Tweet
The Toronto Star, Ont. Canada
November 26, 2011 Saturday
In defence of Kim Kardashian: We have seen the celebrity enabler and
the enabler is us
Boycotting Kim Kardashian is like trying to turn the Titanic
Now that Occupy movements are packing up their tents after worldwide
protests against the fat cats and power brokers who control society's
wealth, the attention of those concerned about social justice
logically moves to other targets.
Women's rights? Nope. Racial discrimination? Nope. Homophobia? Nope.
What's really generating heat in the online world of unprofessional
griping is - you guessed it - socialite Kim Kardashian, whose 72-day
marriage to a basketball player has the online community crying for
cultural restitution.
"In a grassroots effort, we have collected thousands of signatures for
a petition asking E! Entertainment to remove the Kardashian suite of
shows (including Keeping Up With the Kardashians) from their
programming," activist Cyndy Snider told media amid allegations
Kardashian's lavish, profit-generating wedding may have been faked.
"We feel these shows are mostly staged and place an emphasis on
vanity, greed, promiscuity, vulgarity and over-the-top conspicuous
consumption. There is no particular religious or political platform
behind our disgust; we are just finally fed up."
Here, here. Speaking truth to power, or in this case, to a
rubber-lipped marketing machine whose skill at self-promotion has
placed her in the same "famous for being famous" strata as Paris
Hilton, Kevin Federline, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Octomom and the entire cast of
Jersey Shore (especially that illiterate boozehound, Snooki).
And yet, much as I'd like to champion this noble backlash against
celebrities whose fame is out of proportion to their talent, there's a
nagging feeling I can't shake: a sense that the skulking enablers who
have fuelled their rise to power with such gross impunity are, oh
yeah, us.
"Kim Kardashian is not famous for being famous," points out Bob
Thompson, a pop culture prof at Syracuse University, noting the
abundance of "pretty rich heiresses" who don't have their own reality
shows or fragrance lines.
"Now it may be that her skill is one that's harder to identify than a
prize-winning scientist, but she's good at what she does: getting
people to pay attention to her.'"
And so we do, whether the 31-year-old celebutante is hawking her
cheesy Kardashian Glamour Tan, clothing line, workout video, perfume,
autobiography, Playboy covers or the leaked sex tape that launched her
career in 2007.
"Kim Kardashian has made a mockery of American culture," rage the
anonymous publishers at boycottkim.com, "doing whatever it takes to
extend her 15 minutes of fame so she can selfishly profit from her
celebrity status."
Sure, we complain, and rightly so, but democracy is a tricky business.
And while the activists among us campaign for a more meaningful, less
materialistic society, Kardashian's celebrity-obsessed followers have
quietly shoved Paris Hilton aside to crown their Betty Boopesque
leader as an alluring symbol of cultural Armageddon.
And not all of them are aware which side they're on.
"I am so sick of seeing Kim on the front of magazines," writes Janet
Boyd of Florida at boycottkim.com. "I subscribe to seven magazines,
most all entertainment, and every time I go to the mail box, if I see
Kim's face on the cover I throw the magazine away without even looking
any further. I just wish everyone would say NO to Kim!"
Gee whiz: seven magazines? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
And then there's Kardashian herself, who vows to fight AIDS, supports
recognition of the Armenian genocide, then reveals her true priorities
when she tells media in her little girl warble, "I hate when women
wear the wrong foundation colour. It might be the worst thing on the
planet when they wear their makeup too light."
Outraged? Mystified? Fed up?
Go ahead: voice your dismay, sign petitions, start your own Occupy
Hollywood movement. Just don't expect anything much to change.
"Occupying Hollywood would be like occupying the weather," points out
Thompson, noting there's no such thing as a "Kardashian tax" and most
celebrities get rich because we line their pockets.
"People have been complaining about it as long as it's existed - it's
an abstraction. I don't think we really want it to go away.
"If Hollywood shut down tomorrow, in eight months or so people would
really miss it. They'd be saying 'Please, please, please come back,
and bring Kim Kardashian with you!'"
November 26, 2011 Saturday
In defence of Kim Kardashian: We have seen the celebrity enabler and
the enabler is us
Boycotting Kim Kardashian is like trying to turn the Titanic
Now that Occupy movements are packing up their tents after worldwide
protests against the fat cats and power brokers who control society's
wealth, the attention of those concerned about social justice
logically moves to other targets.
Women's rights? Nope. Racial discrimination? Nope. Homophobia? Nope.
What's really generating heat in the online world of unprofessional
griping is - you guessed it - socialite Kim Kardashian, whose 72-day
marriage to a basketball player has the online community crying for
cultural restitution.
"In a grassroots effort, we have collected thousands of signatures for
a petition asking E! Entertainment to remove the Kardashian suite of
shows (including Keeping Up With the Kardashians) from their
programming," activist Cyndy Snider told media amid allegations
Kardashian's lavish, profit-generating wedding may have been faked.
"We feel these shows are mostly staged and place an emphasis on
vanity, greed, promiscuity, vulgarity and over-the-top conspicuous
consumption. There is no particular religious or political platform
behind our disgust; we are just finally fed up."
Here, here. Speaking truth to power, or in this case, to a
rubber-lipped marketing machine whose skill at self-promotion has
placed her in the same "famous for being famous" strata as Paris
Hilton, Kevin Federline, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Octomom and the entire cast of
Jersey Shore (especially that illiterate boozehound, Snooki).
And yet, much as I'd like to champion this noble backlash against
celebrities whose fame is out of proportion to their talent, there's a
nagging feeling I can't shake: a sense that the skulking enablers who
have fuelled their rise to power with such gross impunity are, oh
yeah, us.
"Kim Kardashian is not famous for being famous," points out Bob
Thompson, a pop culture prof at Syracuse University, noting the
abundance of "pretty rich heiresses" who don't have their own reality
shows or fragrance lines.
"Now it may be that her skill is one that's harder to identify than a
prize-winning scientist, but she's good at what she does: getting
people to pay attention to her.'"
And so we do, whether the 31-year-old celebutante is hawking her
cheesy Kardashian Glamour Tan, clothing line, workout video, perfume,
autobiography, Playboy covers or the leaked sex tape that launched her
career in 2007.
"Kim Kardashian has made a mockery of American culture," rage the
anonymous publishers at boycottkim.com, "doing whatever it takes to
extend her 15 minutes of fame so she can selfishly profit from her
celebrity status."
Sure, we complain, and rightly so, but democracy is a tricky business.
And while the activists among us campaign for a more meaningful, less
materialistic society, Kardashian's celebrity-obsessed followers have
quietly shoved Paris Hilton aside to crown their Betty Boopesque
leader as an alluring symbol of cultural Armageddon.
And not all of them are aware which side they're on.
"I am so sick of seeing Kim on the front of magazines," writes Janet
Boyd of Florida at boycottkim.com. "I subscribe to seven magazines,
most all entertainment, and every time I go to the mail box, if I see
Kim's face on the cover I throw the magazine away without even looking
any further. I just wish everyone would say NO to Kim!"
Gee whiz: seven magazines? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
And then there's Kardashian herself, who vows to fight AIDS, supports
recognition of the Armenian genocide, then reveals her true priorities
when she tells media in her little girl warble, "I hate when women
wear the wrong foundation colour. It might be the worst thing on the
planet when they wear their makeup too light."
Outraged? Mystified? Fed up?
Go ahead: voice your dismay, sign petitions, start your own Occupy
Hollywood movement. Just don't expect anything much to change.
"Occupying Hollywood would be like occupying the weather," points out
Thompson, noting there's no such thing as a "Kardashian tax" and most
celebrities get rich because we line their pockets.
"People have been complaining about it as long as it's existed - it's
an abstraction. I don't think we really want it to go away.
"If Hollywood shut down tomorrow, in eight months or so people would
really miss it. They'd be saying 'Please, please, please come back,
and bring Kim Kardashian with you!'"