Last night, a Seinfeld episode was on that had Kramer and his little person buddy Mickey trying to retain his television job by putting lifts in his shoes (to match the height of the kid he was a stand-in for). The episode made it seem like a big deal that little people who try to “heighten” was ostracized; it was considered a serious taboo. Is it a real taboo or just something they made up for the episode?
Among *some *little people, it’s not considered PC. Like *some *deaf people and cochlear implants.
I thought it was just considered kind of tacky that Mickey would wear lifts, the way a short guy (but not little person) might, to look taller. I didn’t think of it as a taboo, but then, it’s been a while since I saw the ep.
Although claiming to be about nothing, Seinfled episodes often involve going to great lengths to fix some small or imagined social misstep, the results of which are invariably worse than the original misstep; not that there’s anything wrong with that. I’m not sure if that applies in this case.
“I was filling in for Punky Brewster when all of you was nothing!”
I don’t know about real life, but it was definitely taboo in the show. He was ostracized, and the girl he had a date with went out with someone else instead.
I saw a stand-up comic at a club who was technically not a dwarf–he was about two inches over the legal definition–but had all the physical hallmarks, like sausage-y fingers and stuff. I wonder if there are divides within the community?
John Callahan wrote about how quadriplegics cop an attitude with paraplegics. Not a perfect comparison, but…
Just so you know, Krokodil, the physical hallmarks vary considerably depending on what condition an individual actually has.
I haven’t seen the show in question, but I’ve also never heard about anybody using lifts. I mean, dude, you now seem to be 4’4" instead of 4’2"? Like that makes any difference? Once you’re this short, trust me, there’s just no point.
If it helps, the plot of the show was that he was acting as a stand-in for a child actor, and the child was hitting a growth spurt. If the kid got too much taller, Mickey would lose the part if he didn’t do something about his height (“I tried offering the kid cigarettes, but his mom is always hanging around the set!”).
krokodil writes:
> I saw a stand-up comic at a club who was technically not a dwarf–he was
> about two inches over the legal definition–but had all the physical hallmarks,
> like sausage-y fingers and stuff. I wonder if there are divides within the
> community?
As far as I know, there is no legal definition of being a dwarf. There are a large number of medical conditions one symptom of which is being shorter than average, but being short is not the only thing that allows one to diagnose these conditions. There is no height that is a dividing line between being short simply because one’s parents are short and being short because of a medical condition. The closest thing I can think of is that the organization Little People of America had a maximum height of 4’10", but that was simply an arbitrary limit for their purposes.