>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.

Nobinayamu
10 years ago

>“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?

*THASF*
10 years ago

>@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.

Bob
Bob
10 years ago

>"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.

Lady Victoria von Syrus

>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).

Nobinayamu
10 years ago

>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.

Bob
Bob
10 years ago

>"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.

Bob
Bob
10 years ago

>"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.

Lady Victoria von Syrus

>*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).

Nobinayamu
10 years ago

>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.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>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.

Captain Bathrobe
10 years ago

>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.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>CB! You returned…was it the freshly cooked bacon?

IHATEPETERANDREWNOLAN
10 years ago

>11

Captain Bathrobe
10 years ago

>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.