Re: the rub

[Guest guest]

Everyone (including myself, I'll admit) seems to be an armchair

quarterback about the negative impact RC has had on LPs. But I have

to ask an honest question: Has anyone that's actually done Radio

City a) been stigmatized for life and not been able to seek more

steady employment if they so looked for it after they were done? In

other words, was it really a negative stigma?

I agree with Bill and Tony- we need other options. But what I don't

agree on, and until Radio City demonstrates to me otherwise, is that

they should be banned from the Expo provided they pay their fee.

Banning negative stigmas is a slippery slope. Banning people

promoting dwarf tossing, which LPA does have a statement on- banning

people that threaten the welfare of an LP is one thing. Banning an

organization that's legitimate, professional and has been for MANY

years at Expo (paying their own fee) is sending the wrong signals to

a lot of people that we need to keep in LPA. But at the same time,

we do need other demonstrations of employment at Expo.

And I've never said LPA has to agree on things (we actually don't if

they're not threatening us as a community- and neither RC or ELL

are), but I do think LPA needs to respect the positions of all its

members, not just those in power. If it's a negative thing, don't

do it. It's at the Expo- you don't have to go and you don't have to

try out. So I guess my question is: what's the big deal?

> >

> > I have been reading this debate on whether Radio City (RC)

should be

> > allowed at the national conference or not. To be honest, at

first I

> > questioned as to why it would even be an issue, but I have since

read on

> > and deduced why. The way I see it, while it may be seen as

something

> > that is demeaning to LPs, it does serve a purpose. There are

those that

> > look to something like RC to break into acting or at least make

some

> > decent money for a time. To me the question is really very

simple, it is

> > not a matter of whether the members want RC there, it is a

question of

> > what sort of message should the organization send. I agree with

Davey

> > that it should not be the message of LPA to say that the roles

that RC

> > offers is acceptable. However, I don't believe it is the

responsibility

> > of LPA to protect it's members. If it's members choose to seek a

job

> > with RC, then that is their choice. Therefore, my solution is

that RC

> > should not be barred from the conference but should not be given

space

> > or support from LPA. If a representative wants to wonder the

conference

> > to find those who would be interested in RC, then let them. Just

simply

> > don't provide any support to that effort.

> >

> > Tom

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

I think it is not so much were those who were in RC were stigmatized,

but is it stigmatizing LP's in general? Therein lies the dilemma. Those

who participate in RC may not see the damage being done. It is those of

us who are out there everyday and have to " peacefully coexist " with

those who have seen the shows and now carry away from it a negative

connotation of all LP's. Those who have been in the shows may actually

garner some well deserved fame. With it, a masking of the sterotypes

that they thenmselves are helping to keep alive. And I wasn't suggesting

banning RC.

Tom

mrnatlfan00 wrote:

> Everyone (including myself, I'll admit) seems to be an armchair

> quarterback about the negative impact RC has had on LPs. But I have

> to ask an honest question: Has anyone that's actually done Radio

> City a) been stigmatized for life and not been able to seek more

> steady employment if they so looked for it after they were done? In

> other words, was it really a negative stigma?

>

> I agree with Bill and Tony- we need other options. But what I don't

> agree on, and until Radio City demonstrates to me otherwise, is that

> they should be banned from the Expo provided they pay their fee.

> Banning negative stigmas is a slippery slope. Banning people

> promoting dwarf tossing, which LPA does have a statement on- banning

> people that threaten the welfare of an LP is one thing. Banning an

> organization that's legitimate, professional and has been for MANY

> years at Expo (paying their own fee) is sending the wrong signals to

> a lot of people that we need to keep in LPA. But at the same time,

> we do need other demonstrations of employment at Expo.

>

> And I've never said LPA has to agree on things (we actually don't if

> they're not threatening us as a community- and neither RC or ELL

> are), but I do think LPA needs to respect the positions of all its

> members, not just those in power. If it's a negative thing, don't

> do it. It's at the Expo- you don't have to go and you don't have to

> try out. So I guess my question is: what's the big deal?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>>>>But what I don't agree on, and until Radio City demonstrates to

me otherwise, is that they should be banned from the Expo provided

they pay their fee. Banning negative stigmas is a slippery slope.<<<<<

Interesting point .

Who makes the judgement on what is a 'negative stigma'? How many of

the members of the community have portrayed an elf in one venue or

another and has done so happily? Do we know for a fact that these

individuals are doing so and unhappy?

Let's say there is an opera performance where a part is offered to a

person with dwarfism to portray the court jester; do we ban opera

companies because these are roles available to dwarfs?

What do we ban while we're still making headway in changing cultural

perceptions? Who are we banning this from? Does hiding our heads in

the sand resolve the real issues with the employment of those

dwarfism? Or do we concentrate on finding more avenues to provide

employment and opportunity?

Are we sending out a message to the membership stating what type of

role is 'okay' for those with dwarfism and which will be looked down

upon because LPA considers them negative for all of us with dwarfism?

Will we soon be passing judgement on what venue they should

perform/work in also? Will it be sanctioned to perform/work in some

arenas, will we find ourselves one day surrounded by a board that

thinks performing in (let's say) Casinos will have a negative impact

on our culture because these are associated with gambling and drinking

(both possible addictions that can impact negatively on life and I

know of varying religious groups that frown upon this type of venue),

so no dwarf should be found working in one?

I think we're back on that slippery slope we seem to take with those

in the entertainment field, we're passing judgement on how they earn

their living and the choices that they are comfortable with. I know

this is seems to be an ongoing theme in this community or at least

I've seen enough of it in the 6 years I've been around.

We need to continue to recognize the diversity of this group and

accept that people will make their own choices and hopefully they have

choices. LPA needs to be about representing all of it's members, not

the few. Parents need to understand that overprotecting their children

won't guarantee that they will all grow up to be lawyers, doctors

or...... some may grow up to be clowns performing in a circus. And

although 'some' in the community may not want to be associated with

this choice, as family and friends we should continue to love them if

it is what makes them happy.

Yes, as an Organization and as individuals we should continue to

advocate for opportunities for all, opportunties that give each

individual their choice of a profession that brings them comfort and

joy. Not what makes some of us happy. As far as I can see RC and

Disney seem to be making the performers (and other that work there)

happy. I'd hate for the Organization to come along and stifle these

opportunties for those who choose to partake in these roles. I'm sure

many are happy that I don't have a vote in these matters.

All in all, I seem to be saying I prefer more vs less.