PDA

View Full Version : Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes Divorcing



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

triple_toe
07-10-2012, 03:38 AM
I think most people are saying how kick-ass Katie is to have gotten herself and her child out of a cult.

bmcg
07-10-2012, 03:47 AM
I think Peter G knows that. It seems he is trying to make some sort of point.

michiruwater
07-10-2012, 04:02 AM
PeterG is irritated that we're all ragging so much on Tom Cruise based partly on gossip and whatnot and is pointing out things that Katie has done in an unflattering way to show us that, in some ways, it's all about the perspective, and we as a collective have decided to make Tom Cruise the Bad Guy and Katie the Good Guy based on (to him) very little compelling evidence. I looked up previous threads on Tom Cruise (and scientology) when this thread started and found PeterG getting irritated about everyone taking a dump on Tom then, too.

I think we all have celebrities (or skaters) whom we feel compelled to stick up for no matter what (hell, one of mine is Katy Perry and that rarely wins me any love ;)) Tom is PeterG's celebrity-to-stick-up-for, clearly. It probably doesn't help that he appears to be the only one on Tom's side here :P

Anyway, his whole post was pointed sarcasm, which is, of course, what PeterG does best.

attyfan
07-10-2012, 04:03 AM
For some reason, I am hoping that Tom is somehow "in" with Katie on a plan to keep Suri out of Scientology. Other high-ranking Scientologists have "defected".

michiruwater
07-10-2012, 04:05 AM
If that's the case then Tom deserves an Oscar and I hope they make a fabulous TV movie out of it.

agalisgv
07-10-2012, 04:16 AM
I don't think Peter was being sarcastic. I think he was showing the natural implications of many of the assertions in this thread. While people may think they are extolling Katie, they are doing it by assuming a tremendous loss of agency on her part. I think Peter is trying to illustrate that.

Badams
07-10-2012, 04:41 AM
I've never been a Tom Cruise fan, but I do think that it's admirable that they were able to settle so quickly, avoiding an ugly battle for Suri. I think that it proves that they both want what's best for her. If he protected himself and his church in the process, I guess that's just an extra perk for him.

Wyliefan
07-10-2012, 04:52 AM
While people may think they are extolling Katie, they are doing it by assuming a tremendous loss of agency on her part.

Unfortunately, cults have a way of doing that to people. Whatever the truth is, and we may never know, I'm just happy that she seems to have reclaimed her agency now.

bek
07-10-2012, 04:53 AM
Apparently Katie has wasted no time registering at a Catholic parish... a very liberal Catholic parish but one none the less, while enrolling her kid in a Catholic school... This is the second time Tom has married a Catholic got the Catholic to leave for Scientology and then to have the wife go back to Catholicism. :lol: Why doesn't Tom just start out with a Scientologist?

michiruwater
07-10-2012, 04:55 AM
I don't think Peter was being sarcastic. I think he was showing the natural implications of many of the assertions in this thread. While people may think they are extolling Katie, they are doing it by assuming a tremendous loss of agency on her part. I think Peter is trying to illustrate that.

What was I thinking. PeterG never uses sarcasm to demonstrate anything.

agalisgv
07-10-2012, 05:26 AM
Peter often uses sarcasm, but not always. And I don't think he was doing that here.

Really think about the implications of what people have posted--Katie signed on to be a beard with a written contract assuring her money after five years. That's basically calling her a high-priced prostitute. Saying Katie had no idea of what she was getting into implies a 28yo woman is less capable of making important life decisions than a bunch of skating fans posting on the internet.

Assuming Katie is a dupe or beard isn't exactly complimentary, and Peter was pointing that out.

PeterG
07-10-2012, 06:29 AM
I don't think Peter was being sarcastic. I think he was showing the natural implications of many of the assertions in this thread. While people may think they are extolling Katie, they are doing it by assuming a tremendous loss of agency on her part. I think Peter is trying to illustrate that.

Thank you. You are correct, I was not being sarcastic. Imagine people talking about the women in your life the way they are talking about Katie in this thread. If you heard people talking at the grocery story about how your daughter only married for money. That your best friend is basically oblivious and has no idea of the troublesome situations that she got herself into. That your Mom collected negative info about your Father and was going to use that into blackmailing him into a bigger divorce settlement. Would you be happy to hear people talk about females in your life that way?


For some reason, I am hoping that Tom is somehow "in" with Katie on a plan to keep Suri out of Scientology. Other high-ranking Scientologists have "defected".

I would love for that to be true. That maybe he can’t save himself, but he could save his child and wife.


I think that she was in love (but most likely lust - which many women are when they marry).

:eek: Is that the female equivalent of “thinking with one’s d***”? Are you saying that instead of acting out of intelligence and/or love, Holmes is the type of person who wants a good lay? :(


I think that she became more aware of the cult's practices as she continued the marriage to Tom Cruise which is why she created the team to help her protect her child.

More aware? What would she have learned during the marriage that was not already public knowledge years beforehand?

Holmes married Cruise in 2007 (give or take a year), but the infamous Matt Lauer interview was two years before that, in 2005. Before that, there were other incidents, including Cruise’s comments about Brooke Shields, which Holmes would also have been aware of (unless she was living under a rock).

On top of that, it would have been quite simple to know more about Scientology. For Holmes to discover the negative aspects of Scientology only AFTER marrying Cruise carries the implication that she is not very bright or an oblivious type of person?


If I see any bashing here it is a Tom bash (which I whole heartily agree with but then that is another story)

Yes, there is bashing of Cruise. I am saying that there is bashing of Holmes as well.


I think most people are saying how kick-ass Katie is to have gotten herself and her child out of a cult.

But it was not kick-ass to join the “cult” in the first place. (Cult being other people’s word, not mine.) And then to bring a child into a marriage that is intertwined with a "cult"? And doing all of this when she had (or could have easily had) all the information she needed before even having met Cruise? I don't see that as kick-ass. I see it as sad as well as abusive toward the child.


I think Peter G knows that. It seems he is trying to make some sort of point.

If my point was unclear, it is that referring to, or implying that any woman who marries for money, enters into a marriage with Cruise and all his (and Scientology’s) baggage, collects info about said spouse to use against him, and decides to have a child in this kind of relationship is painting a picture of this woman in a very negative way. To me, this is sexism if you are male and internalized sexism is you are a female.


PeterG is irritated that we're all ragging so much on Tom Cruise based partly on gossip and whatnot …

Legitimate criticism I am okay with. Using someone’s misfortune for your entertainment, kicking somebody when they are down, attacking one’s religion (criticisms are fine, attacking is not) and mob-mentality bullying is not okay.


… and is pointing out things that Katie has done in an unflattering way to show us that, in some ways, it's all about the perspective, and we as a collective have decided to make Tom Cruise the Bad Guy and Katie the Good Guy based on (to him) very little compelling evidence.

I am making no comments about Holmes…at all. I am referring to what others have said about her. And I’m commenting that those things are offensive and sexist. I do not believe in the concept of “good” or “bad”. While Cruise and Holmes are uber-famous, they are still humans doing the best they can with what information, experience and resources they have had.


I looked up previous threads on Tom Cruise (and scientology) when this thread started and found PeterG getting irritated about everyone taking a dump on Tom then, too.

I speak up about anyone who is getting ganged up on. It’s not about the person in question, it’s about the posts that go too far in my opinion. I also post often in the Tonya Harding threads because she is also ganged up on. Michael Weiss is an example from the past. I’d be in the Patrick Chan threads more often, but there’s too many and they are too long, I’d never get anything else done with my day! :lol:

MacMadame
07-10-2012, 06:47 AM
:eek: Is that the female equivalent of “thinking with one’s d***”? Are you saying that instead of acting out of intelligence and/or love, Holmes is the type of person who wants a good lay? :(
Why does it have to be that negative and extreme? Lots of people fall in love quickly before they know a lot about the other person. So it's more lust than love. If they have fallen in love with someone they are compatible with, learning more about them strengthens the relationships and the lust gets tempered into something more mature. If they haven't, the relationship probably will die off. This is just how relationships work most of the time and it is not a character defect to be attracted to someone.

In Katie's case, she got pregnant rather early on in the relationship and that probably limited her choices because now she had a child to think about. Maybe if she hadn't gotten pregnant, the bloom would have fallen off the rose before there was a marriage.

Not to mention, what's wrong with wanting a good lay? Don't be a slut shamer, Peter! ;)


More aware? What would she have learned during the marriage that was not already public knowledge years beforehand?
It can be different when you see things first hand. Lots of people want to give Scientology the benefit of the doubt because they have no first-hand experience with it and don't want to judge based on rumors. Plus, it's a religion with a lot of secrecy. That sort of situation is ripe for people realizing later on that there are unacceptable aspects of the religion that they weren't aware of at first.

Now personally I've got a lot of problems with organized religion in general and with Scientology in particular so you won't see me giving it the benefit of the doubt. But I'm not a young, never-married woman and pregnant by a guy I've had a crush on for ages either. In my case, I never would have even dated Tom Cruise for starters. But I can't say I've never dated any losers who were even worse than I realized once I got to know them better because I have. :P Sometimes you take a chance on a relationship and you are sorry later. That's life.

vesperholly
07-10-2012, 07:37 AM
I speak up about anyone who is getting ganged up on. It’s not about the person in question, it’s about the posts that go too far in my opinion. I also post often in the Tonya Harding threads because she is also ganged up on. Michael Weiss is an example from the past. I’d be in the Patrick Chan threads more often, but there’s too many and they are too long, I’d never get anything else done with my day! :lol:

I don't know why you bother, though. Celebrities don't need defending on random internet message boards. They don't even know we exist. Present another point of view, sure, but why take us to task for an opinionated discussion? We must be reading this thread very differently, because to my eyes, it's just idle gossip, anonymous chatter among a group of people. Nothing nearly as malicious or damaging as what tabloids and other websites like TMZ and Perez Hilton write.


Legitimate criticism I am okay with. Using someone’s misfortune for your entertainment, kicking somebody when they are down, attacking one’s religion (criticisms are fine, attacking is not) and mob-mentality bullying is not okay.

I have not read anything in this thread that even remotely rises to this level.

bmcg
07-10-2012, 12:23 PM
More aware? What would she have learned during the marriage that was not already public knowledge years beforehand?

Holmes married Cruise in 2007 (give or take a year), but the infamous Matt Lauer interview was two years before that, in 2005. Before that, there were other incidents, including Cruise’s comments about Brooke Shields, which Holmes would also have been aware of (unless she was living under a rock).

On top of that, it would have been quite simple to know more about Scientology. For Holmes to discover the negative aspects of Scientology only AFTER marrying Cruise carries the implication that she is not very bright or an oblivious type of person?

It might benefit you to look at a timeline if you are going to continue to argue your side.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tom-cruise-katie-holmes-timeline-divorce-343591
The were engaged about 8 weeks after meeting each other and a month before the Matt Lauer interview. She was already swept away by the time Tom sat across from Matt. They met in April 2005 and Suri was here in April 2006. A very fast relationship. In the short span of 12 months she met her childhood crush and had his child.

Does it make her stupid? No. She's not the first woman to ignore or miss red flags because she´s in love. And she won't be the last.