So on the Twitters, people are reacting to news of Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries’ divorce rather predictably: e.g. they are following the example of George Takei and snarking about how brief marriages such as these demean the institution of marriage way more than letting gay people marry does. (Memo to George Takei: Whenever Perez Hilton is on your side, you should strongly consider the possibility that you are wrong.)
Now, I’m not going to pretend that I am a Kardashian fan – I am not. I don’t particularly care about her marriage either. In fact I’m feeling distinctly unpleasant at the prospect of writing a bunch of words defending her, as I am about to do. Hell, I have made fun of the Kardashians on numerous occasions. But I think a few points need to be made here.
1.) It is not Kim Kardashian’s fault that you are not rich and famous. Let’s be honest: a lot of the Kardashian animus is fueled by dislike and jealousy of the fact that Kim Kardashian and her family are famous in the Paris Hilton way of not actually doing anything but still being talked about. Granted, it would be a finer world if only people who actually did things of merit became famous, but “merit” is an awfully subjective thing. I mean, there are people out there who think Taylor Lautner can act or that Ben Roethlisburger doesn’t sexually assault women, for example. Is Kim Kardashian’s fame less earned because she got it by knowing the right people and getting to be on reality shows?
After all, it is quite clear that the Kardashians have worked their ass off to establish themselves as brands; fame such as this does not happen by accident, much as some might wish it did. It is valid to believe that society should not be this way and that the Kardashians’ fame is improper (and I am with you there!); however, it is not valid to suggest that the Kardashians’ fame is undeserved. Which leads me to point two:
2.) Snarking at someone’s personal misery is a bit low, regardless of whether or not they may be rich. People who are not rich have a tendency to assume that being rich means that any personal humiliation is somehow lessened, and this is not an unfair instinct, but it’s still wrong. Yes, Kim Kardashian had a public relationship and a wedding that she turned into a TV special, and made a lot of money doing so, and there is much about it – particularly the wedding – which can be considered to be in very bad taste. But conversely: this is someone who went on TV to have their wedding in front of the entire world and is now being more or less publicly humiliated as a result.
Unless you believe the entire wedding was a fiction – and I personally don’t, because there are simply easier and less embarrassing ways to make a buck when you are a Kardashian – then you should accept the proposition that just possibly Kim Kardashian is mortified right now, and publicly so. And I say this, understand, as someone who mocked the TV wedding to hell and back, because the wedding is fair game – they’re happy during the awful thing, so they can take it.
Now, I understand the joys of schadenfreude in this situation, but this time around it might be worth considering holding back. And why do I say that?
3.) Kim Kardashian supports gay marriage. Yep, she does, and she does so unreservedly. Now, if this were another celebutante opining about some horrible social opinion, then I would probably throw my first two points out the window and pile on anyway. But Kim Kardashian has been pro-gay-marriage for a long time, and judging by Keeping Up With The Kardashians‘ demographics numbers, her fame is driven by many people who are not inclined to be pro-gay-marriage, so her public and enthusiastic support of gay marriage did not come without risk to her (admittedly awful) livelihood.
Is it possible, then, that those proponents of gay marriage looking for their hypocrite-of-the-week could look elsewhere? Because, and I am not going to say this terribly often, this time Kim Kardashian deserves better treatment.
Related Articles
50 users responded in this post
I think a necessary requirement of making fun of Kim Kardashian’s divorce is that you have to care whether or not she was married in the first place, and what does that say about you?
She probably found out her husband was Bajoran. Bajorans and Kardashians don’t mix well.
Wait, hang on…
MGK: She most certainly didn’t work her ass *off*.
Cmon, I couldn’t resist.
Two childless adults marry, then divorce. Who else is affected?
I think the problem in the first place is feeling that marriage should not be “demeaned” in the first place. It’s a legal agreement. Harping on about how people should “respect” it just plays into the whole idea of marriage bearing some quality of sanctity. Besides, weren’t we just talking about how your or my marriage isn’t affected/demeaned/diluted by anybody else’s?
The only time I’d care to comment on the state of somebody’s marriage or sex life is someone who’s spent a lot of effort preventing other people from marrying and being happy.
This is all well and good except for the following:
1) I don’t give a shit how famous Kim Kardashian is or isn’t. What I care about is that she’s famous for being a complete and total airheaded ass who thinks the world revolves around her, and that kind of behavior is held up by an alarmingly large number of people as something that should be emulated instead of ridiculed. This means something is broken in our society.
2) However miserable she is or isn’t is beside the point. She was married for less time than most prison sentences. The fact that the marriage only lasted 72 days is proof of one of two things: 1) That Kim is an irresponsible asshole who didn’t think things through and didn’t take a close enough look at her future spouse’s behavior before marrying him. In which case she’s a fucking idiot. Or, alternatively, 2) she did think all these things through and MARRIED HIM ANYWAY because she didn’t care about that. In which case, she is a fucking asshole who treats marriage, still a very important social construct with a lot of deep seated meaning, as casually as you or I would treat a McDonald’s cheeseburger. Which is just. Plain. Wrong.
Also? I saw a report earlier this morning that said the Kardashians pulled in $18 million bucks on this wedding, AFTER expenses. So while there are easier ways to earn a buck, this is still a pretty goddamned good setup.
3) It has nothing to do with whether Kim Kardashian supports gay marriage. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that I personally know a gay couple who have been together longer than Kim Kardashian has been alive on this earth, and because of where they live they can’t get married. Yet Kim Kardashian can simply waltz in and out of marriage with whomever she pleases as if marriage is a dress or a really kicky pair of boots — or a cheeseburger, as above. Most married couples treat their marriages seriously and work their fucking asses off to make them succeed. Kim Kardashian didn’t think things through, entered into what is still one of the most serious relationships one can engage in, and not only treated it with self-centered contempt, she did so while purportedly supporting the rights of gays to marry. In other words, she is SABOTAGING THAT CAUSE by her own actions.
Fuck Kim Kardashian. You’re wrong, MGK. You couldn’t be more wrong.
The second I saw Colm Meaney as railroad tycoon, I was sold on Hell on Wheels.
Common, who is a surprisingly good actor is plus.
It is pretty funny to see that the people calling Kim Kardashian a stupid bitch and the people saying that slut-shaming is bad and wrong are the same people…
The premise of Takei’s statement is:
a) People argue against gay marriage by saying that it somehow demeans or otherwises compromises the sancitity of straight marriage
b) This is used as an example (one of many) of a straight marriage that ended quickly, and badly. Along with many examples of divorce and adultery, etc … the point being that gay marriage has nothing to do with these marriages failing.
If someone is pro gay marriage, or at least understands that gay marriage in no way demeans straight marriage fine. But, if they accept the first premise, the idea is to show how silly that premise is when there are so many other things that ‘demean’ marriage more than gay marriage does/would.
It’s not about showing Kim Kardashian as a hypocrite … it’s showing her marriage as one (of many) examples of a marriage that is considered acceptable while gay marriage isn’t.
As for the points:
1 – There is a difference between not liking that society has a horrible system of awarding fame (the Kim/Paris ‘sex tape’ your way to infamy) and being jelous. Labelling someone as jelous is dismisive, especially as jelousy is strictly ad hom. It’s possible for someone to be jelous of Kim Kardashian and still be entirely accurate in their criticism of her.
2 – It’s not personal misery. As you pointed out in the first part … she has worked VERY hard to become famous. She went so far as to have her wedding be a TV special. At that point, the fallout of that public marriage failing is also public. This isn’t a case of say a reclusive actor or author, who wants their work to stand on their own, and for their private lives to remain private. She is a reality TV star. Her ‘private life’ is made public as a means to be famous. This is a natural consequence to living ones life as openly. To say that the fame is earned, but the snark is uncalled for is absurd. They are both the consequence of the same actions. She deserves all the good, AND all the bad, that comes with being famous for living her life as an open book.
3) As a pointed out earlier, this isn’t a gotcha, like catching a politician that opposes gay rights in a bathroom soliciting gay sex. It’s not about exposing Kim Kardashian as a hipocrite. It’s using the public debacle as an example. He says himself in the tweet “Another example” … it just happens to be both a recent and high profile example of a brief marriage. It’s not snark, it’s making a point that marriages which end that quickly (with the implication that the people entering into thse marriages did so hastily or without much forethought it would seem) either damage ‘traditional marriage’ more that gay marriage would OR that people are obviously not as concerned with the sanctity of marriage as all their anti-gay marriage arguments would have you believe.
The point, ultimately, is that no one is arguing against adultery or quicky divorces after brief marriages, but they are arguing against gay marrige. That is where the hypocrisy is. And, in order to show that, examples of quicky divorces that no one seems to be trying to outlaw are brought up. And voila.
Re: DensityDuck
To be fair, calling her a stupid whore would be slut-shaming. A stupid bitch is (a) stupid (in other words not intelligent) and (b) a bitch (in other words not very nice), which has nothing to do with being sexual. (Unless she is being called a bitch because she’s a sub? Or enjoys doggy style?)
Also, there is probably some leaway between being against slut-shaming, and being okay with someone becoming famous because of a sex tape. There is that whole area in the middle between punishing someone for promiscuity and rewarding them for promiscuity, which is the not caring either way about their sex life.
Public ridicule for bad behavior is one of the ways that bad behavior is discouraged. If you feel that unearned fame, reality shows, and ridiculous overpublicized wedding events are things that shouldn’t be happening, then it’s time to start making jokes and/or throwing rotten vegetables.
No, it’s not the classy thing to do. It’s not compassionate or understanding or charitable. It might even make the targets of the laughter feel bad about themselves, and wonder if the money and celebrity status are worth having if it means so many people will be happily kicking them when they’re down. Which is, of course, *the whole damn point*.
“[T]here is probably some leaway between being against slut-shaming, and being okay with someone becoming famous because of a sex tape.”
Reply: what MGK said.
“It might even make the targets of the laughter feel bad about themselves, and wonder if the money and celebrity status are worth having if it means so many people will be happily kicking them when they’re down. Which is, of course, *the whole damn point*.”
Reply: What MGK said.
It’s like people don’t fucking read the post.
What I want to know is: Why is she named after kardassians?
Joe Mama and Wally are right, you got this one wrong. Your number 3 in particular is the problem. Takei and others are not addressing her hypocrisy, but the hypocrisy of the system.
As far as discouraging behavior goes, Kim Kardassian gets a ton of very loud, vocal public shit for getting married and divorced in less than three months.
George Bush, Dick Cheney et al sanctioned torture in violation of law and human decency. Numerous wealthy corporations have foreclosed on people who weren’t in default on their homes.
Obama had an American citizen without trial.
I would say that objectively, these are way, way, way worse than a 73-day marriage. They do not attract a fraction of the public opprobrium, much as politicians who have sex scandals get hounded for immorality more than crooks or torture-sanctioners.
Kim Kardassian is not the problem with the system.
American citizen assassinated without trial. Sorry.
@ Joe Mama: “What I care about is that she’s famous for being a complete and total airheaded ass who thinks the world revolves around her…”
I applaud Ms. Kardashian’s ability to extract resources from the fame and celebrity system. What other thing was it possible for her to be as famous for? It’s not like her choices to be vapid had some opportunity cost of being “legitimately” famous for curing cancer or being an astronaut. Or if no “legitmate” fame was available, she should be content to flip burgers for min wage? Pshaw!
Ms. Kardashian, like Ms. Palin, is beating the system. I consider them to be the heirs to Andy Warhol — welcome to cultural post-modernism.
Blaming HER seems to be radically misunderstanding the situation.
I’m a lawyer in Australia. You can’t get a divorce here without being separated for a year. Might be an idea for America where marriage is so ‘sacred’.
24 Hour Drive Thru Vegas Wedding Chapels do far worse to the “sanctity” of marriage than some rich girl’s mistake marriage.
Dr. Creaux
Fraser- Al-Awalki renounced his citizenship, doesn’t really go in the major injustice column to me that a terrorist died.
MGK, I like you. I really do. And I respect you. And I think you can do almost no wrong.
But you really screwed the pooch here.
Don’t take my word for it. Just keep reading the comments. It will become clear soon enough…
Mirror-man, master of vague threats!
“Is Kim Kardashian’s fame less earned because she got it by knowing the right people and getting to be on reality shows?”
Yes. Am I really offering a controversial viewpoint here ?
If she and those like her who are famous-for-being-famous used that fame to, oh I don’t know, *achieve* something then maybe a re-evaluation would be in order but until then….
Whoa whoa whoa. I like you but you do NOT talk shit about a very articulate, charming, and intelligent man simply trying to right a social injustice using snark, sarcasm, and wit.
I’m sure Mr. Takei, like all classy people, has an appropriate respect for Miss. Kardasian and will probably apologize in the future. For now, however, let the man poke fun at an inane argument and poor life choices.
Yeah, this is a bad call, I think. 140 characters is admittedly too small an amount to make one’s position crystal clear, but that doesn’t mean the reader gets to extrapolate in order to make a general point. Are a lot of people being kinda shitty regarding their Kardashian snark? Yeah. Is Takei one of them? I guess there’s some case to be made there, though I’d hate to have to be the one making it.
But is he accusing Kardashian of hypocrisy? Please. There’s just no there there.
Ken B3, Awlaki’s never been convicted of anything. And the government has offered up no proof of actual terrorist activity, as opposed to terrorist sympathy (which is legal). And he was definitely not shot on the battlefield. So yes, this is a lot worse than Kardassian making bad choices.
Re: DensityDuck
How does reading MGK’s original post have anything to do with my response to your post. I was responding to you talking about dumb bitches and slut shaming.
Also, MGK doesn’t say anything at all related to slut shaming, or mentioning the whole sex tape thing, etc. Heck, he talks about the fame coming from knowing the right people and getting a reality TV show, forgetting that most people first heard about her because of the sex tape (see also: Paris Hilton).
I’m not sure if YOU read the post, because the post doesn’t actually act as a response to those quotes. There is a basic “don’t hate the playa, hate the game” feel to the original message that sort of fits, but it isn’t exactly a “’nuff said, mike drop” type of slam dunk argument either.
My only complaint with Kim Kardashian is that she tried to enter into a marriage with as much psychological baggage as she’s got without trying to sort it out first.
It may not be her fault that she’s rich and I’m not, but it is her fault that she’s used this fame and fortune to cover-up and never fully explore her disconnect with other people and her outstanding daddy issues. I’m willing to bet that these issues more than anything else led to her recent divorce filing.
I’m not saying this Kris guy was a prize or anything. He had an air of dumb and douchebag around him that I’d seen so many times before.
This whole marriage was going to be a trainwreck but using it to promote gay marriage may not be as helpful as using it to help people become less socially incompetent before entering into a marriage.
I thought the whole point was that the Kardashian Wedding was sold(for rather a lot of money) without any regard for the Kardashian marriage. It’s the commoditification of the thing. I mean, this thing that the Moral Majority claims is sacred, and cannot be extended to any other type of partnership other than man and woman, that was treated as a business enterprise and a way to promote a brand and a reality TV. I heard no objections to that from the defenders of ‘traditional’ marriage. That’s where the snark is, not Kim Kardashian’s political views.
Oh, and Glenn, it varies by state in America. Some (and I think maybe most, although I could be wrong about that) states require a year separation period for a no-fault divorce (a divorce without an ejectment from the home/for cause). I don’t know how the Cali law works.
It seems like a lot of the hate for Kardashian and Hilton and even Amy Winehouse comes from hating women for living what is supposed to be the female fantasy. That is–being rich and beautiful (subjective whatever) and marrying a rich handsome guy.
Sure, it’s not based on an “accomplishment” like being able to throw a ball or something, but there is a ton of effort put into developing fashion and social skills that can be parlayed into fame.
I am not a fan of any of them or that message, but this is what society tells women to want, this is what marketers think constitutes “female entertainment” in films, novels, and TV, this is living the dream that women are presented.
And somehow that’s wrong when it makes money?
I wish I could MAKE tens of thousands of dollars to throw a wedding, as opposed to spending tens of thousands of dollars…
Fraser, good gods, al-Awlaki was convicted in a Yemeni court of multiple offenses. He BRAGGED about fomenting terrorist activity multiple times in public to boot. He was behind the Ft Hood shootings by his own words. That was no assassination. It was a legal killing under the AUMF. Glenn Greenwald can go piss up a rope for lying about it.
For a lawyer you’d think you’d lead with a better argument than “You’re a bunch of jealous haters”.
Really now.
@ Lindsey
In the words of Brian Griffin-“Can I buy some pot from you?”
1. People don’t hate those women out of a sense of envy, people hate the first two women for being the type of women that makes people wonder if slut-shaming is “really all that bad?” (Say what you will, but Amber Cole’s actions are lighting some parts of the blogosphere on fire due to the Paris/Kim porn to fame connotation.) Amy’s hatred was based on her willingness to throw away her talent in a never-ending quest to chase the dragon.
2. Paris has yet to get married. Amy’s ex-husband and Kim’s soon-to-be ex-husband are neither as rich as their former wives or traditionally “handsome”. Now, if Amy had found some way to convince Colin Firth to take her hand, if Paris appeared in New York City on the arm of Robert Pattinson, if Kim had continued on her journey of dating black men that black women tend to find attractive and married Idris Elba, the comment about “having it all/living the female fantasy” would make more sense. But, Paris is continually pumped and dumped (and has fallen to C/C+ list celebrity level), Amy married a heroin addict and Kim’s husband has been repeatedly described as “sort of Downs’sy-looking” by most of the celebrity watchers who I know (I live in NYC, everyone in this city with a little bit of money is a famewhore.)
I am barely aware that Kim Kardashian exists except as A Name and I think George Takei was in Star Trek as some guy and probably enjoys other men. Sexually speaking.
Based entirely on this lack of knowledge and your post, I, the uninformed public, have decided that I couldn’t possibly care less about Kim Kardashian, her marriage, or its length, and if George Takei wants to take a cheap shot at it he can be my guest. Net positive for him, neutral for everyone else.
Gorillamist: “For a lawyer you’d think you’d lead with a better argument than “You’re a bunch of jealous haters”.”
HAHAHA!! I’d like to see a legal ruling of “Fascis studiosum oderunt vos omnes”!
“After all, it is quite clear that the Kardashians have worked their ass off to establish themselves as brands;”
Subtle but I think important correction: no, the Kardashians’ publicists worked their collective asses off to establish the Kardashians as a brand. Just imagine the sheer amount of PR and marketing knowledge and expertise that had to go into creating strategic plans and etc. that went into making people believe, even for a moment, that the Kardashians are in any way relevant to anything.
I don’t like the Kardashians. I don’t respect the Kardashians.
But I respect and admire that the Kardashians’ PR have done an incredible job of not only ensuring that the Kardashians are continuously discussed but also that people have emotional reactions to those discussions when they occur.
highlyverbal: I applaud Ms. Kardashian’s ability to extract resources from the fame and celebrity system. What other thing was it possible for her to be as famous for?
You seem to be presuming that she has to be famous.
I disagree with MGK on this one. Kardashian chose to make her wedding a public spectacle and, I’m sure, reveled in the attention and money it brought. When things go south she (or her defenders) don’t get to complain that the dissolution is similarly a public spectacle.
@ Sean D. Martin: “You seem to be presuming that she has to be famous.”
Ummm, no, I wasn’t. Please scroll back up to where I argue…
“Or if no “legitmate” fame was available, she should be content to flip burgers for min wage?”
You may not agree with my line of reasoning, but your accusation (that I am PRESUMING that she has to be famous) is plainly, textually false. I certainly take the time to mention the option of being not famous. Read more carefully.
Oh, and now might be a great time to discuss who has the burden of proof in this sub-argument… the people saying accept her fame “as is” — or the people doing the judging. Anyone wishing to judge her must affirmatively defend some other career path for Ms. Kardashian. If they want her to be famous for something “legit” – let’s hear what she should be famous for. If they want her to turn down fame and millions of dollars, they certainly need to wax eloquent on the excitement of flipping burgers.
All I am PRESUMING is that persons might reasonably prefer careers that produce buckets of money.
(Tiny, little minor point that is obviously too subtle for someone unable to track this on even the purely textual level… I also invoked Mr. Warhol, who has made several comments about the inevitability of fame. Perhaps your complaints about the inevitability of fame need to be addressed to him/ A few remarks on the internet will certainly rebut his entire life’s work studying the phenomenon of fame from the inside.)
“I’m a lawyer in Australia. You can’t get a divorce here without being separated for a year. Might be an idea for America where marriage is so ‘sacred’.”
The same is true in New York State. (Well, there are other reasons, like abuse and infidelity, but if you just don’t want to be married anymore, you have to wait a year.) Other states, including, I guess, the one Kardashian was married in, have different laws.
Dial it back, highly verbal.
I wasn’t “accusing” you of anything. Read more carefully yourself. “You seem to be presuming…” You want to tell my I mis-interpreted your words, fine. I was scrolling/scanning comments quickly and responding to the sentence that stood out (to me).
Anyone wishing to judge her must affirmatively defend some other career path for Ms. Kardashian.
I disagree. One does not have to list viable alternatives to be able to legitimately judge a person’s decision to become, say, a murderer as a bad one. Do I have to mention the ways in which Hitler chose to deal with things before I can judge how he did decide to deal with them? (Yes, I went Godwin on you.)
Sean Martin:
“Kardashian chose to make her wedding a public spectacle and, I’m sure, reveled in the attention and money it brought. ”
aka “bitch was askin’ for it by dressing like that.”
@Sean D. Martin
No, bro, you dial it UP a little.
I stand by my remarks. You certainly were accusing me of something. The weaksauce hedge of “seems” doesn’t even hold water, since my rebuttal was on a purely textual level. Was the text itself not what it SEEMed to be somehow?
============
“One does not have to list viable alternatives to be able to legitimately judge a person’s decision to become, say, a murderer as a bad one.”
Once again, your decisions about what to excerpt are very flawed. Because I covered the godwin (for shame, sir!) thing by saying that of course I AM presuming that “persons might reasonably prefer careers that produce buckets of money.” Which was not Hitler’s motivation, eh? Tiny bit of difference there, eh? Any chance I can talk you down from that Godwin ledge?!
PS: I kinda suspected that the Warhol thing would be a bit too much for ya, my bad. Let’s just forget discussing his claims of fame’s inevitability entirely. Couldn’t possibly be relevant.
DensityDuck: aka “bitch was askin’ for it by dressing like that.”
Nope. Not even close to what I said.
highlyverbal: No, bro, you dial it UP a little. … You certainly were accusing me of something.
Yes, to have accused you of something I would have to dial it up. Thanks for acknowledging that I didn’t do either.
“to have accused you of something I would have to dial it up”
Sorry, does not follow. Think harder.
Excuse me but , who the fuck is Kadarsh… Karshad… Kardashian (sounds like Coeur de chien, doesn’t it?) ?
I don’t think anyone’s said that Kardashian’s a hypocrite. Her position on gay marriage is rather beside the point.
People are just pointing to her marriage as yet another high-profile example (like Britney Spears’ brief first marriage, etc) of how straight couples are free to treat lightly a right that is denied to gay couples whose relationships have lasted decades.
Also: ” Snarking at someone’s personal misery ”
I think people are suspecting that Kim Kardashian isn’t miserable at all, that the breakup hasn’t been particularly stressful for her, and might well have been planned. It’s all showbiz.
My take is that, to the extent people are sympathetic, it’s with the husband. Kris Humphries is to Kim Kardashian as Balloon Boy is to his famewhore hoax-staging dad.
No sympathy for the husband whatsoever. He seemed to expect Kris to give up her fame and career (such that it was) and take his name.
I have no issue with women taking their husband’s name, but I do with husbands expecting it. Besides, I have a large amount of goodwill for the Kardashians because Bruce Jenner is one of my extremely few sports heroes.
Dan Savage addressed this in his last podcast (http://www.thestranger.com/SavageLovePodcast/archives/2011/11/08/savage-love-episode-264 )in his traditional show-open rant without regard to Kardashian’s political views. His complaint is that Kim (and Brittney, and Newt) are free to treat marriage as disposable, and that never draws any condemnation from the defenders of traditional marriage, which reveals that they are motivated by anti-gay bigotry, not any real concern over the life-long commitment of ‘traditional marriage.’