Shocked and stunned

Oh yes I was, when I looked at this picture:

The picture of five year old Suri Cruise, daughter of actor Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes – look at her feet!

A five year old, wearing heels, and make-up. Quite a shocking photo (which actually reminds me of those little girl beauty pagents they have in the US that dress girls up to be women).

Anyway, Suri Cruise has a wardrobe estimated to be in the region of £2 million 😯

Has a lipstick colour for ‘day’ and another for ‘night’ 😯

Is allowed to make all her own decisions, about everything, so no surprises when:

This is because, according to the religion’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard, the human body is a vessel for alien spirits. Children, therefore, are vessels for these aliens and so there is no reason to treat them any differently from adults.

In reality, this appears to mean Suri is allowed to rule the family. ‘She will throw temper tantrums when she’s out with Katie and Tom,’ says a source. One claims that after a trip to a restaurant last month, no amount of pleading to get in her car seat by Holmes could persuade Suri — and so she just didn’t.

No shit Sherlock.
The chances of this kid growing up normal and well adjusted?
About zero I reckon. Just like Chastity Bono (now F2T tranz).

Anyway, you can read the whole article in The Daily Mail.

Once you get over the intial shock, there seems to be some stealth feminism that crept into The Mail, with another (more informative) article on the sexualisation of young girls and teens. Phew, I clawed back some of my sanity…

17 thoughts on “Shocked and stunned

  1. FAB Libber

    I was thinking about doing a brief post on “Chaz” Bono too.
    Gotta get over the shock of this one first though.


  2. FAB Libber

    I know, there are barely words when you look at that photo.
    I was … “wtf! wtf! omg! wtf! omfg!!!”

    In another 10-15 years, you can just see how screwed up she will be too. I had a cousin, solo-child who was spoilt (not to this extent obs) but she never outgrew the centre of attention thing. But that is lightweight compared to Suri.


  3. bronte1

    Those shoes are doing permanent damage to her body. Heels do horrible things to grown women’s feet and spines. Imagine a growing child. It’s low-level footbinding. In patriarchy, the beauty-torture starts with the high-status females and then all women have to conform as the standard shifts toward the new normal. So this is a crime against Suri but also against all little girls. Why are shoe companies even allowed to make such shoes? And don’t get me started on the thongs for 5-year-olds. Depressing enough that they’ve convinced women across the western world to wear stripper clothes (“clothes”), but children? Shows how the whole thing is about infantilization, ultimately. Turning all adult women into little girls–no adult fat, no pubic hair. Once domination is turned into an erotic thrill, what’s “sexier” than a powerless child? Some days, there isn’t enough chocolate in the world to make me feel better.


  4. FAB Libber

    Yes to everything you said B1 (my new abbreviation for you, or would you prefer bronte?)

    I had not thought about the ‘fashion’ element trickling down from high status females like that (in the context of little girls), but yes, that makes a lot of sense.

    The damage it is doing to her calf muscles too. This is the West’s footbinding, for if you start very young girls in footwear like this, she will not be able to wear anything else once she gets older.

    We can see where this is ultimately heading? The ‘Lolita’ fashions for little girls (has been underway for several years now) becomes mainstream, little girls are then automatically seen as ‘precocious’ and sexualised, therefore all the child abuse heaped upon them will be their fault (just as it is now with older female rape victims). So it will be Open Season on little girls, on a mass scale that makes today’s CSA abuse level look downright protective and quaint.


  5. jilla

    I think Suri will grow out of it, if her feet survive. Although, I wouldn’t be too concerned there either. The damage to my feet didn’t happen with high heels, of which there were plenty, over many years. No, it was athletic shoes that nearly crippled me. They are built on a male’s last, and we are supposed to just manage.

    Now Chastity is another matter. Very disturbed.


  6. jilla

    So I did a quick news surf on this. It’s only been men blaming re Suri’s heels. And who were they blaming? Katie, of course.

    I would imagine most of the FABS here, who had mothers who wore high heels, even just for “special” occasions, did try their mom’s shoes. Purse? I have no problem with that, or the girls trying on their father’s and brother’s shoes and wearing them. It’s when they “MUST” do that that I’m bothered. As in Chastity’s case. She mutilated hersef because she thought she had to.


  7. noanodyne

    That second article made me feel as much despair as the first. Yeah, the writer is acknowledging all this insane shit, but it feels like she’s in a watchtower commenting on the series of tsunamis destroying everything in known creation, with no end in sight. And here’s the kicker:
    Mums I spoke to were also afraid of raising concerns because they don’t want to appear as joyless, man-hating feminists.

    Oh, yes, better to be a joyless femininity-performing fuckbot and better to train your daughters into the same hellish existence than have a man — any man!!! — think you’re not conforming properly!! I mean, what the fucking hell… what year is this?!?! The choicy choose-choosers chatter about agency and these mothers appear to have less of it than any women since the dawn of time (ok, maybe with a few exceptions maybe). And are training their daughters to it as well. Perfect reversal — performing sex-role submission to the n-th degree will give you freedom and being free of that will shackle you to a lifetime without the high regard of men.


  8. jilla

    They are “training” their daughters to do this in the same way and for the same reason that women in Africa are the ones to do the FGMs.

    Calling women fuckbots?


  9. jilla

    Context: This photo is two year’s old isn’t it? She bought them when her mother bought the same style shoes for a dance gig she had. Suri, like any little kid, is going to want them too. Maybe, she’s also got a pair of Mad Rocks?

    Having said that, I do not like that dancing attire is so sexist. Ginger Rogers backwards, etc.


  10. Jennifer

    According to the Daily Male female writer it is once again women’s or rather mothers’ fault for not preventing the malestreaming of pornography and the deliberate sexualisation of girl children. According to this female author we musn’t blame the men!!

    I never knew women were so powerful that there are innumerable women working as chief executives of multi-national corporations all busily engaged in reducing women and now female children to men’s sexual service stations. But of course it is always much easier to blame women whilst the men remain on the sidelines and are not seen as the ones responsible for causing and promoting this misogynistic backlash against feminism. How many women run multi national companies? How many women own media corporations? How many women are political leaders? How many women are judges? How many women are leaders in the field of malestream medicine and science? Very, very few because all these powerful positions continue to be held by white middle-class males.

    Radical feminism has consistently stated it is the male supremacist system which we have to dismantle and because this system is so powerful as soon as we ‘knock down’ one aspect another one emerges in its place. That’s why the multi-national capitalist corporations co-opted feminist terms such as ‘agency’ and ’empowerment’ and turned them into propaganda because remember women ‘you are all worth it.’ Meaning of course focusing 24/7 on whether or not the female body is suitably ‘sexually hot’ to men is the sin que of so-called female liberation. Only it is not – it is the deliberate c0-optation of feminism into neo-liberalism, individualism and of course enforcement of male domination over all women and girls.

    No feminist ever said it would be easy eliminating male domination over women which is why malestream media and its brother popular culture have worked overtime to ensure that real feminist voices and criticisms are silenced or else subjected to hsyterical claims we are all ‘prudes/men-haters/puritans/in league with the right-wing patriarchs etc. etc.’

    The Daily Male is co-opting the issue of malestream media reducing women and girls to infantilised men’s sex toys and using that tried and trusted method – always blame women because we women have sooo much power and look where it has got us? Why we’ve all willingly become men’s sexual service stations.

    No Daily Male it is never that simple but you still promote the same old tired misogyny and always use female writers to do your dirty work.

    Radical feminists have analysed the various methods male supremacy maintains control and male domination over women and herstory consistently informs that whenever we women achieve a tiny amount of our liberation immediately male supremacists devise a new method of curbing/eliminating our human rights. The deliberate sexualisation of girls because it is female children not male children who are being reduced to men’s dehumanised sexual service stations. So too the issue of sexualisation of female children is not separate from men’s continued sexualisation and dehumanisation of adult women – it is all on a continuum. Who benefits? Why men of course because they are not dehumanised sexualised objects are they?

    The deliberate dehumanisation of all women and reinforcement of male as the supposedly only autonomous human being is all part of male supremacist backlash against women who dare to claim we are human not men’s servants or slaves.

    I wonder why so many women are afraid of that label ‘feminist?’ Is it because malestream media has been very successful in promoting misogynistic propaganda and keeping feminist voices and feminist articles out of malestream media. That is where the real power lies – with the malestream media because they are the ones ensuring feminist critiques are not given a hearing and instead Josephine Public is bombarded with negative articles all claiming women need to do this or that in order to meet the male gaze.

    Yes folks the ‘male gaze’ is still very much in evidence because remember only men are the ones with knowledge and anything men claim is always the truth and reality. That is power – having the right to make male centric claims and the assumption is such male-centric claims are applicable to all ‘people’ sic. People meaning ‘men’ because only women have to be defined as women – men are just ‘people.’


  11. noanodyne

    Yes, the patriarchy is wholly to blame for the systemic destruction of women’s and girls’ lives. But it is women, real live women, who know the pain, humiliation, degradation, soul-sickness, misery, fear, and self-annihilation of being “men’s sexual service stations.” And it’s very hard to understand how mothers who have been chewed up in that way can encourage their daughters to be groomed by and then fed into the system that does that to girls and women. And no, it isn’t like women in Africa and FGM. Those women face things far, far worse for non-compliance with their culture than what wealthy, white U.S. women face. And it is women who are blaming feminists. Yes, the Daily Male is only too happy to dance with glee when they do that, but it doesn’t change that women DO do that and to give themselves cover for sacrificing their daughters to a male god. There is academic radical feminism and there is on-the-ground radical feminism. The theory of the patriarchy and its effects on women is very useful, but there is also a time to call bullshit on anyone and everyone who fights its battles in the real world. There is a difference between blaming “mothers” generally and pointing out that this specific mother (and the father, of course) are helping to groom their child in one, specific direction. (Wanting to be like mommy is just what the little girl is doing — she of course isn’t to blame at all and no radfem would ever say she is.)

    And yes, “fuckbot” — having sex anywhere and everywhere and doing it over and over and over in a robotic, mindless way — is what girls and women are encouraged to be and do right now and some see absolutely no reason not to take on that role and from early teens on. It is not they who created the system, but girls and women ARE cheering for it and encouraging it and that’s what the term refers to.


  12. maggie

    That child’s feet are already in the foot binding arena. They look ‘used’. It’s horrendous and the graphic says it all really.

    Good posts jennifer and noanodyne.


  13. FAB Libber

    Did you like my ‘shock’ graphic?
    I redrew it using the WP smilie 😯 as a template.
    Initially when I posted this, I had another one off the net, but it was a bit shit.


  14. jilla

    I too admire Jennifer’s post, to paraphrase, since when did women get such power? I don’t have the words so I’ll just say, please read Jennifer.

    I am not sanctioning this.

    No child of mine was raised this way.

    I will not blame the mother. I am a mother. I cannot shoulder any more blame.


  15. FAB Libber

    I don’t blame the mother in all of this. I blame Tom Cruise and his nutsy church. It was church advice that the 5yo should make ALL her own decisions. Now, what if those ‘decisions’ involved the kid deciding to jump off the roof?



Leave a rilly rilly twanzphobic reply, go on, dares ya!

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s