HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Chilling on TomKat

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:07 AM

Chilling on TomKat

Last edited Tue Jul 10, 2012, 11:23 AM - Edit history (6)

I'm generally a feminist, but I'm going to defend Tom Cruise here against the flack he's taking about his wife's apparent decision to leave him and take their child with her. I can't possibly know what's really behind the split, but I've got enough from the gossip and discussion of it all make a few brief observations and judgments.

First, I'd like to defend Tom against this notion that he's some kind of controlling religious freak looking to indoctrinate his family into some sort of cult and somehow alter their personality or put them in some virtual box. I get that Scientology has many controlling influences and has a network of supporters willing to do what they can for the church, but, I also get that most religions have similar affinities which compel their membership to recruit and indoctrinate folks into their membership. That would seem to be standard, to me, for a religion. Maybe Scientology has some sort of lock on this, or, is so egregious that it deserves all of the concern and chatter about the pitfalls of associating with their organization? I don't think so.

When I look at Tom's children from his previous marriage to Nicole Kidman, I don't see control, brainboxing, or any of the things folks say that Suri was at risk from. I see his son, Connor, is working on a career or stint as a DJ. Nothing at all disturbing about that. His daughter is married or getting married and living (according to a breathless article I read) in a 'seedy' neighborhood (read: lower income that one would expect for a multi-millionaire family's offspring). Kate doesn't want her daughter to endure the same fate, according to the article.

Droll, I know, but these anecdotes echo loudly against the relative absence of the husband's own defense. Further, there is a curious divergence from the notion of a strong and capable wife and mother who is, somehow so burdened with her husband's oppressive control that she's victim to his every whim and desire. So utterly Victorian!

Actually, it's just a lot of soap and tabloid. Ms. Kate is a dynamic and capable individual, from all outward appearances. Her style, elegance, and grace suggest an intelligent and aesthetic mind and character. She has been free to make movies; apparently free to go wherever she pleases with her young child; free to dress her in high heels, pumps, and other adult-like clothing and accessories and allow her to be one of the most photogenic and accessible children that I've ever seen from Hollywood parents.

Tom's off in Iceland making a movie; without Kate. Where's this 'control' that's said to have caused Kate to run away with her young daughter? There's absolutely no evidence of it.

Moreover, the notion that Tom, as the father is trying to 'control' his brood is a sexist observation which assumes that his gender assures that he's going to dominate in the relationship. He's apparently not the one who unilaterally decided to break off and assume monopoly over their child; she is. Yet, she's been instantly portrayed as some sort of victim.

Again, we can't possibly know the whole story behind the split; even if one or the other bothers to explain their version to the public. One thing we do know, is that the couple's wealth has allowed Kate to easily make these decisions and act on them. One suggestion is that she's trying to establish residency in NY to advantage their custody fight. She's being cheered on in this as if it's some triumph of women-hood to make such a precipitous break from her husband.

That's pretty much in keeping with the way society has always viewed the relationship between husband and wife. If the man leaves and takes the child with him, it's seen as akin to kidnapping and abuse. He's a deadbeat and a crumb in the eyes of many folks to make that choice and follow through to independence from his bride.

Conversely, Mrs.Cruise is being hailed as some sort of hero for walking out on her husband. According to many, she has 'courage, and is 'brave' for unilaterally disbanding their family. We sure have come a long way . . . I'm just not sure it's in the direction humanists and feminists have envisioned and encouraged women to take in their relationships.

What marriages and families have always needed to work is understanding, devotion, and, if necessary, reconciliation. That's what I'd encourage and cheer for in this sad chapter in their lives: That they'd seek counseling to be able to develop an honest and lasting understanding of each other and their needs, concerns, and desires.

I would find more to cheer on in reconciliation than in the unilateral dismantling of this marriage. That would take 'courage' and be the most 'brave' course. I hope the couple can find their way to that outcome. If not, I still hope that more understanding and respect of married males will lead these critics of Tom to attribute some of the more complimentary and approving observations to his intentions in all of their speculation.

Neither does Kate deserve to be seen as completely incapable of guile and vindictiveness (to characterize her bold exit).

Nor, does Tom deserve to be seen, merely, as an unfeeling, 'controlling' ogre bent on brainwashing his family and locking them away just because of negative views we may hold of his religion. Maybe if we assumed that they both cared deeply about each other, we could be a bit more generous in our characterizations and less vindictive in our criticisms.

20 replies, 2667 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply Chilling on TomKat (Original post)
bigtree Jul 2012 OP
Laurian Jul 2012 #1
bigtree Jul 2012 #2
hlthe2b Jul 2012 #4
bigtree Jul 2012 #7
hlthe2b Jul 2012 #10
hlthe2b Jul 2012 #3
FrodosPet Jul 2012 #5
bigtree Jul 2012 #9
MADem Jul 2012 #6
StopTheNeoCons Jul 2012 #8
bigtree Jul 2012 #11
Capt. Obvious Jul 2012 #12
bigtree Jul 2012 #13
On the Road Jul 2012 #14
bigtree Jul 2012 #16
On the Road Jul 2012 #19
bigtree Jul 2012 #20
SoCalDem Jul 2012 #15
DevonRex Jul 2012 #17
cwydro Jul 2012 #18

Response to bigtree (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:14 AM

1. While I don't think this divorce is of any real importance to the universe at large, I do

think that any analysis of Tom Cruise in this situation should include a look at his poor treatment of wives one and two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laurian (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:19 AM

2. if we assume women are equals in these relationships

. . . we could stand to give some understanding that these relationships are two-way streets. The women's actions should be weighed right along with the objectionable actions of the men. We likely won't get to that though in these discussions and observations, even though most would strongly defend these women as capable and in control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #2)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:20 AM

4. With wealth (he's #1 paid actor) comes power---there is no equality with such wealth/power inbalance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #4)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:23 AM

7. she's got money, as well

I really doubt, though, that more than a few folks will take the time out to point to their faults and digressions in making these judgments. Most of us will defend these women's strength and capability; yet, still insist that his actions are somehow more dominate and decisive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #7)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:31 AM

10. Given the overwhelming evidence, yes. And, we should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laurian (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:19 AM

3. Yes.. there is quite a pattern there...

That said, I just really don't care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:21 AM

5. The Church of $cientology has a long tradition of abuse

"Fair Game". "Dead Agenting". Slandering, and sometimes using lawsuits, and even law enforcement agencies, to attack their critics and apostates.

If someone wants to say some evil galactic overlord's genocide of billions of people between 75 Million and 4 Quadrillion years ago is responsible for people's emotional problems, that is their business. But when they attack people who don't agree with their methods or theology, that's as messed up as any other religion who would do the same.

Operation Clambake
http://www.xenu.net

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Reply #5)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:26 AM

9. I haven't seen a bit of evidence of any of that in this case

Kate looks to have gotten an immediate upper hand in the press, at least, in the portrayal of her as a victim and Tom as a villain. That's not much of a PR machine from the Scientologists out there, if we assume there is one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:23 AM

6. I could really give a shit, but Tom Cruise is a weirdo. This is the third marriage that has shit

the bed. I think he's the problem...unless he picks "crazy" women or something, and I don't think he does. Three women have had enough of him, so there's got to be something dysfunctional from his end.

It could be that Tom's problem just might be that he's not picking the right partner. Time after time after time.

His wife has returned to her Roman Catholic faith and it's all over but the transfer of funds. Don't look for a reconciliation. Tom has paid, and Ms. Holmes will keep her mouth shut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:24 AM

8. You have very little understanding of the cult

and of the person, your OP is wrong in so many ways, too bad for you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StopTheNeoCons (Reply #8)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:32 AM

11. I'm looking at what everyone else is looking at. His grown kids look just fine.

All of the public, negative attacks have been on Tom, in this case. Not much of a 'cult' if they weren't able to stifle all of that. She looks completely in control of her situation.

Besides, many religions and churches have 'controlling' influences; no justification in singling out Scientology (as opposed to, say, the Catholic Church). I don't need to be an expert to see that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:37 AM

12. If Katie wants to split, fine

but she shouldn't deny her kid a ride on Xenu's spaceship

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #12)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:48 AM

13. it would be better

. . . that she adopt equally bizzare beliefs of the Catholic church?

I'd go for the spaceship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:53 AM

14. It Certainly Takes Courage to Post a Defense of Tom Cruise Here

and to some extent, I'm with you. As far as I know, Tom Cruise is not an ogre, and nothing that has come out in the press concerning his family has seemed damaging enough to end a marriage and lose custody of his child.

Except, however, for the Scientology. Cults are destructive systems populated mostly by sincere people. It almost doesn't matter how Tom Cruise behaves -- if he was going to send his daughter to the kind of immersive program that's been described, that alone might be a good enough reason to take the child and run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to On the Road (Reply #14)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 10:23 AM

16. well, probably not 'courage'

To be fair to folks who responded ( and the ones who didn't) I haven't gotten a bit of traction with my views from my wife or anyone else for that matter.

I'm just vocalizing what I feel when I hear how much of a bad person Tom is and seeing nothing on the surface to really justify it (outside of his religion). I'm firm enough, though, on his right to expect balanced criticisms based on what he has actually done -- rather than on what folks feel, generally, about the reported abuses of some members of his church.

I could even accept the view of some that Kate's church and religion has a pernicious history of their own. Some even refer to it as a 'cult.' Just fine, though, I suspect, with some, that she enrolled the child in a Catholic pre-school in 2009. Others, opposing aspects of the Catholic religion, belief, and practice might not be as sanguine about that choice and action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #16)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 04:10 PM

19. When People Start Comparing Being Catholic to Being a Scientologist

you know things have gone way, way overboard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to On the Road (Reply #19)

Wed Jul 11, 2012, 08:48 AM

20. not a great comparison - Catholicism has a much longer history

. . . of bizarre and coercive beliefs and practices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:54 AM

15. I see it as the end of a business maneuver.

His sexuality has always been "talked about", and he probably has a short-man complex. He seems to need to be "attached romantically" to a woman..always. perhaps to shut the talkers up, or to bolster his own self esteem.

He seems to be a serial marry-er. When he's single one hardly hears about his dating life (as opposed to Clooney, et al), and then Boom! he's getting married.

His previous wives did not procreate with him. Mimi had kids with her next husband, and the next marriage included adopting kids, but the birthing children came with her next husband as well.

Katie was just a young starlet whose series was ending. For her, marrying a rich famous guy probably seemed like the next best thing to do. No one knows the details of the contract, but once she had the baby (finally proved his virility & machismo), she pretty much did her own thing.

She upheld her end of the deal, but she's still young, and he's oh-so rich, so why not get out of the deal now.

She stays silent about what she knows about the scientology thing, he pays her off..everyone's happy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 10:34 AM

17. There seems to be a lot of one-sided publicity.

That always makes me go hmmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 10:42 AM

18. Well written post.

Not sure I agree, but you make a good point.

None of us know what happened in that relationship.

The child looks like a spoiled brat to me, but I really have no way of knowing that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread