>
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.
>Yeah, how come we're looking for a complicated excuse when there's a simple one staring us in the face? He's a wife beater, he's an asshole, and let's face it—the Marines aren't noted for their forward thinking with regards toward women, though some areas are improving. Any group that's overwhelmingly male is going to be a swamp of misogyny. He's a typical wife beater. Don't get distracted by extraneous details, and don't let him off the hook.
>There is no excuse or reasons to beat up someone Eoghan. Writing to the public also breaks his right to remain silent and everything he said would be held against him.
>"Any group that's overwhelmingly male is going to be a swamp of misogyny."Uh, no, that's not actually true.
>Ginmar.Seriously? 1. Read any post I have made on my own blog. None of them encourage the things you have accused me of.2. Where did I say PTSD is an excuse? I keep repeating and you keep ignoring this. NO PTSD SUFFERER IS ALLOWED TO USE PTSD AS AN EXCUSE FOR ANYTHING. It's self destructive since if you do use it you can use it to justify anything. Not one. I suggest you try http://combat.ptsdforum.org/ if you would like to have a look at literature on the matter.3. Untreated… PTSD can cause this. Poor judgement when angry and a high level of "not giving a crap about what happens to yourself" is par for the course. No one is letting him of the hook. But if it's PTSD the sentence should provide benefits for therapy and improvement. Parole should be linked to that.
>Really, David? Ever been the lone female in an Army comapny or at a security company where male mores dominate? Where you're the lone woman out of twenty men? YOu really want to argue that? Ever had a sex change and posted as a woman on a website that's not explicitly labeled for women? C'mon, let's go. I really need to hear a guy tell me what it's like being the only woman in a huge group of guys, or,say, one of six percent women in the Marines? WAnt to ask Kathy Sierra what it's like being a woman in a male-dominated group? REALLY?
>Why in the fuck should I read your blog, Avicenna? You're acting like this guy is a special snowflake and that the context of PTSD–which he hasn't been diagnosed with—should over-ride the far more obvious context of wife beating and sexism. We don't know what he did as a Marine. He could have folded cots for his tour for Christ's sake. And you seem to think that if you don't say, "I'm making excuses for him," then that's all it takes to not make excuses for him.
>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?entry_id=14783 And look up Biting Beaver. Or ask any female blogger what it's like being a known female blogger. Biting Beaver had a condom break and wrote about her trials in getting EC; when denied it, she had to have an abortion, and male harassers drove her off line by finding out where she lived, letting her abusive ex know where she was, and making credible threats. Melissa McEwan had people show up in her doorway. I've had men boast about how it was my fault that I didn't protect myself better. Men in groups. And that's to nothing of men in groups of institutionalized male power. http://kateharding.net/2008/09/24/from-the-archives-on-being-a-no-name-blogger-using-her-real-name/
>Ginmar-Unless you expect the judge to send this guy to prison for the rest of his life regardless of his constitutional rights or protections (in other words, I am asking if you think he does not get to have a trial, sentencing hearing, etc…), he will have a chance to ask the judge to consider factors like PTSD. I have no idea if that is what Avicenna is getting at but it is something that could be brought up during sentencing.
>No. I am pointing out a mechanism for abuse that is well catalogued amongst army personnel. PTSD sufferers have long histories of spousal abuse both mental and physical. When provided with help the sufferer virtually stops (It does require the spouse to have some patience in terms of the verbal abuse which may continue since it is easy to yell at someone.)SO you would rather he be "violent for no reason" than "Violent for an actual reason"? Uncurable rather than possible to cure?
>Elizabeth, did I say that? Gee, that would be a big NO wouldn't it? Avicenna keeps arguing and arguing that PTSD made the guy react like a typical MRA and that it's PTSD not the fact that he's an abusive shit that made him beat her up. I know of at least one case where the soldier in question argued that PTSD made him commit rape, which is downright odd, because rape is not part of one's duties as a soldier, so it's not an action he'd develop as a reflex. And seeing as how this guy who beat up his wife did not face custody hearings while on patrol in the Marines—if he had that kind of MOS, that is—-then beating her up is not some kind of flashback or reflex action. He's pissed and he's making excuses afterward, which is what Avicenna is helping him do.
>And in looking over three pages of Google results, I see that PTSD has not come up. So our friends the MRAs and the apologists here have brought this up. We don't know what he did as a Marine, we don't know where he served, and at this point there's absolutely no evidence that he has PTSD, so shut the fuck up about PTSD and stop making excuses for this wife-beating asshole at the expense of veterans who have to fight off real PTSD.
>Avicenna, I'm saying that as you're the only one who thinks our Poor Widdle Asshole has PTSD, it's bullshit. And you have no source for those claims about how PTSD makes men abuse women, but isn't that a great excuse for men? How cool! It's just so convenient that it lets men off the hook for crimes that men typically commit in vastly higher numbers than women do, in war or peace, as civilians or soldiers. Making up a claim that he could suffer from PTSD when there's no evidence of it is, in fact, pathetically making excuses for him. He's an asshole. He chose to be an asshole. Are you going to defend every wife beater, too?
>I know of one where the guy drove his car to the middle of a scenic view, started a petrol driven chainsaw and rolled up the windows and listened to music till he died. I suggest you go read what other PTSD sufferers have to say. If this man has PTSD he has to be pitied and given help rather than be treated with the condescension that you have heaped on him.Oh and this is the 3rd time. PTSD is not an excuse for anything. No one who has it will give it as an excuse. Untreated however it can go into situations like this.
>Avicenna, I suggest that you don't assume that ginmar is stupid and knows nothing about PTSD. Seriously. Sometimes people are wrong, you are being wrong right now, stop digging.
>Avicenna thinks it is likely it is PTSD and he is clearly saying it is not an excuse. He also said it could very well be "This is an abusive jerk who likes to beat up women."And apparently he is not the only one who thinks that it is possible. AnotherEven the VA thinks it is a plausible that intimate partner violence is a result of PTSD.Our view of this is PURE speculation at this point. We have no idea about anything going on in their relationship-all we know is he hit her and should be prosecuted for it.
>God, you're a fucking morn. YOu keep making excuses, then saying you're not making an excuse. The action you perform determines how your actions are defined, not the excuses you make for yourself. Dumb shit. And by the way? Using an example of a guy killing himself does not extrapolate to a guy attacking a woman the way guys do the world over. There's no evidence whatsoever he has PTSD. Speculating that he has and that's why he attacked his es is making an excuse in itself. It is the action, not your denials that matter. Christ, if I stick pine needles all over my fucking cat it doesn't make her a goddamned Christmas tree, and you can whine all you want that you're not making excuses, but you're arguing that an animal that quacks, flies, and has feathers is an elephant.
>So your argument comes from:1. a family website that turned into some sort of cottage industry, based on whatever she pulled off of Dr. Phil or whatever;2. Somebody who cites 'studies' but does not actually identify any one; 3. and the VA, which in the past thirty five years has demonstrated a complete inability to effectively treat and diagnose PTSD in female soldiers as well as many male soldiers, preferring to rate them with less costly illnesses that require smaller budgetary outlays. Wow. I'm convinced. I have a news flash for you. Just because some soldier self reports that his PTSD made him beat his wife and rape somebody, it doesn't mean he's being honest. It might mean he's an opportunist. When it comes to crimes against women, men will make up and use just about any excuse–and some women are eager to buy into those excuses. PTSD is just the latest excuse.
>….and at least two of the sources the VA cites are twenty years old, and two are books that look like the sort of thing that get pitched to the VA by authors and others. As somebody who's experienced the VA's tender care, here's a dirty little secret: much of va care is stuff that's marketed at the VA by contractors, who pitch stuff that might help. It can take the place of actual help. For example, one time I was in a therapy group that got pitched a book called "Ten Days To Better Self Esteem." What does that have to do with the particular vets in that group? Nothing. It was all about sales. So were the leather art kits, the craft kits, all that shit. None of it was geared for women. It was all contractor-driven. The stuff the VA's peddling is self reporting. So they're asking abusers if PTSD made them do it, and shockingly enough, the abusers are seizing that big huge opportunity—much like Avicenna here—and grabbing it for all its worth.
>So those who have PTSD do not act out violently with anyone ever? Or is it just when the guy hits a women that we ignore the fact the guy may have PTSD?This guy may be the classic abuser or maybe he just snapped. WE DO NOT KNOW. Avicenna's point it could be PTSD is just as possible as your point that this is just a case of a classic abuser. The judge is going to be the one hearing the evidence and determining which sentence is appropriate-not us.What we do know is he hit his ex-wife and should be prosecuted. That is ALL we know.
>Although where I think we all agree is that MRAs are generally a bunch of reactionary idiots who think that hitting a woman is a good idea.
>Any group that's overwhelmingly male is going to be a swamp of misogyny.I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. This may very well be true for some groups of men. It may also be true that when you get a large group of men together, some of these men will have internalized misogynistic attitudes from society at large. But you can't look at a group of, say, ten or twenty men and just *assume* that they're all going to be misogynists because they are men. If we're looking at a group with particular entry requirements that favor men, such as the Catholic priesthood or U.S. Armed Forces, I think you might have a point. Being a member of a No Girls Allowed club makes you think that it's right and proper for no girls to be allowed to join. But I've been around places where I've been outnumbered by the men, and yet I somehow felt accepted and valued by my male friends.
>It baffles me when dudes complain about having to pay child support, and getting limited access to their kid in the same breath.It's like, you clearly don't care enough about the child to voluntarily give him or her as much material support as you can muster. If the kid doesn't mean that much to you, why do you want to spend time with him or her?I get the impression that in these contentious cases, a lot of dudes are using access as a lever of control, to assert their dominance over their child and their ex.
>But I've been around places where I've been outnumbered by the men, and yet I somehow felt accepted and valued by my male friends. Yes, but Ginmar is not talking about groups where the men simply happen to outnumber the women; she's talking about groups where the group dynamic itself is overwhelmingly male-dominated. Such as, well, the armed forces, or sports, or law enforcement, or the business world, or politics, or the Catholic priesthood, or or or or…yeah. Those "No Girls Allowed clubs" that you mentioned are what she is talking about.
>That's not what she said. She said "any group that's overwhelmingly male," not "any group that favors male contributions over female contributions." She's implying that there's something inherent about maleness that fosters misogyny, and that this misogyny is exacerbated when men gather in large groups. There are plenty of groups which happen to be 'overwhelmingly male,' but manage to treat women like human beings.
>She's implying that there's something inherent about maleness that fosters misogyny, and that this misogyny is exacerbated when men gather in large groups. Replace "inherent" with "taught from a very young age", and you are quite accurate.Male human here, who grew up with progressive, feminist parents. And even so, I had to spend a lot of time and effort rooting out and purging misogynist ideas and messages from my psyche. Because there's just so much of it in the culture at large. You're soaking in it. We're all soaking in it.Sure, there are some particularly progressive groups that have a visible membership, or leadership, which is mostly male, and are concerned about this and trying to ameliorate it. For instance, the atheist movement. But let's be honest, such groups are the exception, not the rule.