With you on all of this.

You know, I have worked at “progressive” workplaces – in a very progressive city – where we were presented with training DVDs about various kinds of discrimination, often including little acted-out scenarios.

Never once – not a single time – did I ever see the “gay” part of the presentation use a gay-male themed scenario. It was always women.

So finally at one place I asked the HR person: “So, what’s the deal? How come we always present these things in terms of women? The not-so-subtle message is, ‘Well, it’s kinda OK for women to have gay relationships – we’re all liberals here, after all! – but, um, men…? Ummm. Not comfortable.'”

She didn’t know how to answer that.

And the next DVD featured – ta da! – another lesbian couple, cause, you know, that didn’t make everyone uncomfortable!

At least that’s been my experience, that it’s more “OK” to be a lesbian than a gay/bi male.

Thanks for listening.

I actually think it’s a topic absolutely worth the examination.
Diminishing/dehumanizing another person enables all of us to act out against that person without feeling empathy, and that’s one of those things about Scientology we’re all supposedly against, here.
And I agree, it’s certainly not my place to decide who to deride and who not to deride.
Basically short-shaming is wrong. And there are in fact much more fun (specific) things to J&D about him as well. For example, the Copper Rods. And the mumbling. And the animatronic speech appearances. So to be fair, I should refrain from being such a hypocrite in that area…
We’ll see.
But I also happen to think homo-shaming is incredibly wrong – again, the power dynamic is key here – tragically, accusing someone of homosexuality is a way to diminish a man’s power.
And it absolutely shouldn’t be, because there’s nothing in the least diminishing about being gay just as there is nothing in the least diminishing about being female. The fact that so many gay or bi male stars (female too but not as bad) fear that revealing their sexual orientation will kill their careers is a tragedy. A real tragedy. I’ve actually seen the harm that it can do up close and it sucks. I’ve seen the harm that it can do in my own family immediate and extended family, and it has broken my heart.
And while we’re on the subject, I also don’t think any of the anal-rape J&D jokes so carelessly thrown around on this blog, surrounding COB going to prison are funny and that they are really offensive. No rape is funny. Ever. Period.
All so easy to do anonymously on the internet.
Like I said, I’ll work on the Miscavige height insults. But that’s one change I doubt will get much traction here. 🙂

Fair enough.

I do understand the issue of women and body image, how that’s used against them in ways it’s not generally used against men. For sure.

So the rule would be, if someone is personally destructive enough, anything’s fair game (at least as I understand it). That leaves us in the position of placing people on an “evil” or “destruction” or “sociopathic” hierarchy.

Kirstie, whatever her struggles with weight, has (at least) enabled a lot of Miscavige’s narcissism, sociopathy and destruction of other people’s lives, I think.

Ditto for Travolta, Cruise and all the other famous (or not famous) apologists. What about sexual-orientation shaming of those two men, given the whispers? Presumably not (and I certainly wouldn’t).

Tricky territory. Perhaps we should consult Randy Newman.

Of course, the short-shaming in the Bunker is a horse so far out of the barn that she’s galloped right off into a fifth dimension where there are multi-dimensions unicorns, so it’s not like I would make a point of it. I just thought it was worth examination.

I hear you saying: subjective and “technically hypocritical.” So there you go!

Thanks for the reply. Wasn’t sure if it was too old a topic.

And to add one more note, if we return to the feminist argument and open that can of worms:
Short men in general almost never have their POWER taken away from them because they are short. (exception made with Little People.)
Yes, on the playground with other guys; yeah, you’re not likely to get picked for the basketball team.
And yes, perhaps these men strive harder to overcome their biological imperative.
But an inordinate amount of short men have risen to phenomenal heights (pun intended?) of power – Napoleon, Tom Cruise (!) and possibly a fair majority of our most beloved actors – Bogart, Heston, Chaplin, Astaire, Kelly, Hoffman, Pacino – SO many powerful dudes in my own business including the despicable Michael Ovitz (remember that jerk?) and Mike Darnell (FOX ‘creator’ of Reality TV); Woody Allen, Dick Cavett, etc. etc. Two of our most important founders – John Adams and James Madison.
You can call these guys “short” ’till you’re blue in the face, but it doesn’t have the effect of dehumanizing and degrading them the way calling Nancy Pelosi out on her facelift or Michelle Obama on her athletic figure is intended to do.

It’s a really legitimate question.
One could argue that the objectification and control of women’s bodies is one of the things that keeps sexism in play to the level it is today, despite it being decades since the women’s movement was supposed to fix all that.
I happen to hold that opinion. Part of my work in media education is to get girls to see how the media is body-shaming them from an incredibly young age, to make them good obedient consumers, to keep them in their place as second class citizens in society, no matter how high they dare to fly (witness the recent right-wing lapel button regarding HiIlary Clinton – “Two Small Breasts, Two Huge Thighs, One Left Wing” – you can denigrate any woman and steal her power by just calling her out on her body (or her age.) And we’ve got women doing it to our selves, to our own sisters, too.
But let’s leave the feminist argument out of it. Without making that argument, you’re right. It’s totally hypocritical to short-shame Davey.
I’m with you there. There’s no fine distinction.
For me, it’s 100% subjective.
The only reason – again, subjective – I’m okay with short-shaming Davey is…he’s COB.
He’s evil, narcissistic, sociopathic and he has hurt (and even killed) and continues to hurt thousands of people on a daily basis. From the moment he wakes up in the morning.
And he’s short, fat, ugly, pretty, old, young, smart, stupid and you name it else shamed everyone around him.
I actually feel bad for Kirstie about her weight as there is so much evidence that she’s struggled with it. She clearly works on it and fails and has admitted it’s her achilles heel. She does not admit weakness in any other area, as an “OT.”
Dave admits no flaws, no weaknesses, at all. He is always right. He’s a Big Being.
Although others here do, I don’t personally “short shame” Tom Cruise. Or any other actor who’s height challenged ( a lot of them are, you’ll find, when you meet them in person.) My Dad was height-challenged too.
But Davey – to me, he really IS Fair Game – for ad hominem attacks or other attacks.
(I also think it’s okay to fat shame Hubbard because of his hypocritical superpowers. )
Which makes me think, if Kirstie WERE David Miscavige, then I’d fat shame her. I mean, to me – again, subjectively – when someone is that damn evil, they deserve no quarter in the J&D department.
As you say, though, technically it is hypocritical and I’ll own up to that.

I had a thought over the weekend, PI: I’m fine with refraining from “fat shaming” in the Bunker. Totally understand.

But as a person who maxed out a 5’7″, I have to ask: Why is “fat shaming” verboten here, but “short shaming” (Exhibits A-infinity, including handles!) OK?

It’s a serious question: What’s the difference? In fact, couldn’t one argue that one’s stature is TRULY unchangeable, and therefore should be off-limits to ridicule, vs. one’s weight which is (in theory, if not practice for everyone) changeable?

So what’s the fine distinction, here?

Wondering what you think. And no, I’m not insulted by the DM short jokes. Just a point of argument.

We both know how sanitized the church’s lawyers’ reports will be, plus the church paralegals will report whatever keeps them out the RPF another day. Mike Rinder reported how hostile the church’s Media Relations person was to Joe Childs, the reporter, after the Garcia hearing. I am sure he was very worried about Miscavige’s temper that day. Imagine how frightened the church paralegals were after the church lost two more motions to Monique Rathbun!

I find strength in you, sister. And you look SO MUCH like my mother that it’s really hard not to call and demand that recipe for blueberry cobbler.
My mama is white and my dad is indian.

Only ONE of those people would have a cobbler recipe. 🙂