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

PeterG
07-10-2012, 08:31 PM
Great posts, snoopy. Thank you for posting! :respect:


I can't recall anyone saying she was purposefully gathering dirt on Tom - ie that she was spying, cataloguing, silently watching. My take is that any dirt she has on him is simply from spending time with him - she didn't gather it, it just piled up around her.

It seemed to me that some people implied that Holmes was a hero to use negative information about her child's father to gain the upper hand. How the information was acquired was not the issue.


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

According to this timeline, the Matt Lauer interview was on June 24th, 2005 (and the Brooke Shields comments being earlier to that, as they were referred to in this interview). This timeline says that the couple married on November 18, 2006. More than an entire year had passed where Holmes had time to choose whether to marry Cruise or not.

Other thoughts...

Some interesting comments coming up. Things like being “swept away” and “marrying into a fairytale”, that the man had “all the power” as well as “fairy dust blowing away”. Here’s one definition I found online for sexism:


: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

I grew up in a family where my Mom was the main breadwinner as well as the main caregiver. All my siblings were all older and female. I don’t believe in our family that we had the fairytale/princess thing promoted much (if at all). It was more of an “everybody do their own fair share and everybody needs to pitch in and work to get things done”. The dainty princess thing would have been looked down upon.

So I guess my experience has been different in that I see females as capable and as competent as males. (Perhaps even moreso.) So I find it disheartening when females are referred to in the ways some have expressed in this thread. Like women don’t know what they are doing, they get carried away by some mystical force, that they are basically powerless to the strong males dominating them. I just never boarded that train.


How is it sexist that there exists individuals who rush into things out of love and when the honeymoon ends they see things in a new light??

What I see as sexist is the implication that a naïve ingénue was enslaved by the horrible old ogre into a miserable marriage and forced to provide him with offspring. Of course, this is an exaggeration, but some posts make me thing this is what people are thinking in a way.

Holmes was 28 when the two married, a bit too old for people to be placing her into the role of the ingénue. It’s also sexist to me when Holmes is made to look like a child who wants a tiara and a handsome prince and to be told that she is weally, weally pwetty evewy day.


Maybe it's sexist to take this individual case and turn it into a statement about all women (and I think you and Peter G are the only ones to do that).

I don't believe I have even commented on Holmes (let alone all women). My recent posts have been in reference to other people’s posts about Holmes and how I feel some of these posts are either questionable or objectionable.


And the fact is that in much of the world, women do have a different experience growing up and developing expectations than men. When I was a kid, the boys played at sports and drove toy cars while the girls held pretend weddings for their Barbies, decorated dollhouses and tended to baby dolls. For many of us, it wasn't forced down our throats - it's what we genuinely enjoyed doing as kids. I think it's only natural that many girls of my era, and even Katie's, grew up to want to do all those things for real - get married, create a home, have children.

I disagree. The TV advertisements alone were enough to brainwash youth into what they were supposed to enjoy. Add to that the reactions of adults when a child strays from the expected, as well as peer pressure of other youths who have bought into what was being sold to them... I think the room left for choice became limited. And that’s not to say that children don’t enjoy what they is sold to them. I’m force-fed advertisements for junk food, and I buy into it by buying the products. And I enjoy the junk food! (But not the waistline…) :(

numbers123
07-10-2012, 08:41 PM
Take the following for what you want - some of you have taken my points in ways that I did not intend nor think.

For centuries women have been considered possessions of either their fathers or their husbands. Fathers used to and still do in some areas, sell their daughters to the highest bidder. Does that make the daughters prostitutes and the fathers/families pimps?

Not always - they probably thought they were doing the best thing for their family. I absolutely do not believe that Katie sold herself
Since the early 80's pre-nups have been in place for a variety of reasons, but mostly monetary. Protecting someone's interest (sometimes the male and sometimes the female). Sometimes those pre-nups are re-written. Are those a contract? Maybe - maybe not.


This bears repeating: Do I think Katie sold herself out - absolutely not.. There have been persistent rumors that the CoS does look to find someone to groom for Tom - I don't know if it is true - but it does remind me of the quest for a virgin to marry Prince Charles.

Sometimes men marry women to protect their media persona. Rock Hudson anyone? All those figure skaters that are rumored to have a beard or to be the beard? Sometimes those rumors/beards are true, sometimes they are not.


Do I think that this is the case here? I have no idea, nor do I really care if Tom is gay or not. He is not my dream guy. And face it, even those of you who do not want to participate in Hollywood gossip, probably participate in some sort of gossip - it seems to be human nature to want to believe things about others and to say you don't is sort of :blah:. This topic generates interest because they are a high profile couple and we like to speculate

Sometimes you have a "love of your life" who doesn't turn out to be the person you thought that they would be. Sometimes after a couple of years of marriage you say "what in the world was I thinking" and want to end the marriage.

Have I seen this in non-Hollywood marriages? Yes. Do I think that the woman or man were weak or stupid or whatever. Absolutely not.
Sometimes one's history fuels the fire for speculation. Tom's previous marriages and how they ended, when in the relationship they ended, etc.

Could Tom get tired of his current wife at the 5 or 7 year mark? Seems like it from the divorces and when they happen. Same thing could be said for my brother and his 4 marriages. Previous history does impact what we think about a situation.
Sometimes people take actions that they wouldn't necessarily do for themselves but will do to protect their children.

Do I know that Katie's kick ass actions were to keep Suri out of the CoS? No, but as a mother and one who read some of those indoctrination questionnaires, I would like to believe that what motivated her to take action was to protect her child.

heckles
07-10-2012, 08:41 PM
I see no reason to give her more sympathy than Tom over the break-up.

Proving that Katie sucks doesn't negate the fact that Tom sucks.

skatesindreams
07-10-2012, 08:49 PM
Tom "needs" a woman around to prevent having to answer questions that he/Scientology don't wish to answer.
I hope that none of what Katie had to do to "extricate" Suri and herself comes back to haunt her.

kwanfan1818
07-10-2012, 09:04 PM
It seemed to me that some people implied that Holmes was a hero to use negative information about her child's father to gain the upper hand. How the information was acquired was not the issue.


Or another way of putting it, she used negative information about her child's father to protect her child.

If a mother finds out that a child's father is engaged in behavior that is harmful to the child or the child's friends, would you always say it's wrong to use information to gain the child's custody?

skatingfan5
07-10-2012, 09:12 PM
According to this timeline, the Matt Lauer interview was on June 24th, 2005 (and the Brooke Shields comments being earlier to that, as they were referred to in this interview). This timeline says that the couple married on November 18, 2006. More than an entire year had passed where Holmes had time to choose whether to marry Cruise or not.Perhaps her having had their child factored into her decision to marry Cruise, even if she had some doubts? Can I say this without it being labeled as "sexist"?

I grew up in a family where my Mom was the main breadwinner as well as the main caregiver. All my siblings were all older and female. I don’t believe in our family that we had the fairytale/princess thing promoted much (if at all). It was more of an “everybody do their own fair share and everybody needs to pitch in and work to get things done”. The dainty princess thing would have been looked down upon. So I guess my experience has been different in that I see females as capable and as competent as males. My family certainly didn't foster any fairytale/princess fantasies, but there definitely was an unequal division of chores/privileges among the girls and the boy. My father would say "it's nice that you and your sisters get good grades, but your brother will have to earn a living someday." The implication being that my sisters and I would marry and the economic support would be on our husbands' shoulders. As we all know, real life doesn't always work out like that at all. So maybe there WAS a "fairytale" in my home after all -- definitely no princesses, though.
So I find it disheartening when females are referred to in the ways some have expressed in this thread. Like women don’t know what they are doing, they get carried away by some mystical force, that they are basically powerless to the strong males dominating them. I just never boarded that train.I have unfortunately seen several of my friends enter into unfortunate marriages (a couple with physically abusive husbands) -- maybe they were "swept away" by some non-mystical force -- love, infatuation, or just taking a chance that the marriage would offer them something better than their current day-to-day life.
It’s also sexist to me when Holmes is made to look like a child who wants a tiara and a handsome prince and to be told that she is weally, weally pwetty evewy day.Not sure who was saying/implying/making Katie to look that way, but it's Suri who is the pwetty princess: "A statement from the couple on the significance of the name says Suri “is a word with origins in both Hebrew and Persian. In Hebrew, it means ‘princess’ and in Persian, ‘red rose.’”. :shuffle:

berthesghost
07-10-2012, 09:18 PM
So I find it disheartening when females are referred to in the ways some have expressed in this thread. Like women don’t know what they are doing, they get carried away by some mystical force, that they are basically powerless to the strong males dominating them. I just never boarded that train.funny, i find it disheartening when posters force their own bullshyte on others words, twisting their meaning to conform to their own agenda. :rolleyes:
But that's ok, you did expalin that you came from the only nonsexist household in the entire usa. :blah:

overedge
07-10-2012, 09:18 PM
So I guess my experience has been different in that I see females as capable and as competent as males. (Perhaps even moreso.) So I find it disheartening when females are referred to in the ways some have expressed in this thread. Like women don’t know what they are doing, they get carried away by some mystical force, that they are basically powerless to the strong males dominating them. I just never boarded that train.


I don't think your experience is that different. But the discussion here is not about women in general, it's about Katie Holmes. Even if women in general are smart and competent, that doesn't mean that individual women don't make questionable decisions.

VALuvsMKwan
07-10-2012, 10:02 PM
funny, i find it disheartening when posters force their own bullshyte on others words, twisting their meaning to conform to their own agenda. :rolleyes:
But that's ok, you did expalin that you came from the only nonsexist household in the entire usa. :blah:

Or perhaps Canada?

bek
07-11-2012, 01:54 AM
So I guess my experience has been different in that I see females as capable and as competent as males. (Perhaps even moreso.) So I find it disheartening when females are referred to in the ways some have expressed in this thread. Like women don’t know what they are doing, they get carried away by some mystical force, that they are basically powerless to the strong males dominating them. I just never boarded that train.



Well personally I have found that both MEN and WOMEN can sometimes act without their heads when they are in love. Its not just a female thing. To be fair I don't necessarily buy the poor unknowing Katie thing. I think she threw away quite a lot of her values/beliefs when she got pregnant and married Tom.

bmcg
07-11-2012, 01:56 AM
Or perhaps Canada?

Just say North America. That should take care of everyone ;)

Well I'm just happy for Suri and Katie that this seems to have been settled to both parents satisfaction. Gives me hope she´ll have more options as she grows up while still having both parents around to love her.

bmcg
07-11-2012, 01:57 AM
Well personally I have found that both MEN and WOMEN can sometimes act without their heads when they are in love. To be fair I don't necessarily by the poor unknowing Katie thing. I think she threw away quite a lot of her values/beliefs....

That makes you the most sexist person in this whole thread :D

rjblue
07-11-2012, 03:16 AM
This whole discussion is a bit mind boggling to me. Do you really think that people who get sucked into cults and scam operations are stupid, or naive? Katie would actually have been less vulnerable if she were not very intelligent. Scientology doesn't troll for new members with ads in the back of Harlequin romances, they advertise to young science fiction fans- bright, questioning, kids who are looking for spiritual answers. Incredibly creative people also seem more vulnerable- hence the number of entertainment workers who have swallowed the koolaid.

They are so eager to have alternative ways of thinking that they actively choose to suspend their disbelief. They aren't dumb victims, or dupes, they are searchers who get very lost in a huge maze, and just keep following, thinking there is a pot of gold in the middle. Tom is still in there, but Katie woke up and found her way back out.

heckles
07-11-2012, 03:48 AM
Scientology doesn't troll for new members with ads in the back of Harlequin romances, they advertise to young science fiction fans- bright, questioning, kids who are looking for spiritual answers.

Eh, the Scinos don't troll the Sci Fi crowd that much. In LA, the recruiters hang out at coffee shops looking for would-be screenwriters reviewing their manuscripts, and would-be actors, models or singers reviewing their head shots. Their lure is that Scientology will increase their creativity.

rjblue
07-11-2012, 04:07 AM
Eh, the Scinos don't troll the Sci Fi crowd that much.
Yeah.

I constantly ask booksellers to take the dianetics propaganda out of the SF section and shelve it in the religion section where it belongs.

Scientology owns a publisher and they keep their books on the bestseller lists by buying them. And then put ads in the back of their books, which will eventually end up sucking you in to Scientology. And there is nothing to indicate any connection to dianetics or scientology which would keep people from being casually interested. Look at the bio for Hubbard (creepy founder) (http://www.galaxypress.com/l-ron-hubbard)- all those numbers are created by Scientologists buying en masse.

As an SF fan for 40+ years, the progression of the "Science of Dianetics" from self-help scam to cult to church has been frightening to watch.