Why Kim Kardashian Is the Perfect Icon for Our Sick Society

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/why-kim-kardashian-perfect-icon-our-sick-society



Kardashian represents the pinnacle values of late-stage American-style capitalism: opportunism, effortless celebrity, obsession with wealth and image, narcissism, and above all, making a fortune doing nothing useful.

In her ripened curves, the fruits of unbridled capitalism are made flesh. In her dogged ambition to be rich and be seen, she is the Lady Bountiful of the Celebrity-Industrial Complex, endorsing any product that will have her, no matter how contradictory. Diet systems? Of course! McDonald’s? Mais oui! The mirror image of the market stripped of regulation, she is the marketer unburdened by responsibility.

Turning the world into a camera, Kardashian takes self-obsession to new heights: She is the queen of the selfie, compiling a 352-page series of snaps into an unpublished book called “Selfish,” soon available to all in hardcover. Her smartphone gaming app, “Kim Kardashian: Hollywood,” invites players to follow her animated image as she frolics through a commercial playground. The app is already worth $200 million after a midsummer release, its candy-colored cartoons perfectly reflecting the infantile ethos she represents.

Kim Kardashian is simply the id of capitalism run wild, the narcissistic force that wants what it wants, when it wants it, an incarnation of the fulfilled wish to talk and think about absolutely nothing while rolling in snuggly designer sheets. Unattached and oblivious, the spoiled child becomes the American avatar of freedom and self-expression, something elevated and even holy.

[RandiFan1290]

1. We're the keepers

Ask me why a dream gets you by
But let it want, turns a dangerous thing
Watch out for it, it snakes right past
Then turns around and it sucks you in
What happens when you get stuck
Get to the bottom of the illusion that you're in?
From the roots now it's shook up
Know that what ails without will do you in

[MrScorpio]

2. My questions are, other than herself, who else has she exploited?

How many other people's lives has she ruined to create her own wealth and success?

Compare her to, let's say, some ruthless Wall Street criminal… Especially a man, how much harm as she caused?

Are we supposed to be shocked that she owns her own body and uses her own image as she sees fit? Yet are we supposed to be as shocked by a swimsuit model who who would otherwise appear on a magazine cover for a sports magazine or in someone else's movie production? If not, why not?

I'm having a hard time being appalled by this line of reasoning in the article here.

This is America; self-promotion has always been at the heart of this culture. Now when a woman does it, one who only uses her own name and own body, and does not exploit anyone else… There's all the sudden some problem with this?

Bull.

[marions ghost]

5. Celebrities have a big influence

on society. Kardashian values are internalized by the gullible and young--the narcissism, the selfishness, the entitlement, the entrenchment of "haves" vs "have-nots." Not everyone is scoffing, judging by her popularity. So I think it's fair to say that what she represents does not reflect a healthy society. Nothing we can do about it except ridicule it.

I get your point about "there are worse" out there--but it's all part of the same sickness.

------------

From the article:

"So why are we stuck with her? The answer lies in the fact that the American economy is in a stage where most people are not getting what we need, much less what we want. As we become more alienated and work harder and harder for our neo-feudal overlords, our dreams are constricted and our futures foreclosed. Celebrities are the gods we create to distract ourselves from our own incompleteness, from the hunger for things we cannot have. We spend our lives following their every move to get our attention away from the lack that we will always feel until this system is overthrown."

The final line from the article:

"Is it all her fault? Of course not. She’s the prison we made for ourselves."

[MrScorpio]

6. And to that I have to ask, if she were a man and did the exact same thing...

Would the negative response be the same?

[marions ghost]

8. I think so

Trying to think of a comparison. When it comes to men...looking for

Super-wealthy narcissist male no-talent celebrity who agrees to embody an American fantasy life to the point that it is lapped up by the struggling masses (for the purpose of emulating or scoffing, distracting from real problems)....? Somebody give us a name here......how about Charlie Sheen?

Of course there are a whole raft of right-wing male politicians and corporate assholes in addition to the entertainment industry...and they get the same admiration and derision.

Kim's obscene consumption is maybe more "female" in nature, but no less ugly and worthy of contempt IMO.
I don't see it as a feminist thing and as for Kim being a feminist, that's the biggest joke yet.

[MrScorpio]

12. I'm still trying to figure out what harm she's posing here

One on hand, she's the only person who's in control of her own image, yet on the other, it's not as if she has any control over the media that spotlights her.

Also, she also uses her own celebrity to support worthy causes as she sees fit: https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/kim-kardashian

So the whole idea that she's only doing what she does to satisfy a narcissistic need seems to be incorrect.

Where's the attention to that?


Now, of course, I understand that she's had some issues with some of her charitable giving, but the problem there seems to do with the fact that the entire process is set up in such a way that everyone involved in charity gets a little piece and that money has to come from somewhere.

When she was confronted with this last year, Kim explained by saying that “When the eBay numbers get broken down, the auction management agency that posts for me gets a percentage for all their hard work, then, eBay listing fees, end of auction fees, eBay Store fees, Paypal fees, etc, all add up to about half the sale. Then I give 10% to charity.”

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Kim-Kardashian-Pocketed-400-000-301-108-from-Charity-Last-Year-Alone-455695.shtml

The article misrepresented her by alleging that she "pocketed" much of that money which was donated, when it actually went to everyone else who administered the process. So much for trying to do the right thing and give stuff away without a catch.

About the feminist thing, I find it interesting that she has no other than Gloria Steinem in her corner: http://www.entertainmentwise.com/photos/111208/1/Kim-Kardashians-Pregnant-Body-Isnt-Public-Property-Weight-Criticism-Slammed-By-Feminist

[marions ghost]

15. I don't see K as a philanthropist sorry

--celebrities always dribble some of their money here or there to look good, and get tax breaks. Doesn't impress me. It's a little power trip for a lot of rich people--"what charity shall I give my personal approval (ie. brand name) to?" The amount given is always a tiny fraction of the excess.

I think the point is that we live in an exploitative society and Kim is the Goddess of Consumption, turning young women into good little consumers, even as they spend their last dollar on some useless cosmetic substance or a push-up bra.
------
Re. Feminism

Well it's nice that Gloria Steinem uses K's celebrity appeal to make a point about acceptance of curviness, that I agree with--but then she says that "celebrities bodies are not public property." eh? That weak statement seems totally unrealistic to me...K's body is scrutinized by the gullible public for every nick and flaw--it certainly IS public property.
___________
This is about all I could find on Steinem's views on Kardashian:

"Speaking to US Weekly, Steinem insisted the level of criticism was wrong and that celebrities bodies are not "public property".

"It's wrong," she said, "our bodies are never public property under any circumstance,"

---I doubt that any K fan reading that statement will really understand it and I highly doubt that Kim would even understand it...her body is owned by others and she is paid for that (just like that woman with the 19 kids was...)

[Louisiana1976]

77. So charity gets only 10% of what she collects from Kim Kardashian. That's not enough.

[cwydro]

47. Bieber? He posts a lot of selfies.

Lil Wayne?(lots of selfies).

Trump? Nuff said.

Many of both sexes in love with themselves in this country.

Chief Keef? Some other guy I can't think of but posted a selfie of himself in jail.

Oh ugh. It's sickening.

[villager]

52. Narcissist no-talent males have an easier time becoming Senator. Or President.

And are thus -- for some ungodly reason -- taken more "seriously."

[marions ghost]

73. ...and do infinitely more damage....

And so what about:



How close we came...!

---------

[roguevalley]

69. magic Johnson's son. e online rich kids of beverly hills

[JustAnotherGen]

11. I hate to step into this

But I think - yes. Look who she married. I hang out other places than DU . . . Lots of folks are on to her "contract" with Yeezy.

[MrScorpio]

13. I'm sorry...

They're married, they seem to love each other and they have a kid together. Which is pretty much all I know about that.

But other than the marriage "contract" what am I missing here?

[JustAnotherGen]

14. PMK

Its about her mother. Mama K found someone to play along. But you know who won't? Mrs. Carter. I'm not a big fan of Beyonce - but I like that "just because" Mama K found someone to keep Kim K in the spotlight as Kimye -

Who just happens to be friends with Bey's husband -

Doesn't mean she HAS to play along.

So she doesn't.

She( Beyonce) strikes me as a fairly kind person - and I have direct information that my outside looking in perception is spot on - if she's not taking that marriage as anything other than a publicity stunt - I'm not either.

Look up how Kim really got her start. It wasn't a sex tape - it was being Paris Hilton's stylist.

Sometimes it comes down to the company one keeps. We do it to political figures (influencers) - when you put your talent out there as being a lifestyle to emulate - the company you keep and how they conduct themselves matters.

Next step - there's a reason Nicole Ritchie doesn't play in that circle anymore.

Full disclosure - I grew up with someone who is now an Entertainment Attorney who is hip deep in Beverly Hills and Malibu culture. Not clients - but in the know.

There is a slow burning backlash against Kimye that is being lead by Mrs.Carter - and I don't blame her. She's worked since she was five to accomplish something. Kim married Kanye - that doesn't mean she gets to bask in the Carter's glow.

I'm also friends with a rap/music producer. . . I've heard this from two directions.

Regardless - I'm ashamed that I know ANY of this!

[MrScorpio]

17. Well, It's not as if I know what goes behind closed doors with any of them

The only thing I can say is, let's just see how long it lasts.

Whatever is said about them, whether negative or positive, should be taken within the context of why they're saying it… Which is something that I'm not up to snuff about either.

[JustAnotherGen]

18. I know too much

I wish I could put pics up but The Gio would be very angry as we tend to keep his connections quiet. He's not only an artist but he does Custom metal work - maybe its huge gates. Maybe it's a railing. Maybe it's metal work on a motorcycle. But it puts is in a sphere of people who have been behind closed doors.

He's been friends with a very famous guitarist/ musician since his days in Paris - and the things he has to say about Kimye? Yikes! Kanye alone - he said when they got together - better her than myyyyyyy daughter. And a lot of that hip hop crew would die if this man's daughter ever looked their way.

[Shankapotomus]

9. Certainly those who exploit should be condemned

And they are. But are those who willingly allow themselves to be exploited and wallow in a life of shallowness and materialism and then market that life to impressionable young girls and women above criticism?

What is a life of chosen ignorance but an attack on those who choose not to be ignorant? Her status as a woman shouldn't make her lifestyle above criticism. A CEO's choice of exploitative capitalism is a personal lifestyle choice too. So why can't the merits of Kim's lifestyle be examined?

[Louisiana1976]

79. That's a good question.

[The Straight Story]

19. From my understanding....

If she has done porn, been on magazine covers dressed certain ways, etc, she has exploited all women by feeding into patriarchal roles and stoking misogyny through images she puts forth of how women should look in society (nice dresses, makeup, high heels, how she interacts with others on her show.) So her victims are countless.

From Jezebel:

Kim has used her windfall in the genetics lottery to establish herself as one of the sexiest, most desired women in the world. That's fine. But by positioning herself that way there's an implication that other women who don't look like her are inferior. Perhaps it's unfair to blame Kim for that. Except it's not.

The fact of the matter is that nearly all of her endorsement deals and licensing projects have been based on commodifying women's insecurities—the same insecurities to which she actively contributes. QuickTrim, those sneakers that are supposed to help you have a nice ass that turned out to be completely bogus, makeup, fragrances, skincare, etc. They're all products that promise aesthetic perfection (literally). It's almost unethical, like someone breaking your legs and then trying to sell you crutches.

Those narrow and often times impossible beauty standards play so hard into the patriarchy that it's ludicrous to use them as an example of a feminist business model.

This was complimented by a similar discussion elsewhere:

The feminist selfie has been getting a whole lot of play on Twitter and Instagram. Erin Glorida Ryan wrote in her piece “Selfies Aren’t Empowering. They’re a Cry for Help” for Jezebel: “Selfies aren’t empowering; they’re a high tech reflection of the f*#ked up way society teaches women that their most important quality is their physical attractiveness.” (note the mention of Kim's Book/selfies in the OP).

Are we supposed to be shocked that she owns her own body and uses her own image as she sees fit? Yet are we supposed to be as shocked by a swimsuit model who who would otherwise appear on a magazine cover for a sports magazine or in someone else's movie production? If not, why not?

As far as I am concerned, their body, their choice, not my business and more power to them.

[MrScorpio]

23. Well, I don't agree with that essay either.

Well for one, how has she marketed herself as feminist icon? Sure, other people have discussed whether she is or not, but how does she have any control over what other people say about her?

And that "whole narrow and often times impossible beauty standards" line is just weird. We're talking about a woman here, who has been ridiculed for having a big ass, looking pregnant while out in public, for looking plain and ordinary by not wearing makeup in public and not always having hair perfectly coiffed when a paparazzo takes a pic of her doing some mundane errand. Yet whenever she's got her hair and makeup done, she's wearing an outfit that she either bought herself or was donated to her for she to wear and she's at some gala event with a bunch of other people who are all doing the exact same thing, she alone is the problem here.

And really, "impossible beauty standards?" For whom? There are all kinds of beautiful women walking around this planet, who are just as beautiful or even more so than she. They wear nice make up and nice clothes and beautiful fragrances and the have their hair done… And many, if not most, paid for all of that out of their own pocket without the help of any man. Some of these woman may even be lesbians, so there's absolutely no factoring of men or patriarchy into those particular instances at all.

It really appalls me that women are somehow criticized for looking attractive, as if that's all they're supposed to be about. Or that women are unable to establish their own standards of beauty, apart from the norm, when there's absolutely nothing true about that whatsoever.

The world is full of many so-called "non-traditionally beautiful" women… Women who may be considered too short or too tall or too curvy or too whatever. And I can tell you that that particular article that you've posted smacks to me as if it was written by a white feminist author. Which is problematic in itself, given the discord between both white and non-white feminist activists.

The last thing that I would want to do is criticize any woman's look. As man, I don't have that right. It's not my place to grade whether or not her beauty is valid or not. That's where the misogynists come in, telling women that they're too fat or too ugly. Or whether or not they're remotely "fuckable."

In the last couple of years, especially from exposure to feminist women of color's voices in places like Tumblr, I've had to do a reassessment on my own views about women and the validity of how women look at themselves. What I've realized is that my own judgement about how women live their own lives is completely irrelevant. That's why I am completely opposed to harassment of women and cat calling, judging their clothes or whether or not they smile, blaming the victims of abuse for being abused, whether or not they meet some narrowly definition of beauty based completely on a standard of white supremacy and most of all criticizing the choices that they make about their own bodies.

None of it is any of my own business, especially as a man.

[KitSileya]

24. Just wanted to remark that a lot of feminists are positive to selfies.

For many women, a selfie is the first time they have been in control of their image and the photographs of themselves. For many fat women, it is a therapeutic and self-loving act to take a selfie.

Note also that that Jezebel article skirts the edge of racism, as the hashtag #blessed is one predominantly used by women of color.

As for the OP - for me, Kim Kardashian is hardly the cause of the fall of the American empire. She, and her ilk, are used by those who are causing the the downfall of America to hide what they are doing.

[marions ghost]

25. The OP article clearly says

she is not at fault and not causing the downfall of anything.

The OP article says she embodies the narcissism, greed and consumerism that IS a symptom of the decline of America into the form of Idiocracy we see today. KK is not the cause, she is the icon, the manifestation, of what we as a nation have become. Therefore the article agrees with you that she is "being used by those causing the downfall of America to hide what they are doing..."

You are making the same point as the article. And I agree with that part of what you have said.

(I get the point about selfies of those who want to own their own image--I get that. Nothing so wrong about selfies, just that to make a whole book of them (to sell & profit) is .......narcissist. I think you can agree that KK is extremely narcissist--or at least that is her money-making persona).

[alp227]

59. "their body, their choice, not my business and more power to them."

What does that mean? Even though Kim K. is a public figure, her choices are not to be criticized?

[The Straight Story]

67. what it means is

From what I have learned over the years is that criticizing the choice (or idea she holds/etc) a woman makes is misogyny. So if you think something she is doing is 'wrong', sure you can criticize her, but unless you can prove you have criticized men the exact same it proves you hate women and anything else you say is moot. You see anyone here complaining about Obama's high heels or dresses he wears? I didn't think so. You bet your sweet ass they will complain about hillary's dress or high heels, but Obama, being a man, gets a pass. So criticize away....(yeah, there was some sarcasm/snark in a little of that)

[alp227]

70. Isn't this the same argument right wingers make about criticizing Obama?

replace "a woman" with Obama and "misogyny" with "racism"...boom there's a typical talk radio/Fox News cliche.

"From what I have learned over the years is that criticizing the choice (or idea he holds/etc) Barack Obama makes is racism."

Substantive criticism of a particular woman != broad brush attack on all women.

[XemaSab]

28. +1

There has always been vapid celebrity worship.

[treestar]

63. Wasn't she born into it?

She didn't have to rise through the ranks as a model. In fact, she doesn't model. Her father was rich and famous and so she is. She's earned nothing.

[Suich]

3. I could not agree more.

[Ichingcarpenter]

4. She got her start on the Paris Hilton show as this.

She was a closet organizer for celebrities.





Amerika Fuck ya

[Warren DeMontague]

7. Because her aspect ratio is all fucked up?

Seriously, that thing is giving me a headache.

Anyway, if there's one thing I can't stand almost as much as Kardashians, Hiltons, and other emblems of vacuous famous-for-being-famous-osity, it's breathy, overwrought pontificating on the ominous implications impled by said phenomena.

Yeah, who cares. Kim Kardashian is a celebrity mobius strip, an Escheresque strange loop of self-feeding (and self-enriching) media pretzel logic. So what? Is (so-called) "late-stage American-style capitalism" really the only human endeavour that glorifies, basically, nothing? (Let's avoid dovetailing into what seems to me an almost inevitable digression into religion, here) No, actually, it's not. Very few "celebrities" around the world are Dalai Lamas, at least compared to the number who are on TV because they can look good in a tank top while eating a banana.

And ever was it thus.

And that "famous for nothing, rich for just being there" as thing? Yeah, okay, maybe the part about fighting the revolutionary war to be free of royalty is a bit overstated, given that the impulse seems to be hard-baked into at least the supermarket tabloid aspects of our collective English-speaking psyche.

But come on. Whatever it is, it's not exclusive to the US, and it's certainly not new.

[marions ghost]

10. Kim is addicted to consumption

And it is an addiction. Should that be glamorized and emulated by teenagers and young women, the target audience?

------
According to studies, many teenagers believe that emulating the lifestyle of a favorite celebrity is one of the few ways to form an identity; if one doesn't reach the same level of stardom, she will be a worthless nobody. This demonstrates a dramatic shift in the way teenagers perceive success. Research reveals that teenagers would rather surround themselves with celebrities - or become one - than become a more intelligent human being whose life will benefit the world around them. We are raising a generation of adolescents who would rather become Kim Kardashian than a human rights activist.

This type of value system drives the entourage that idolizes Charlie Sheen. You have to wonder what it means when Sheen claims to be above surrender to the disease of addiction, and then more than 74,000 people apply to be his social media intern. Recently Sheen has started booking a national speaking tour to spread his message. What does this tell our teenagers? Is Sheen spreading the message that a person doesn't have to abide by rules of modern society? Are teens going to believe that they can be the nation's highest-paid TV actor, say outlandish things via all media, get fired, and lose access to their children... and yet still garner enough attention to stay in the headlines? Teens not only mimic their favorite celebrities by copying their hairstyles and fashions; they are inclined to mimic their addictions as well. Addictions are viewed as glamorous, and celebrity addicts are viewed as getting everything they want while indulging in self-destructive behaviors. This is a dangerous mindset to copy.

-------
We live in a culture where the major outlet, the major form of recreation is shopping, both for those with money and those without much of it. Especially for women. And then when those trained to "shop til you drop" have emotional problems later in life, where do they go for distraction--The Mall. And then where do they end up--? Well you can watch the show that brings you the flip side--"Hoarders" (and also American Pickers) This is all about creating a sense of lack that can only be filled by shopping.

[JustAnotherGen]

16. And she gets paid very well for it

Kevin Connolly (an actor) puts out messages a bit about - being famous on Instagram does not make you famous.

He's made these kinds of comments before. Guy kind of flys off the radar because he is surrounded by people far more famous than he is.

But I get his point - there is a major disconnect going on within people right now.

We have a lot of people worshipping external fame as opposed to directing their energy into accomplishing something of value.

[marions ghost]

21. It's always been true

--celebrities have always had fans but didn't they previously have to do something for that fame? As you say, maybe it's risen to the point of worship of idols now where people are literally living their whole lives vicariously. They don't really grow out of it. Maybe because from a young age, they don't know of any alternatives....no alternative role models or outlets for imagining...

"people worshipping external fame as opposed to accomplishing something of value" ---that pretty much sums up the danger in the Kardashian phenom...the glamorization of our basest instincts

[Warren DeMontague]

39. I know, it's terrible. Something is horribly wrong with humanity, as opposed to the past

when everything was perfectly harmonious and in tune with exactly the way things are intended to be.

Damn you, Satan!




....

[marions ghost]

43. I have no idea what you're talking about

No time in my past were things ever good. I only hope for changes for the better in the future.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. "No time in my past were things ever good."

And they're even worser now!

[Warren DeMontague]

37. "Should that be glamorized and emulated by teenagers and young women, the target audience?"

"Should" is meaningless, here. Who are you asking? The person in charge of what teenagers and young women do? Got their email address?

Will it? Probably.

[marions ghost]

42. Of course it's "should"

the stuff that's wrong about anything is what should be different, right? These days there are many corporate vested interests who influence what teenagers and young women do and some of it is very bad, even seriously destructive. KK is no paragon of "freedom." But depends on what your definition of freedom is, I'm sure.

It's a conversation here, kay? I'm not somebody's parent telling people what they can and can't do. Don't take it so literally. All we who see the problem can do is present another side. That's what I call freedom.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. Exactly.

And I'm not telling you you can't rail against the tides.

Knock yourself out!

[treestar]

64. Not completely equivalent as they have taken on some responsibility

They are at least born with duties to go along with the privileges.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. A thin sham to cover up the fact that the institution is horribly antiquated; well past sell-by date

And sure, they generate tourist dollars, too.

But... I bet Kim Kardashian casts a wide economic footprint as well, including for tourists.

[marions ghost]

20. "Wonder Woman" impersonation--so lame

and the "oops I forgot my shirt" look never gets old (?)....I guess this is "retro" by now too:

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Here pant ankles are going to get real dirty

I mean, I guess it's LA, so walking won't be involved.

[marions ghost]

44. Now that's funny

[Warren DeMontague]

50. It's not me, is it?

Seems to me she skipped a tailoring.

[marions ghost]

72. not you

I thought the same thing...what happened to the hems there... but ha ha you're right--why would she need to walk in LA? Kinda like princesses with the bound feet...her litter bearers will arrive soon...

[Warren DeMontague]

74. It is rather surprising that no one has started a palanquin service in LA.

Like, with an app. Probably a business opportunity!

[marions ghost]

75. They need to look very fancy....

A closed one might cost more....but you could get around in traffic jams a lot more quickly than in a taxi ...

[Warren DeMontague]

76. Hmm. I'm thinking Sun Tzu style, now. If it could somehow be promoted as a high-end exercise regime

for bored Angelinos tired of 24 hour fitness....


Could be a win-win. Get people to pay to ride, AND carry.

[marions ghost]

78. More like this one...?

Yeah fitness and "I carried Kim and Kanye" cred.
Wait--we (the people) are already carrying the palanquins of the 1%, but we don't even get any exercise out of it...

[Warren DeMontague]

83. People would pay through the NOSE to carry their favorite celebrities around.

Yesssss......

[JonLP24]

22. She actually doesn't bother me

Of course she never had to work a hard day in her life affected her personality but bothers me less than Khloe and Kourtney seems pretty normal (don't mean normal as in normal because who's normal? I mean the opposite of her sisters w/ fame affected personalities.

[cherokeeprogressive]

26. I wouldn't know her if I bumped into her on the street. She means squat to me.

I couldn't pick her or anyone in her family out of a line up.

Icon? Schmicon.

[marions ghost]

27. Be thankful

obviously you're not tuned into pop culture but most of Amurka is....

[treestar]

65. I wouldn't either

In fact, why is she getting the focus - doesn't she have sisters who are part of the circus?

[Louisiana1976]

80. True--what about Khloe and Kourtney?

[cantbeserious]

29. The Glorification Of Nothing - The Air Head Culture Personified - When Being Vacuous Is Celebrated

What culture can remain since all is insignificant and irrelevant?

[alarimer]

30. Is she the symptom or the disease?

Kind of a chicken and egg question, really.

But I agree that our society is sick. Shallow, meaningless craps wins out even in politics, where substance should matter more. I must be getting old, because I am so deeply ashamed to be American, to be human even, these days. Shallow, meaningless drivel is all we can find to fill our days.

[Louisiana1976]

81. Excellent points. There's a line that goes pure drivel drives out ordinary drivel or something like

that. Wish I could remember who said it.

[mindwalker_i]

31. There's a market for her

That says a lot about the society she works in, less so than about her.

[tooeyeten]

33. Amen, n/t

[Tom Ripley]

36. +1000

Exactly!

[treestar]

66. +1

Not her fault, the vacuousness is the interest in her - that is the symptom.

[tooeyeten]

32. Hardly,

Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin take the cake.

[MisterP]

34. there's a game out!

http://jezebel.com/oh-god-i-spent-494-04-playing-the-kim-kardashian-holl-1597154346

[Tom Ripley]

35. I save my scorn for the consumers and chattering/scribbling classes...

who perpetuate the "Kim Kardashian industry"
Society has always had hucksters and rubes.
One can choose to ignore her doings; she does me no harm.

[Nedsdag]

40. Wow! Nearly 40 responses on someone who doesn't deserve it.

Wasn't there a recent story about the first woman to win the Fields Prize, the Nobel Prize of mathematics?

I guess there would be only six responses on her, yet a woman of this caliber is someone who deserves as much or even more attention than the subject of this diary (I refuse to say or type her name).

[La Lioness Priyanka]

41. i think our derision of her is partly misogyny. she is hardly the problem.

[Nedsdag]

45. Charlie Sheen and Tom Cruise have been subject of ridicule.

Last I checked, neither of them are female.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

46. charlie sheen was a mean asshole to many people and tom cruise was fucking crazy on the ellen show

and even then no one pointed to them as the symbol of everything that is wrong in our society

what really mean or insanely crazy thing has kardashian done? she just fritters away her time, and for whatever reason some people want to watch her do it and others pay her to do it.

the problem is much bigger than one seemingly vacuous individual.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

54. Is jumping on a couch so beyond the pale....

....that it makes him "fucking crazy" and worse than a Kardashian? Robin Williams climbed all over desks on late night TV and he was called a genius.

There have been a number of things the Kardasians have done that are simply tone deaf and worse than couch jumping. Tweeting during the Michael Brown moment of silence....that comes to mind.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

57. again, were any of them accused of being a symbol of what is wrong with america?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

60. I think they were pretty well vilified

The article is one writer's opinion that she is all that is wrong with America and society. For most people, she is just a vapid, talentless, attention seeking narcissist who is one of many idiots clogging up the media and that's enough to be roundly annoyed by her. If you find that misogyny, I don't know what to tell you. I think Justin Beiber gets as much hate if not more, and I'm sure there will be someone blaming him for society's downfall soon.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. If I may go out on a wildly speculative limb, here

I'd say that "the problem" - if there is one - is nonsensical statements like "our sick society".

Our society is SICK, I tell you! SICK!



...derp

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

53. Do you feel the same about Sarah Palin? n/m

[cherokeeprogressive]

55. Nailed it. Misogyny. Has to be. Bachmann, Coulter, Ingraham, Kelly - If men weren't so f'd up...

Who knows? Those women might rule the world if not for misogyny!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

56. no. sarah palin used to have some real power

although, if i would say that george w. bush caused far more damage than her. so accusing her of being all that is wrong, is also pretty ridic

[PoutrageFatigue]

58. Nope.

She is merely a symptom of the "we're famous for being famous" disease that riddles that sliver of American society...

[Louisiana1976]

82. Right on!

[tavernier]

61. Who?

I still have no clue who/what she is.

Didn't she get married, get divorced, have a baby, get married? I'm still wondering what movie she was in?? Who is this person and why do I care???

[WinkyDink]

62. Thank God there are so few male narcissists!

*sarcasm*

[MFM008]

71. I'm sick of her , Kanye West and

Their sad unsmiling spawn. Their entire family, distant relatives, people that know them or resemble them in any way. Give me an honest hooker.