you're reading...
Pre-2008 Posts

Despicable: Goldmans Publish OJ’s Book

If I Did It 

I was wondering why I’d received over a thousand hits today on an old blog post I wrote about OJ’s murder of Nicole Simpson, so I googled and discovered that the Goldmans — the family of Ron Goldman, also killed by OJ Simpson — have published OJ’s book, If I Did It.  Judith Regan, the book’s original publisher, was fired for agreeing to publish the book and most copies of it were trashed when bookstores refused to carry it. 

But Goldman was given the rights to the book and has now republished it with the subtitle, “Confessions of the Killer”.   The book has not been edited, but it includes an introduction entitled, “With Exclusive Commentary, “He Did It,” by the Goldman Family.” The Goldmans get all the proceeds, and judging from presales, there will be a lot of proceeds.  Although Nicole’s family is entitled to 10 percent, Denise Brown, Nicole’s sister and spokesman for the Brown family, says they won’t take one red cent. 

Denise Brown,  a tireless advocate for domestic violence victims, says that this is a book in which OJ, in typical abuser fashion, trashes Nicole, describing her as an abuser of drugs, a partier and in other ways, as though to justify her murder.  Those who have read the book agree that it is a confession; there is nothing hypothetical about it.  Goldman says he was shocked when he read the book, thinking it would offer gory details, only to find out that only one chapter dealt with the actual murders; the rest of the book was an attack on Nicole Brown, his former wife and the mother of their children.  The book, in other words, was and is a final “fuck you” to everybody who has watched in horror as OJ has continued to live the life of luxury, earning hundreds of thousands of dollars every year while paying less than $10,000 of the $33.5 million dollar civil judgment against him, moving on with his playboy, celebrity life without missing a beat.  Thanks to the Goldmans, he leaves a final legacy for his children: a book in which he trashes their mother in the most vile and despicable way, 13 years after her murder.

Denise Brown says this is blood money and she wants nothing to do with it.  I think she’s absolutely right.  As to Fred Goldman and his horrifying lack of concern for Nicole Brown, her children, her family, her memory, as to his willingness to sell it all down the river to pay his bills and  in some way — anyway, whatever the cost — punish OJ, I think he’s so wrong.  Nothing is going to bring back Ron Goldman, nothing is going to bring back Nicole Simpson, and above all, OJ Simpson is never really going to pay for — or even acknowledge in any meaningful way — what he did.  The Goldmans are just participating in OJ’s ongoing hearty and resounding “fuck you” to an entire watching culture.

Link Link

Heart

Comments restricted to women only.  Racist comments will never see the light of day. — Heart

Discussion

57 thoughts on “Despicable: Goldmans Publish OJ’s Book

  1. All I can say is — OMG! Why would Fred Goldman do such a horrendous thing? He’s just managed to give O.J. yet one more chance to laugh at the victims, the jury, the entire justice system, and everyone who thought he was guilty. Ya gotta know … he’s loving this. For shame, Mr. Goldman. Was it worth it?

    Posted by Susan L | September 13, 2007, 11:14 pm
  2. That truly is disgusting.

    And it’s something no one wants to talk about – the way white women may enjoy privileges over black men, as a class, while at the same time being subordinated to black men in their individual relationships with them. Black men retain their male privilege – the privilege to beat, rape, cloister, and murder their wives and girlfriends – within their individual interracial relationships, even when the woman in question is white.

    Posted by justicewalks | September 13, 2007, 11:20 pm
  3. Did Goldman actually read that book before publishing it?

    Posted by Branjor | September 14, 2007, 12:41 am
  4. It just goes to show that men one upping each other is more important than the dignity of women. Pissing contest 101.

    Posted by ekittyglendower | September 14, 2007, 2:01 am
  5. I was planning to post about this tomorrow.. and probably still will.. but you’ve really summarized my exact feelings as well.

    Is there absolutely N.o.t.h.i.n.g that won’t ultimately be marketed, even a woman’s death?

    The whole thing is repugnant.

    Peace,

    ~Chani
    http://thailandgal.blogspot.com

    Posted by thailandchani | September 14, 2007, 3:54 am
  6. So right, Kitty! Pissing match it is, and who gives a shit about the women.

    Branjor, Goldman read the book. His reaction was mostly shock that only one chapter of the book was about the murder and it wasn’t particularly gory.

    And you know, that’s more evidence that he did do it, not that I ever doubted it. He writes one chapter about murdering Nicole and 10 more, or however many, justifying what he did.

    Goldman’s deal is, at this point, after all these years, he doesn’t care, whatever he can do to get his hands on money that would have gone to OJ, he’s going to do it. It’s the only “vengeance” he can wreak. And he doesn’t care that what it means is that Denise Simpson wouldn’t even share the stage with him on Oprah today and won’t take a penny of his money and is going to speak across the country and say how wrong and despicable what he’s done is.

    Thailand Chani, you are so right. Whatever can be sold, will be sold, and who cares about women?

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 14, 2007, 4:00 am
  7. I don’t think OJ did it. The corrupt police in LA (and everywhere) are well known for framing people of colour. They do it every day all over the country. Think about it: First, a man of colour “defiles” a white womyn; not only that, but this man of colour is rich! Well, we can’t have that. So what do we do? We frame him for murder! I don’t know if the corrupt police killed her, or if it was just “luck” that she was killed, but I don’t believe for a second he did it.

    Posted by Hecate | September 14, 2007, 6:00 am
  8. Could it be Goldmans published the book to show how cruel OJ Simpsons was and is?

    Posted by MJ | September 14, 2007, 6:23 am
  9. Despicable indeed.

    Yet I feel not the slightest prickle of a car-crash mentality urge to read the book. Why on earth are so many keen to do so?

    Posted by hexy | September 14, 2007, 9:09 am
  10. Why on earth are so many keen to do so?

    Snuff “erotica.”

    Posted by justicewalks | September 14, 2007, 1:08 pm
  11. Yes, MJ.

    Hexy, don’t read the book. Many won’t, me included. I am happy that the rights are taken away from OJ and he will not profit from his disgusting words.

    I think that is really the point. Calling Fred Goldman despicable is really inappropriate. He lost a son. He does not want his son’s murderer to make a profit from the book, which the Goldmans retitled, appropriately “the confessions of a killer”. Because it is.

    Justice was not served in our court system in this case.

    Posted by Andy | September 14, 2007, 1:22 pm
  12. Heart, I am a woman, btw. Andy is short for Andrea.

    So is my opinion welcome here?

    Thanks.

    Posted by Andy | September 14, 2007, 1:25 pm
  13. Is there the slightest possibility some, if not many who previously supported OJ (most Blacks according to a survey done at the time) might change their minds, saying “now I get it.”

    Speaking as an outsider. I saw no reason for the book and movie about Holmolka and Bernardo (insane sex slayings by a young man and woman in Canada) although the book was done by a very credible journalist, and he pled free speech, but as with the OJ case, the public has been scorched on it and wanted no more.

    Will this happen with the Picton murders, all or the majority of whose victims were aboriginal?

    Posted by Sis | September 14, 2007, 2:47 pm
  14. Andy, sorry, I did delete your earlier comment, thinking you were a man. Yes, your opinion is welcome here. I don’t think Goldman is despicable, and I think it’s hideous that his son was murdered. I think the decision to publish this book is despicable.

    Hecate, I agree with you 100 percent that the LA Police Dept. is corrupt and racist, probably beyond cure. One of my adult sons lives down there and is harassed ALL of the time. For a while he lived in an apartment without parking (as is true of most apartments down there, except for the rich) and he had to get up every morning by 4 a.m. to move his car for the street cleaners. Racist ass cops would just sit there and fucking TICKET him and other people of color for JAYWALKING because they ran across the (empty) streets to move their cars before 4. This is at 4 a.m., when they are out moving their cars in their bathrobes to avoid getting a ticket! Of course anybody who didn’t get out of there by 4 a.m., their car got ticketed. By and large the LA police are racist fuckheads.

    Argh, I STEAM every time I think about it, pathetic racist pieces of crap.

    BUT.

    I do not even want to discuss whether OJ did it. Of course, he certainly did. He had a LONG history of having abused Nicole Simpson. She had called the police on him before and everybody in her life knew he was an abuser. He was insanely jealous, as most abusers are. I think he counted on it that he could kill her, and that his celebrity status, his popularity, his money, and legal advice his money could buy, would get him off, and he would have plenty of support, including from people who resented Nicole Simpson for all the reasons people tend to resent women like Nicole Simpson.

    His plan worked, too, and worked well. This man has lived the life of Riley ever since, vacations in the Bahamas, lives in a mansion, doesn’t miss a fucking beat, having murdered his wife.

    So I’m not even going to argue that point.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 14, 2007, 3:39 pm
  15. ***This man has lived the life of Riley ever since, vacations in the Bahamas, lives in a mansion, doesn’t miss a fucking beat, having murdered his wife.***

    Wonder how the search for the “real” killer(s) is going. Remember that? He vowed that if he was acquitted, he would make it a “life goal” to find the “real” killer(s) of Nicole and Ron, sort of like The Fugitive searching for the one armed man, except that he wouldn’t be a fugitive. I haven’t heard a thing to the effect that he is doing anything like that.

    Posted by Branjor | September 14, 2007, 4:21 pm
  16. Thanks, Heart.

    It is despicable that the words were even written. But, OJ is greedy and he would surely find a way to get his words published and profit from Ron and Nicole’s murder.

    The Goldmans took away any of that opportunity for OJ.

    Let’s put the blame where it should lie–with OJ. He wrote the words. Let the victims’ families have some peace. Writing stuff like “The Goldmans are just participating in OJ’s ongoing hearty and resounding “fuck you” to an entire watching culture” is not how I, and many others, interpret this.

    Of particular note: Kim Goldman will not utter the name “OJ Simpson.” She will only say “the killer.”

    Posted by Andy | September 14, 2007, 5:49 pm
  17. Looks like OJ is not only a murderer and abuser but a petty thief as well. It really brings it all home. Just a petty thief.

    Posted by ekittyglendower | September 14, 2007, 6:25 pm
  18. I saw the Goldman’s father and sister on CNN (or one of the cable news stations) today. Goldman’s sister explained that the judge who gave them the rights to the book did so on the condition that they use the book to recover some of the monies owed to them by *the killer.* Otherwise, the rights to the book would have remained with the killer, who would eventually find someone a publisher for it and, of course, would then make “millions” off the book.

    As for Nicole’s kids, they are part owners of the killer’s company, former part owners of the book, and when the killer previously tried to have it publish, the children had already given their authority, even having already read the book.

    Incidentally, Nicole’s daughter has a bankruptcy meeting in FL today, which is where the killer should have been instead of robbing a casino in Vegas. I suspect that the girl had given her approval to taint her mother’s name and public image for book sales to bail her ass out of debt. I also suspect that Nicole’s children have been brainwashed by the killer, and may even be sociopaths like their murderer-father.

    Finally, I suspect that the killer is on the narcissistic side of sociopathy and as such, his need to remain in the spotlight , just as much as or more than monitary gain, was the reason he burglarized a casino today (or last night, whenever it was). He just can not stand it that the spotlight is on the Goldman’s end even Nicole’s sister today, so he did what he had to do to steal the stage from them.

    Narcissists: they’re all alike.

    Posted by CoolAunt | September 14, 2007, 6:38 pm
  19. So in addition to the direct “fuck you” to the victim and those who care about her, this adds to the misogyny of everyone who reads and agrees and has their blame-the-victim feelings validated. It hurts all women, in other words. And sensationalizing violence/domination to make a buck is gross.

    Posted by Erin H. | September 14, 2007, 6:57 pm
  20. Cool Aunt, I agree with you whole-heartedly about narcissists, and I can sense that you know whereof you speak … as I also do.

    But I take issue with maligning the kids. They never stood a chance. Sure, they are brainwashed, but they are still young and probably dependent on their dad emotionally. I don’t for a minute believe they are sociopaths. They are co-victims with Nicole Brown. Have been all this time. And they have a very, very rough road ahead as they make sense of it all.

    Posted by secondwaver | September 14, 2007, 8:17 pm
  21. I don’t think it’s Nichole’s daughter who has the bankruptcy hearing. Arnelle Simpson is OJs daughter by his first marriage.

    Posted by Sis | September 14, 2007, 9:11 pm
  22. Sis, I wasn’t aware of that. You know how sometimes the news reports will leave out certain details because doing so will make the story more sensational? I think that might have been done on the news program I watched today as I would have taken note if they’d said Arnelle rather than Sydney.

    Secondwaver, you’re right; I shouldn’t have judged Nicole’s kids so harshly. I posted that comment just after hearing about her kids being co-owners of the killer’s business that had owned the book and about them giving consent to publish it.

    Thinking more than feeling now, I can relate their lives to that of my four sibs and mine. We were raised by our dad, our mother having abandoned us. He’s never been diagnosed but I’d bet anything that he’s a certifiable malignant narcissist. Into our young adult lives, my sibs and I believed our dad was everything that he likes to believe that he is: always right, honest, smarter, better looking, funnier, etc., than the rest of us Earth dwellers. In our own time, however, each and every one one of us stopped listening to him in favor of our own individual senses and inner voices. Now none of us believes him to be those things that he believes himself to be, no, far from them. Further, except for one brother, the rest of us aren’t even remotely like our dad in any way at all.

    Anyway, I didn’t share that to make this about me. I shared it because of the similarities in their lives and upbringing and ours (my sibs’ and mine) and the similarities that I perceive exist between their father and mine. And having thought about all of that, I take back what I posted earlier about Nicole’s kids. I’d not be surprised if, at this time in their lives, Nicole’s kids believe that their dad is perfect, too, and even that he was justified in killing their mom. But, as you posted, they’re still young. So, it’s quite possible and even probable that one day, each in their own time, those two may very well wise up and see right through their father, too.

    Posted by CoolAunt | September 14, 2007, 10:40 pm
  23. I didn’t know either CoolAunt. Had to Google it. By the way, I think I’m possibly your stepmother.

    “I believed our dad was everything that he likes to believe that he is: always right, honest, smarter, better looking, funnier, etc., than the rest of us Earth dwellers.”

    Posted by Sis | September 15, 2007, 4:27 am
  24. …By the way, I think I’m possibly your stepmother.

    “I believed our dad was everything that he likes to believe that he is: always right, honest, smarter, better looking, funnier, etc., than the rest of us Earth dwellers.”

    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at that one. :b

    Posted by CoolAunt | September 15, 2007, 4:57 am
  25. justicewalks said, “And it’s something no one wants to talk about – the way white women may enjoy privileges over black men, as a class, while at the same time being subordinated to black men in their individual relationships with them.”

    I agree. Our country boasts a sordid and terrifying history of atrocities against people of color. Black men have been killed for looking at a white women (Emmett Till comes to mind). In this context, a case like this became a chance for justice to finally prevail. The problem is that OJ actually battered and killed his wife! But that small detail (a violent double-murder) would not intervene in the false catharsis of the OJ aquittal so that our country could collectively believe that racism was “over.” It’s kind of like the Don Imus thing–“See, we kicked that racist outta here, so now the media is not racist.” “See, we aquitted the black dude, so now our past is absolved and equality prevails.” This whole charade sickened me then and sickens me now.

    I feel like rape, battery, and murder of women is practically legal in every part of the world. In this case, a publicised mureder has been very good for business! Many people will certainly pay to read what they hope is a gory account of wife-murder in this lousy book. Ugh.

    Thank you Heart, for writing this.

    Posted by Magpie | September 15, 2007, 4:10 pm
  26. In this context, a case like this became a chance for justice to finally prevail. The problem is that OJ actually battered and killed his wife! But that small detail (a violent double-murder) would not intervene in the false catharsis of the OJ aquittal so that our country could collectively believe that racism was “over.”

    This is a great insight, Magpie. I don’t know if the country wanted to believe that racism was over, exactly, but this was certainly, in the minds of some, a step in the right direction! Never mind what actually happened. Don’t let the facts get in the way. And who cares about one more dead woman anyway?

    Posted by womensspace | September 15, 2007, 5:04 pm
  27. This is why, among other reasons, I love Andrea Dworkin so, so much:

    Nicole Simpson, like every battered woman, knew she would not be believed. She may have been shrewd enough to anticipate the crowds along the Orange County freeways, cheering on O.J. Every battered woman has to be careful, even with strangers. His friends won’t stop him. Neither will yours.

    Nicole Simpson went to many experts on domestic violence for help but none of them stopped him. That’s what it takes: the batterer has to be stopped. He will not stop himself. …

    It was Nicole who asked the police to arrest Simpson in 1989, the ninth (emphasis mine) time the police had been called. … The 1989 assault on Nicole Simpson should have resulted in O.J. Simpson’s ninth arrest. …

    What no one will face is this: the problem is not with the woman; it is with the perpetrator. She can change every weakness, transform every dependency. She can escape with the bravado of a Jesse James or the subtle skill of a Houdini. But if the husband is committed to violence and she is not, she cannot win her safety or her freedom. …

    Acounts of wife-beating have typically been met with incredulity and disdain, best expressed in the persistent question, “Why doesn’t she leave.” But after two decades of learning about battery, we now know that more battered women are killed after they leave than before.

    …Nicole Simpson was living in her own home when she was murdered. Her divorce had been finalized in 1992…her ex-husband [continued] to assault her, threaten her, stalk her, intimidate her. His so-called desire for reconciliation masks the awfulness of her situation, the same for every woman who escapes but does not disappear. Having ended the marriage, Nicole Simpson still had to negotiate her safety with the man who was hurting her.

    She had to avoid angering him. Any hint that her amiability was essentially coerced, any threat of public exposure, any insult to his dignity from his point of view, might trigger aggression. …the perpetrator chooses when he will hurt or threaten or stalk. Still, the woman tries. All the smiling photographs of them together after the divorce should evoke alarm, not romantic descriptions of his desire to reconcile. Nicole Simpson followed a strategy of appeasement, because no one stood between her and him to stop him.

    Escape, in fact, is hell, a period of indeterminate length reckoned in years, not months, when the ex-husband commits assault intermittently and acts of terrorism with some consistency. Part of the torment is that freedom is near but he will not let the woman have it. …

    Maybe you don’t know how brave women are– the ones who have stayed until now and the ones who have escaped, both the living and the dead. Nicole Simpson is the hero. The perpetrator is the problem…

    Where is the victim’s voice? Where are her words? “I’m scared,” Nicole Brown told her mother a few months before she was killed. “I go to the gas station, he’s there. I go to the Payless Shoe Store, and he’s there. I’m driving and he’s behind me.”

    Nicole’s ordinary words of fear, despair and terror told to friends, and concrete descriptions of physical attacks recorded in her diary, are being kept from the jury. Insignificant when she was alive — because they didn’t save her — the victim’s words remain insignificant in death: excluded from the trial of her accused murderer, called “hearsay” and not admissible in a legal system that has consistently protected or ignored the beating and sexual abuse of women by men, especially by husbands.

    Nicole called a battered women’s shelter five days before her death. The jury will not have to listen — but we must. Evidence of the attacks on her by Simpson that were witnessed in public will be allowed at trial. But most of what a batterer does is in private. The worst beatings, the sustained acts of sadism, have no witnesses. Only she knows. To refuse to listen to Nicole Brown Simpson is to refuse to know. (Bolds mine.)

    …We blame her, as the batterer did. [Including in his goddamn book. FUCK him. That’s all mine.–Heart] We ask why she stayed, though we, of course, were not prepared to stand between her and the batterer so that she could leave. And if, after she is dead, we tell the police that we heard the accused murderer beat her in 1977, and saw her with black eyes — as Nicole’s neighbors did — we will not be allowed to testify, which may be the only justice in this, since it has taken us seventeen years to bother to speak at all…

    Every battered woman learns early on not to expect help. A battered woman confides in someone, when she does, to leave a trail. She overcomes her fear of triggering violence in the batterer if he finds out that she has spoken in order to leave a verbal marker somewhere, with someone. She thinks the other person’s word will be believed later.

    Every battered woman faces death more than once, and each time the chance is real: the batterer decides. Eventually she is fractured inside by the continuing degradation and her emotional world is a landscape of desperation. Of course, she smiles in public and is a good wife. He insists– and so do we.

    The desperation is part fear — fear of pain, fear of dying — and part isolation, a brutal aloneness, because everything has failed — every call for help to anyone, every assumption about love, every hope for self respect and even a shred of dignity. What dignity is there, after all, in confessing, as Nicole did in her diary, that O.J. started beating her on a street in New York, and in their hotel room, “continued to beat me for hours as I kept crawling for the door.” He kept hitting her while sexually using her, which is rape — because no meaningful consent is possible or plausible in the context of this violence.

    Every battered woman’s life has in it many rapes like this one. Sometimes, one complies without the overt violence but in fear of it. Or sometimes, one initiates sex to try to stop or head off a beating. Of course, there are the so-called good times– when romance overcomes the memory of violence. Both the violation and the complicity make one deeply ashamed.

    …Those of us who are not jurors have an obligation to listen to Nicole Simpson’s words: to how O.J. Simpson locked her in a wine closet after beating her and watched TV while she begged him to let her out; to how, in a different hotel room, “O.J. threw me against the walls…and on the floor. Put bruises on my arm and back. The window scared me. Thought he’d throw me out.” We need to hear how he “threw a fit, chased me, grabbed me, threw me into walls. Threw all my clothes out of the window into the street three floors below. Bruised me.” We need to hear how he stalked her after their divorce. “Everywhere I go,” she told a friend, “He shows up. I think he is going to kill me.”

    We need especially to hear her call to a battered women’s shelter five days before her murder…

    We need to believe Nicole’s words to know the meaning of terror– it isn’t a movie of the week — and to face the treason we committed against her life by abandoning her.

    Five days before Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered on June 12, 1994, she called a battered women’s shelter in terror that her ex-husband was going to kill her. The jury was not told this, because she couldn’t be cross-examined. Guess not. Most of the rest of the evidence of beating and stalking from 1977 to May 1994 was also excluded.

    O.J. Simpson had stalked her not once, as represented to the jury, but over at least a two year period. Prosecutors had been premitted to introduce seven incidents of stalking, but they chose to admit only one into evidence. The jury, predominantly women, was not responding to the wife abuse evidence, said observers…one woman juror called the domestic abuse issue “a waste of time.” Polls during the trial confirmed women were indifferent to the beatings Nicole Simpson endured.

    …Remember the video showing Simpson, after the ballet recital, with the Brown family– introduced by the defense to show Simpson’s pleasant demeanor. Hours later, Nicole Simpson was dead. In the video, she is as far from Simpson, physically, as she can manage. He does not nod or gesture to her. He kisses her mother, embraces and kisses her sister, and bear hugs her father. They all reciprocate. She must have been the loneliest woman in the world.

    What would Nicole Simpson have had to do to be safe? Go underground, change her appearance and identity, get cash without leaving a trail, take her children and run– all within days of her call to the shelter. She would have had to end all communication with family and friends, without explanation, for years, as well as leave her home and everything familiar.

    With this abuser’s wealth and power, he would have had her hunted down; a dream team of lawyers would have taken her children from her. She would have been the villain– reckless, a slut, reviled for stealing the children of a hero. If his abuse of her is of no consequence, now that she’s been murdered, how irrelevant would it have been as she, resourceless, tried to make a court and the public understand that she needed to run for her life?

    Nicole Simpson knew she couldn’t prevail and she didn’t try. Instead of running, she did what the therapists said: be firm, draw a line. So she drew the sort of line they meant: he could come to the recital but not sit with her or go to dinner with her family– a line that was no defense against death. …she did what most battered women do: kept up the appearance of normality. There was no equal justice for her, no self-defense she felt entitled to. Society had already left her to die.

    …The governing reality for women of all races is that there is no escape from male violence, because it is inside and outside, intimate and predatory. While race hate has been expressed through forced segregation, woman-hate is expressed through forced closeness, which makes punishment swift, easy and sure. In private, women often empathize with one another, across race and class, because their experiences with men are so much the same. But in public, including on juries, women rarely dare. …no matter how many women are battered … each one is alone.

    Surrounded by family, friends and a community of affluent acquaintances, Nicole Simpson was alone. Having turned to police, prosecutors, victim’s aid, therapists and a women’s shelter, she was still alone. Ronald L. Goldman may have been the only person in seventeen years with the courage to try to intervene physically in an attack on her; and he’s dead, killed by the same hand that killed her, an expensively gloved, extra large hand.

    –Andrea Dworkin, from “In Memory of Nicole Brown Simpson” in Life and Death — Unapologetic Writings on the Continuing War Against Women, 1997.

    I love you, Andrea. I miss you so much.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 15, 2007, 6:09 pm
  28. Heart,

    Thank you so much for posting this work of Andrea’s. I had never read it before.

    I, too, love her and miss her.

    Mary

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | September 15, 2007, 6:35 pm
  29. This is why, among other reasons, I love Andrea Dworkin so, so much:

    Thank you for posting this.

    Posted by gingermiss | September 15, 2007, 6:58 pm
  30. This should be nailed to every telephone post, every law court entrance, every women’s shelter, every place where women meet. It’s about her and about all of us. How terrified she must have been and how brave she was. She not only refused him, she did so publicly, and told him what he could and couldn’t do, and what was his. And what was not. He smashed open the glass cabinet and took his trophy.

    Posted by Sis | September 15, 2007, 7:00 pm
  31. I am not surprised in one bit that this book has been published and am, once again, very dissapointed in the choices that MEN make regarding women – and in a circumstance like this, it IS hard not to lose hope completely.

    – NattyFeak

    Posted by NattyFeak | September 15, 2007, 7:30 pm
  32. NattyFeak! Great screen name. 😀 You should call me.

    Sis, so true. This needs to be framed front and center in DV shelters, in public restrooms, gym dressing rooms, wherever women can see it where men aren’t.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 15, 2007, 7:34 pm
  33. “See, we aquitted the black dude, so now our past is absolved and equality prevails.”

    Yeah, Magpie, I hate that mentality that when a black man is accused of a crime against a white woman, the woman must automatically be a lying racist bitch. The problem as I see it isn’t that black men are held responsible for their crimes, but that white men typically aren’t, which results in this twisted idea that justice can be served by not prosecuting black men because, hey, white men get away with it, too! (Although I recognize that black men do routinely get accused of crimes they didn’t commit, as with the Stuart case in Boston. But it’s interesting to note that that was a white guy, not a white woman, framing a black man with the help of the police. In most cases, it seems that black men are framed by white men and police, not by women.)

    Also, does anybody else find it fucked up that OJ is rich as hell, while his daughter is filing for bankruptcy? I mean, seriously, my parents are nowhere near being rich, but they still help me out in a pinch if they can. I could understand if he was destitute or something, but he’s got MILLIONS, and he can’t share that with his daughter? (I know, I know, a guy who kills his wife isn’t likely to give a shit about his daughter, but it still galls me.)

    Posted by mekhit | September 15, 2007, 7:51 pm
  34. Thank you for posting the Andrea Dworkin piece – I had read it before but a long time ago and reading it again felt like a validation.

    I’m so disgusted that this book has been published, it actually makes me feel sick. And what so many of you have said is so true – when it comes down a choice as to what is most important, money or women, the answer is so obviously money, and the fact that women don’t matter feels like a huge slap in the face.

    All involved in the writing, publication etc of this book should be prosecuted for hate crimes. I wouldn’t read it if you paid me.

    (Oh, and ‘hi’ by the way – I’m new here!)

    Posted by Debs | September 15, 2007, 8:33 pm
  35. “The problem as I see it isn’t that black men are held responsible for their crimes, but that white men typically aren’t, which results in this twisted idea that justice can be served by not prosecuting black men because, hey, white men get away with it, too!”

    Well, when a white man is seen as the standard for human being, can it be any surprise that his privileges are seen, not as the unearned, undeserved allowances that they are, but as rights? Further, when the standard for blackness is also male, how can it be seen as anything other than progress that black men are being increasingly indulged in the same illicit privileges that white men have enjoyed?

    Women never enter into the equation. Neither black ones nor white ones.

    Posted by justicewalks | September 15, 2007, 9:29 pm
  36. Yes Sis and maybe we should print thousands of copies, do an Alice Paul and strew them across the White House’s and Westminster’s green bits.

    I find it very sad, that still, young women are being taught that it’s an accolade to get a rich man. Women involved with rich men live in open prisons, whether they get released or not is at the discretion of their jailer

    Posted by helzeph | September 15, 2007, 10:56 pm
  37. It was, in fact, OJ’s right to *not* be investigated by racist, sexist, perjorous, torture-loving cops. Just as it was Nicole’s right to not have her murder investigated by those same cops.

    That’s important because it’s part of why women feel like they can’t call the police, and it’s part of why women often don’t get justice when they do.

    Nicole Brown Simpson’s government owes her a debt as surely as Simpson himself. They botched it, and they’re responsible for her killer going free. LAPD created a scenario in which the verdict would be unjust regardless of how it came out.

    Posted by funnie | September 16, 2007, 4:28 pm
  38. By and large the LA police are racist fuckheads. ……..
    I do not even want to discuss whether OJ did it. Of course, he certainly did.

    i remember the atmosphere in LA when the jury’s decision was going to come out. we all sat around our teevees wondering if another riot was going to break loose. the “rodney king riots” were still vivid in our memories. most of us hoped that OJ would be acquitted because of the lingering racial tension. i remember being really confused about how I felt; i couldn’t form much of an opinion of my own because the media was feeding the people a message of fear: fear the black people and their anger.

    only today have i been able to see just how the LA police AND OJ could have worked together towards a common goal. the issue weighed back and forth about whether OJ was the killer, or if he was set-up by the cops because he was black and rich. what about the possibility that the cops and OJ were in cahoots?

    nicole was totally disposable, regardless.

    i finally have an opinion now. now that the media is no longer speaking into my ear. i believe that nicole was used by the LAPD to keep racial tensions high; and nicole was used by OJ to look like some kind of scapegoat: which has kept him in the spotlight and made him a martyr of sorts to the black community — manipulating the streets of LA (and outward) to justify the violence of the LAPD towards the people…..it was an acceleration point in the cycle of violence.

    i am glad to hear that nicole’s family will not be a part of this charade. it’s a shame that goldman has made a choice to steep his own hands in the blood of his son and nicole….to actively participate in the cycle/circus of violence.

    Posted by avril joy | September 16, 2007, 5:27 pm
  39. I read this morning (where?) that some of the items OJ smashed the glass case to get at where…pictures of his wife and family.

    This just gets more and more appalling. They were items which belonged to him he said, so he wasn’t stealing.

    Posted by Sis | September 16, 2007, 7:03 pm
  40. You saw that OJ was arrested for armed robbery the other day, right?

    Posted by profacero | September 16, 2007, 7:07 pm
  41. Good points:

    i believe that nicole was used by the LAPD to keep racial tensions high; and nicole was used by OJ to look like some kind of scapegoat: which has kept him in the spotlight and made him a martyr of sorts to the black community — manipulating the streets of LA (and outward) to justify the violence of the LAPD towards the people…..it was an acceleration point in the cycle of violence.

    i am glad to hear that nicole’s family will not be a part of this charade. it’s a shame that goldman has made a choice to steep his own hands in the blood of his son and nicole….to actively participate in the cycle/circus of violence.

    Obliquely related: more male violence: check this out:
    http://www.savebrigitte.com/

    Posted by profacero | September 16, 2007, 10:29 pm
  42. I can understand Goldman suing for the rights thereby preventing Simpson from profiting in anyway, but he had no business republishing it. At that point, Goldman’s motives seem to suggest greed.

    Posted by ekittyglendower | September 16, 2007, 10:31 pm
  43. ekitty—I can see how a person could interpret that as greed.
    You can also interpret this as a victim’s family getting the justice that was not served by our lovely court system.

    OJ would find a way to get his words published. He would find a way to show his “innocence.” Now his words are being published as a confession….

    I tend to go easy on the families of murder victims. So many of us just have no idea of what they are going through, hence, how can we judge?

    Victims and their families get jack shit in this country. And in the case of the Goldmans and the Browns, they got an additional slap in the face when the murderer went free.

    I respect both the Brown and the Goldman stance on the issue because I have never been where they are. I will not judge them.

    Posted by Andy | September 17, 2007, 1:39 pm
  44. “OJ would find a way to get his words published.”

    Goldman sued and won, he now has the publishing rights. Therefore OJ could not find a way to publish it. It was Goldman who published it now, under the title confession or not. Goldman simply did what Simpson wanted to do. And please don’t assume that someone does not know what being a victim is like, as in having a loved one murdered or raped and left for dead. Perhaps the assumption is there because no book has been published by my family. Only the pursuit of money seems to validate a genuine victim status under this line of reasoning.

    Posted by ekittyglendower | September 17, 2007, 4:08 pm
  45. I will add another ‘Disgusting’

    Posted by Casdok | September 17, 2007, 5:40 pm
  46. ekitty—-if Goldman wants justice by publishing OJ’s words as a confession, so be it. I won’t judge him for it.
    Would OJ have published his book as a confession? No. So, how exactly is Goldman doing exactly what OJ wanted him to do?

    Just because OJ lost publishing rights does not mean he wouldn’t try to find a loophole and fight it. He’s deluded enough and tenacious enough. And hell, if our courts can set him free for murder–getting back publishing rights could be a snap.

    OJ would have found a way to get that damn book published, rights or no rights. I am surprised you have that much faith in our court system–after OJ was set free and all.

    Many of us truly do not know what the Goldmans and Browns are going through. I’ve never been in their situation, but I have been victimized in other ways. But I will not compare or say I know how the Goldmans and Browns are feeling–because I don’t.

    Instead, I choose to respect them.

    Posted by Andy | September 17, 2007, 7:40 pm
  47. Instead, I choose to respect them.

    You can disagree with their decisions and choices while still respecting them. Respect doesn’t require blind loyalty.

    Posted by gingermiss | September 18, 2007, 12:20 am
  48. I understand what the Goldmans’ reasoning was; nevertheless, in fact, they published OJ’s attacks on Nicole Brown Simpson 13 years after her death in a manner which ensures that those attacks will be widely circulated and will cause Nicole Brown’s sister, her family, and her children great grief, as well as in a way that abusers and misogynists everywhere are sure to appreciate and vicariously enjoy.

    To my mind, this is inexcusable and indefensible.

    I’m getting the idea now that you, Andy, possibly might be a person commenting here in an attempt to do whatever damage control is possible in the wake of Nicole Brown’s family’s outrage over the publication of this book. If I’m wrong, I apologize. In any event, I am not willing to approve any more comments defending the Goldman’s. You’ve adequately presented their arguments. For those of us here who are woman-centered and primarily concerned with the life of Nicole Brown and her family, children and those who love her, the act of publishing this book was wrong, in my opinion, indefensible, inexcusable, and as I already posted, in my opinion, despicable.

    Posted by womensspace | September 18, 2007, 12:34 am
  49. “I tend to go easy on the families of murder victims. So many of us just have no idea of what they are going through, hence, how can we judge?”

    That is a poor argument for anything. Have no idea – get one. Don’t use your laziness to justify Goldman’s greed.

    Posted by profacero | September 18, 2007, 11:21 pm
  50. “I tend to go easy on the families of murder victims. So many of us just have no idea of what they are going through, hence, how can we judge?”

    That is a poor argument for anything. Have no idea – get one. Don’t use your laziness to justify Goldman’s greed.

    I call “Bullshit!” on that. How, pray tell, is one to get a clue about what one goes through, which is what it feels like, to be a family member of someone who was murdered? Put a hit on a member of one’s family – perhaps just an aunt or, better yet, a second cousin – so that they can go through it themselves?

    C’mon. You can disagree with Andy or whomever else for not talking indignant smack about the Goldmans or any other family of a murder victim but you can’t possibly find fault in someone who is not a family member of a murder victim for not knowing what they go through. To even assume that one understands how the family members of murder victims feel or what they go through is to minimize their pain and grief.

    Posted by CoolAunt | September 19, 2007, 2:57 am
  51. OK, perhaps I was mean. It is the argument for the death penalty I keep hearing: “We cannot imagine what the family is going through” – it is a code phrase around here and it has nothing to do with empathy.

    Posted by profacero | September 19, 2007, 6:34 am
  52. One of the hard things for me when our cousin was killed was the way people went on sanctimoniously about how “they couldn’t know how we felt.”

    They would start with that, and then move into speeches on how any irrationality on our part was justified, because we were family members of a murder victim. If we wanted revenge or profit, that was normal. We should even go for these. If we did not, we were ‘in denial’ and ‘not grieving properly’.

    The worst of it was that we were not supposed to be able to get over it, ever. We were supposed to quickly ‘accept’ other unjust deaths in the family, but we were to remain angry forever about this one.

    If we had actually been over it at the time, we could have laughed off these sallies, but we were not yet over it, so they were hurtful. As a result of this I cannot stand the speeches that begin “I cannot know how you feel…” because they tend to end with “but I do know how you should react.”

    Don’t know how family members of murder victims feel? Want to know? Ask some.

    ***

    For many reasons I do not think it is healthy for this trashing of Nicole to be spread around. And what I find *weird* is the idea that what the Goldman family does is OK – almost in perpetuity, it would seem – because they are family of a murder victim. I live in a high murder state and I just wish there were special allowances like this for the families of murder victims – especially when the killed one is the main earner for the family and so on. But you don’t get those kinds of allowances unless you’re already privileged.

    Posted by profacero | September 19, 2007, 3:14 pm
  53. Exactly, profacero. It reminds me of the complete lack of examination of the behaviors and history of the father of Jessica Lunsford whose kidnapping and murder was the impetus for “Jessie’s Law.” I blogged about it. Where’s the link, I’ll get it. Here is a guy who was abusive to Jessica’s mother, totally kept her from seeing her mother, engaged in fathers’ rights dirty tricks for years, was abusive to other women in his life, subjected Jessica to the grandfather, who had assaulted a woman in the past, and yet somehow this becomes irrelevant because he is Jessica’s father, is grieving, and that’s all we’re supposed to talk about. His grief doesn’t give him a pass for his abusive behavior towards women, past, present or future, and neither does all the good he’s done with respect to Jessica’s Law. It also doesn’t give him a pass for the vigilante mentality he evidences towards perps or the way he rallies his cycle buddies in that direction. That shit is dangerous.

    The Goldmans are privileged people. Kind of like what justicewalks said in the other thread this morning, it’s not readily apparent that Goldman is engaged in a very male, patriarchal, sexist, pissing match with OJ Simpson and is using his grief as justification, and his family (and others) are supporting him in that. How much of what he’s doing is about his grief and how much is about his obsessive rage over being outwitted by OJ? How much of what the Jessica’s Law dad is doing is about his grief and how much is about his obsession with getting even with perps? Getting even with perps is lousy motivation for anything. Outwitting OJ is also lousy motivation for anything. And especially when it is MEN getting even with MEN and MEN outwitting MEN. That’s, by definition, a pissing match, whether it’s individuals all the way through declarations of war by nations against nations.

    What I am concerned about is Nicole Brown. Her memory. Justice for her. Her legacy. Her sisters and mother. Forevermore now, misogynists, abusers, sadists, and others can vicariously read and enjoy OJ’s disgusting justifications for murdering his wife. Her privacy is violated — 13 years after her death. Her children’s privacy is also violated. Her family’s wishes are ignored, including her sister’s, who is a domestic violence advocate. If we asked Nicole Brown today whether she would want that book published, she would say “NO”.

    We all know this. The Goldman’s know it. They don’t care. Andy doesn’t care either. She wants this to be about the grief of Mr. Goldman.

    No. This is women’s space. Here, it’s about the grief of women, justice for women, the lives and feelings of women. It’s not about men, even men who seem to have done good by the women in their lives, because quite often, look deeper, you see they are actually, once again, not so much doing good by the women, they are getting even with the men and defending their property (i.e., women). It’s the oldest of old stories. It’s central and foundational to male heterosupremacy.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 19, 2007, 5:24 pm
  54. I would bet hat Goldman thinks Nicole deserved what happened to her for various misogynistic and racist reasons, but Ron Goldman, his son, was an innocent victim of not only OJ, but Nicole.

    Posted by Sis | September 19, 2007, 7:01 pm
  55. Andy sounds very much like she’s Daisy aka Caska.

    Posted by Sis | September 19, 2007, 7:03 pm
  56. That is SUCH a good point, Sis. I have an idea you are right, especially given that the Goldmans and Browns have never been close.

    On a different topic, OJ has a new girlfriend who is said to look “strikingly like Nicole Brown.” We’re exchangeable woman units to perps like OJ Simpson, just collections of body parts.

    Denise Brown has a blog everyone might want to check out:

    Denise Brown

    Posted by womensspace | September 22, 2007, 3:21 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog Stats

  • 2,563,469 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

The Farm at Huge Creek, Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, The Feminist Hullaballoo

206672_10150156355071024_736021023_6757674_7143952_n

59143_424598116023_736021023_5026689_8235073_n

Afia Walking Tree

More Photos