It angers me the anger many of the men on this page carry toward women in terms of divorce laws. The law does not "pity" women. As you may know, up until LATE in the 20th century American women didn't even have a standing in court and didn't exist as separate beings. I am sorry to break it to you, but men are still very much in control and women who don't work but raise families are still very much undervalued when it comes to divorce. OJ is playing with these type of men, trying to get your pity and you are playing right into his hands. Don't fall for his crap.

As I see it, OJ is sitting somewhere laughing at us all. We shouldn't care, we shouldn't buy this book, he is laughing at double jeopardy. He is showing us how much better he is than us and its sickening. He did it, He was rich enough to get away with it, it's as simple as that. And before you start calling the Goldman's gold diggers, think about how you would feel if someone killed your son, daughter or husband and got away with it. You would want someone to pay and you would feel that they shouldn't be out golfing everyday.

If OJ wasn't a football hero and if Nicole Simpson wasn't a beautiful blond, would we have more sympathy for her? It shouldn't matter how she acted or what she did....OJ is responsible for how he reacts to things....NOT NICOLE. NO ONE deserves to have their head almost cut off completely with a knife by the person they had children with. She had no means of fighting someone his size, and we should all remember that.

Yes, OJ was a football star, but that didnt get him a whole lot of support among men-most men take issue with beating women despite your belief otherwise. Regardless of her beauty or wealth, Nicole was a small woman-OJ was a muscular guy who specialized in taking on the toughest defenses on the football field-in other words he would often have to hold one player and push another out of his way-almost as hard as holding a woman still while knifing her companion at the same time. No football fan could think anything other than how could he be such a savage.

Furthermore, I feel about your history statement the way I feel when told we need to give reparations to black folk for slavery. Quite simply, you cannot punish the men of today for the issues of yesterday. The civil war fixed slavery and womens rights have since made sure any woman can get a fair trial. The fact remains that the court generally does give the custody to the woman and the man generally is forced to leave a home he is often paying for-can you blame them for a little resentment of such a system? For every abused wife there are fifty who simply are bored with their hubby and want to score half his money (or more) and get him to pay the rent too while getting weekends off (while he babysits) so she can party like Lindsy and Brittany.

Divorce should not be a great occuppation-but that is what the court system has done.

Does this make what OJ did justified? Not at all. He was an animal. Regardless of how "tormented" he felt, there are certainly doctors and friends and councilors and many many other people who could have helped him-he certainly had the money to get any or all of these resources. He could have easily moved to a gated community and asked that she not be allowed in-but why do that when he could visit the same verbal abuse on her (and he seems to admit he was always fighting with her). The relationship was volatile to say the least-but nothing justifying murder.

I see what you are saying, but I find that people like to look for "reasons" things happen to them. they want to have someone, something to blame, when what they should do is move on. You can spend your whole life resenting things, but is it worth it? Not really. I, for one, am a woman who wants to be seen equal in the eyes of the law and I do want women to get equal punishment for equal crimes. We are capable of hatred, anger and murder. The thing that gets me is that I don't feel sorry for men who have been "stung" by divorce. It may not be right, but it IS women who carry the babies and it IS women who often have to give up careers or promotions to care for children. That is a reality. I live in that reality, so I can see why a man would be angry, but they really need to stop with the pity me act, because they have it pretty damn good if you ask me.

Oh come now Meg. You make it sound like you did all the work in that situation.

Divorce requires a marriage first. While a single mother can certainly claim the man did very little, men who provide the income to maintain your home, food, and luxuries are certainly doing SOMETHING-like WORKING 40 hours per day minimium for a minimum of 18 years per child. Sure, you carry a baby around while you are living your day to day life and then after a few years of child care chances are the kid is self-propelled, self feeding, self pottying, and you have most of your time to yourself while they watch TV, play, sleep, etc-the whole time the guy is working-no TV, no spending time playing with his kids, no reading, no writing, etc. And after that the court tells him he has to pay for his own place and pay 100% to feed and shelter his kids (and incidentally his ex-wife who lives with them) while he is expected to provide child care on the weekends while you seek his replacement. So yes, STUNG is a good word, but it goes on for so long, stung almost seems too temportary a word for it.

I personally think that you lack respect for the role of a husband in all this. Sure, OJ doesnt sound like he was the ideal model, but I do think you think the grass is greener without appreciating the other aspects of it. Men dont get time with their kids much during a great marriage-they get less when divorced. Furthermore they "get" their kids on the weekend-which makes it easy for the ex to go find a replacement-he gets to go out Monday thru Thursday-thats really prime single-time isnt it? And lastly, he can easily pay more than 75% of his income and be expected to survive on 25% (living in his parents basement maybe?). I dont disagree with you that the woman has her cross to bear, but please dont think the guy has nothing but wine and roses.

RML:

Yes, OJ was a football star, but that didnt get him a whole lot of support among men-most men take issue with beating women despite your belief otherwise. Regardless of her beauty or wealth, Nicole was a small woman-OJ was a muscular guy who specialized in taking on the toughest defenses on the football field-in other words he would often have to hold one player and push another out of his way-almost as hard as holding a woman still while knifing her companion at the same time. No football fan could think anything other than how could he be such a savage.

Furthermore, I feel about your history statement the way I feel when told we need to give reparations to black folk for slavery. Quite simply, you cannot punish the men of today for the issues of yesterday. The civil war fixed slavery and womens rights have since made sure any woman can get a fair trial. The fact remains that the court generally does give the custody to the woman and the man generally is forced to leave a home he is often paying for-can you blame them for a little resentment of such a system? For every abused wife there are fifty who simply are bored with their hubby and want to score half his money (or more) and get him to pay the rent too while getting weekends off (while he babysits) so she can party like Lindsy and Brittany.

Divorce should not be a great occuppation-but that is what the court system has done.

Does this make what OJ did justified? Not at all. He was an animal. Regardless of how "tormented" he felt, there are certainly doctors and friends and councilors and many many other people who could have helped him-he certainly had the money to get any or all of these resources. He could have easily moved to a gated community and asked that she not be allowed in-but why do that when he could visit the same verbal abuse on her (and he seems to admit he was always fighting with her). The relationship was volatile to say the least-but nothing justifying murder.

You don't understand the inherent power emotions have. Your whole system is different. You don't have the passion of a genuine human being and that's because you're not one.

Women can say very stupid things not realizing there can be sudden dire consequences. Amplify this with malice, bragging, defiance, infidelity, reprobate and debauched lewd behavior and taunting, throw into the mix the libertine flippant disregard a white women will show you and you have a dangerous cocktail.

It's no justification for murder but it certainly explains why it can happen.

meggles:

I see what you are saying, but I find that people like to look for "reasons" things happen to them. they want to have someone, something to blame, when what they should do is move on. You can spend your whole life resenting things, but is it worth it? Not really. I, for one, am a woman who wants to be seen equal in the eyes of the law and I do want women to get equal punishment for equal crimes. We are capable of hatred, anger and murder. The thing that gets me is that I don't feel sorry for men who have been "stung" by divorce. It may not be right, but it IS women who carry the babies and it IS women who often have to give up careers or promotions to care for children. That is a reality. I live in that reality, so I can see why a man would be angry, but they really need to stop with the pity me act, because they have it pretty damn good if you ask me.

Nobody is asking for your pity Meggles. What we are asking you for is custody of the kids, 75% of your future income for the next decade or two and YOU take the kids on the weekends so WE can go out and have a social life. I can't imagine why you'd turn down an offer like that. After all, you have already said that you'd have it "pretty damn good" under those circumstances...