In a move shocking to precisely no one, Kim Kardashian, reality TV queen, perennial gossip magazine cover girl and not much else, announced yesterday that she and her husband of 72 days had filed for divorce.

Getting hitched…to a big pile of cash.

From start to rapid finish Kardashian’s marriage was an exercise in attention and money-seeking.

E! paid the couple $15 million for the television rights to their wedding special show, while People magazine coughed up close to $3 million for wedding and engagement related rights. The guests were treated to a $20,000 wedding cake.

Of course, Kim looked resplendent in her millions of dollars worth of diamonds and “fairytale” wedding dresses. Dresses. Plural. The couple was courted by thousands of journalists from all over the globe.

All this for a marriage that was outlasted by the couple’s own engagement, which came in at a relatively lengthy 87 days. And all of which served to make Kardashian and her largely inconsequential husband very rich and very famous.

In an era of seemingly endless economic hardship, this would be shameful enough on its own.

But the fact Kardashian and Humphries quite obviously used their own wedding as a money making enterprise with the full collusion of the media, then ended it so rapidly, is a travesty given the amount of genuine couples who would dearly love to get and stay married but are denied the opportunity.

Full disclosure: I’m no fan of marriage, be it traditional, gay, or downright miserable as so many of them are.

I would seriously consider voting for a party who ran on no platform other than doing away with the tired old institution once and for all (...okay, I wouldn’t really).

But, as is so often the case with these matters, it doesn’t really matter what I think, it matters what those who are directly involved and affected think. Just as women who fervently desire to fight on the front lines of battle deserve to get their wish, so too do those who wish to tie the knot.

To deny them is discrimination, pure and simple.

Many of those who oppose gay marriage do so on the basis that it demeans the sacredness of “traditional” marriage.

I wonder what these self-appointed ‘defenders of marriage’ would have to say about this whole charade.

Do gay couples really do more harm to the institution than those who use it to generate wealth and fame? Or do marriage “defenders” care less about marriage itself than they are letting on?

Colour me cynical, but could it be that sham marriages such as this don’t make a bleep on the radar of these brave warriors as their intentions are less about ‘saving’ marriage and more about protecting traditional gender roles?

Of course, the cynical actions of the Kardashians don’t end with their marriage. Kim now stands to make many more millions and grace the covers of many more magazines as she tearfully grieves the marriage she said she hoped “would last forever”.

Seventy-two days. Forever. What’s the difference?

Kardashian’s over the top wedding played into the myth that a woman’s wedding day is the happiest day of her life, further cementing our culture’s baseless conviction that a woman’s greatest role is as a wife, and shortly thereafter, mother. What comes after the big day is almost trivial. An afterthought.

Of course, what comes next for Kardashian is a lot different to what comes next for most women, who, safe to say, won’t be offered millions of dollars for the rights to their divorce.

Most commented

92 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      04:53am | 02/11/11

      “Of course, what comes next for Kardashian is a lot different to what comes next for most women, who, safe to say, won’t be offered millions of dollars for the rights to their divorce.”

      Not individually, perhaps - but in the aggregate, women profit immensely from divorce. In Western societies, especially the US, marriage is a system for transferring wealth from women to men.

      Originally framed as a contract in which both partners had rights and obligations, over the past sixty years legal changes have effectively transferred all the obligations to men while giving women all the rights.

      What other contract can be terminated at will by one party, while the other party remains bound by its obligations? All over the world, divorced men are forced into indentured labour to support the lifestyles of the women who abandoned them.

      This is the real tragedy of discrimination in marriage today. A sexist society and legal system has turned it into slavery for men.

    • Tina says:

      07:19am | 02/11/11

      Do you just copy and paste your comments? I have a feeling I heard this before from you.

    • acotrel says:

      07:47am | 02/11/11

      @Erick
      If you really want to do something to ensure fairness, you could approach Standards Australia, and re-engineer the marriage contract format, making it a public document.

    • Tina says:

      07:52am | 02/11/11

      I actually think in this case the guy is profiting from the marriage and divorce, dont you think? That thought must turn your world upside down.

    • marley says:

      07:59am | 02/11/11

      @acotrel - ohmigod.  I had no idea Australian marriage contracts were top secret documents.  I was under the mistaken impression they were a matter of public record.  Good thing I didn’t get married here, isn’t it, or I could be gaoled for revealing official secrets.

      It’s not the marriage contract that needs to be revised;  it’s the divorce, property and child support rulings that need to be changed.

    • Tubesteak says:

      08:16am | 02/11/11

      Spot on, Erick.

      I was going to say something about the Kardashians but can’t be bothered now.

      Erick’s comment has king hit all others.

    • Dr Love says:

      08:17am | 02/11/11

      @Tina.

      Does it make the point any less valid? Who really cares if it was copied and pasted, man makes a good point.

      To quote yourself from this very thread - “If it makes them happy and doesnt hurt anyone else, whats the problem?”

    • Budz says:

      08:27am | 02/11/11

      @Erick: Love that Chris Rock clip. I think it’s so funny because it’s true!

    • Rose says:

      08:54am | 02/11/11

      ’ In Western societies, especially the US, marriage is a system for transferring wealth from women to men’. You see Erick, you’re starting to work it out smile Generally men profit more from marriage, glad to see you finally admit it!

    • Erick says:

      09:19am | 02/11/11

      @Rose - D’oh! An error well spotted.

      I need more coffee.

      @Tina - I didn’t copy and paste this comment. But there are only so many different ways to express a fact, so there will be some similarity between different versions.

    • Rose says:

      09:52am | 02/11/11

      Erick, it’s not an error, not in the sense that you mean it any way. You keep bullshitting about you hard done by blokes and don’t for a minute entertain the idea that many women are far worse off after divorce than their husbands.  When are you going to wake up and understand that there is no conspiracy against male, white, middle class men and that that group of people remain the most powerful in the world.

    • gobsmack says:

      10:23am | 02/11/11

      I wasn’t aware that men were forced into marriage (leaving aside the odd “shotgun wedding”).
      Enter at your own peril.

    • Steve says:

      10:38am | 02/11/11

      The vast majority of what that site says is not true of Australia.

    • Erick says:

      11:10am | 02/11/11

      @Rose - No, you are wrong. Marriage is a tool or transferring wealth, property, children and labour from men to women. The outcomes of both marriage and divorce are overwhelmingly biased towards women.

      @Steve - That’s why I said “especially in the US”. However, the US often leads Australia in social trends, so we can see what might be in store.

      Feminists in Australia are working hard to make our own system more biased against men. They have recently succeeded in getting the Federal government to change the law, making it easier to separate fathers from their children. They won’t be stopping there.

    • Kika says:

      12:39pm | 02/11/11

      LOL…. hahahahah. Yeah that’s exactly why I married my husband. He had $3K in the bank and that’s really all I was after. Dagnammit!

    • Tubesteak says:

      12:45pm | 02/11/11

      Rose
      Just because some white men are powerful doesn’t mean all white men are powerful. Men have the greatest disparity in earnings and living standards compared to women.

    • Kika says:

      01:10pm | 02/11/11

      Slavery for men too, Erick? Wow. So what would you have called men in the 50’s and 60’s (and hundreds of years prior) when men were expected to be wage drones and the wives stayed at home to raise the kids and look after the house. People have so much freedom these days to do whatever they want.  If you want to be a good father, you can. If you want to be a deadbeat dad you can do that too because the mum is probably working to help raise the kids too.  Life is great. I find it weird that people want to winge about how either gender or sex have it these days unless you’ve got MASSIVE chips on your shoulders. I mean I could bang on endlessly about how my father had no interest in me or my sister (apparently he would have shown more interest if we were sons) and never came home coz he was drunk everyday, OR to the fact I am mentally scarred from being in a 9 year relationship with a narcissist. But I don’t. I don’t think ALL men are useless like I don’t think all women are perfect. Everyone is just as bad as each other because we all carry the ‘Selfish Gene’ . Just go read Richard Dawkins Erick and all your questions will be answered.

    • egg says:

      01:42pm | 02/11/11

      “Feminists in Australia are working hard to make our own system more biased against men. They have recently succeeded in getting the Federal government to change the law, making it easier to separate fathers from their children. They won’t be stopping there.”

      first, white males. next… THE WOOOOORLD! that’s when they bring out their voodoo dolls and potions, so i hear, the crafty minxes. i wonder if there’s anything feminists don’t control?!

      *looks suspiciously at my energy drink*

    • Troy Flynn says:

      02:52pm | 02/11/11

      @Tina, I actually think in this case the guy is profiting from the marriage and divorce, dont you think? That thought must turn your world upside down.

      Actually, he’s an NBA player who brought 2.9 million to the relationship last year. Sure, Kim brings in more now, but he’s hardly profiting from the relationship.

    • Kaz says:

      04:34pm | 02/11/11

      How come study after study after study, all over the world, shows that women are overwhelmingly the worst off economically post divorce.  Erick, back up your argument and give us a link to a single study that proves that women are wealthier than men post separation and divorce.  For all your trolling on this subject, your ignorance of the facts makes your opinion not even worth reading.

    • Fiona says:

      09:12pm | 02/11/11

      Tina, you have heard it before. It’s Erick’s pet cause. I just wish he’d do something useful with it and stop banging on about it on the internet.

    • Tina says:

      05:40am | 02/11/11

      Its not new thta someone has married to gain financially. Oldest concept on the planet. Just this time it had more public attention. But whose fault is it they made so much money with this? If noone paid interest then noone would have given them money to film it.

      But how do you want to redesign the concept of marriage to ensure people enter it with a “pure heart”? (No, I am not referring to divorce settlements, I am talking prior to marriage) And who are we to judge when someone should be allowed to enter marriage and when not?

    • Sickemrex says:

      06:27am | 02/11/11

      Until recently, I thought a Kardashian was a Star Trek baddie.

    • C1 says:

      06:58am | 02/11/11

      You are right - I thought it was a make of car.

      The Ford Kardashian - designed to accommodate a full Basketball team at the same time (cheeky) and only used to attend various letter around the city. Mainly used and a new paint job every six months.
      Despite the high asking price, I think this model will not keep its resale value for too much longer with newer models attracting the customers.

    • PW says:

      06:35am | 02/11/11

      Somewhere there is a demand for glitzy media weddings and where there is a demand there will usually be a supply. The only real difference between Kim and whatshisname and Kate and Wills is that the latter aren’t yet talking divorce.

      The fact that we get such staged events appears completely irrelevent to the gay marriage issue. When/if these are made legal we’ll just get staged celebrity gay weddings for media consumption.

    • Fiddler says:

      06:41am | 02/11/11

      Maybe he saw the video of her and realised she lied when she said she was a virgin.

    • Phil says:

      07:25am | 02/11/11

      Maybe it was that she refused to star in another one with him?

    • Anna C says:

      09:57am | 02/11/11

      How long I wonder before a video of her wedding night is allegedly stolen and uploaded to the internet?

    • Fiddler says:

      10:19am | 02/11/11

      I have a feeling she was a starfish for her husband. She seems the sort to do anything for the bad boy then just lay there for the love of her life.

    • Jade says:

      07:06am | 02/11/11

      It was well played by the Kardashians, very well played. But honestly, we don’t know really what went on behind closed doors so really can’t judge.

    • gobsmack says:

      04:40pm | 02/11/11

      This twitter was quoted in mX News this evening”
      “Kim Kardashian is filing for divorce.  During this difficult time, the Kardashian family requests as much attention as possible.”
      Lol.

    • Spikey says:

      07:16am | 02/11/11

      What’s with the photo?  NOT the couple in question…the bloke looks like Nick Lachey, but no clue who the woman is…..

    • Phil says:

      07:18am | 02/11/11

      Well I wondered how long it would be before the punch rolled out another pro-gay marriage post. I’m surprised it took this long as all around the net people have been using Kim’s divorce to push their own agenda.

      Guess what, in both the gay and hetro world there are people who don’t exactly represent the perfect gay or hetro role models, in this case it looks like Kim (married once before) has shown the kind of greedy scheming money driven person she is by the whole affair.
      Its hardly fair to then complain how she is making marriage a mockery and promote your own agenda.

      As for gay’s being discriminated against, no they have exactly the same rights as hetro’s do, we can only marry someone of the opposite gender etc.
      What they want is the rules to be bent and changed to get something for themselves, that suits their needs alone.

      Given the amount of pro-gay propaganda being shoved down our throats from the media of late the whole situation is starting to discriminate against those who don’t take the view of everything pro-gay and pro gay-marriage, making it seem like you can only agree with them or be seen as the outcast.

    • Tina says:

      07:32am | 02/11/11

      I wonder though what damage it would do to you personally if a gay couple somewhere got married? If it makes them happy and doesnt hurt anyone else, whats the problem?

    • xar says:

      08:14am | 02/11/11

      you fail to understand what equal rights mean when talking about sexual preference - the right is not the same because both can marry someone of the opposite gender, the right is inequal because both cannot marry a person whom they love. When we marry we promise to LOVE, not to be heterosexual. You also fail to understand what discrimination is - nobody is preventing or restricting YOUR ability to engage in anything that people who are pro-marriage equality can do freely! Your view is just unpopular, maybe you should think about why that is?

    • Steve M says:

      08:45am | 02/11/11

      and many agree with the opinion Xar. Maybe you should consider why that is…

    • Rose says:

      08:57am | 02/11/11

      No need to wonder Steve, it’s just pure ignorance!

    • Steve M says:

      09:12am | 02/11/11

      thanks for clearing that up Rose. Everyone that doesnt agree with your opinion is wrong. You forgot to throw in “redneck” and “homophobe”. That makes things so much easier. Does our new Dictator have a website where the uninformed can brush up on what we are supposed to think?

    • Rose says:

      09:58am | 02/11/11

      Failure to try and understand another’s point of view or situation is ignorance. Suggesting that not being allowed to marry the person you love because they are the same sex as you, because you are allowed to marry some one from the opposite sex is equivalent to equal rights is ignorance
      Feel free to disagree with me all you want, but do try to look at the argument a little deeper if you don’t want to be labelled ignorant.

    • xar says:

      10:10am | 02/11/11

      Steve M - it is for the same reason that when women advocated for the right to vote and own property that there were those who said “No. I’m not AGAINST women, I just believe in traditional gender roles”, for the same reason that when countries were abolishing black slavery some people were saying “I’m not AGAINST black people, I’m just FOR traditional slavery” - and look how history judges those people Steve. An inability to cope with social change for the better isn’t the kind of thing I call a “value”.

    • Phil says:

      10:21am | 02/11/11

      @Xar, having marriage redefined to suit the gay community (very much a minority) is offensive, they cant even come up with an equal other idea or term for what they want.
      You’d also think that they’d get over requiring validation on their situation and just be happy if they are “in love”. The same way that many hetro couples do and dont marry.
      No one is stopping you from living together and going about everything you would normally in day to day life.

      My view isn’t unpopular, there are many who agree, it doesn’t get much traction in the media it seems and many aren’t keen enough to state the fact they disagree.
      Then the usual round of names come out like ignorant, redneck, homophobe, bigot etc.

      There is no reason for me to agree with the situation, there is even less reason for me to back the decision to change it.
      I was all for an equivalent name and recognition for the gay community as long as marriage was left alone and left between a man and woman.

      With the constant bullshit coverage and media brainwashing pushing all things pro-gay and turning any stupid media article (like above) in to a pro-gay agenda I’ve lost respect for how the gay community and their brainwashed want to be trendy supporters have operated on this issue and refuse to back any sort of acknowledgement between gay couples in a relationship.

      @Rose, you are failing to understand the other side of things, clearly you are just as ignorant.
      There will never be a 100% agreement on the issue and that’s fine, people are still allowed to make their own decisions (for the moment)

    • Tina says:

      10:52am | 02/11/11

      @ Phil

      I dont mean to call you names for your opinion. I would like to know though why you are so protective of the institution of marriage solely for heterosexual couples and what you fear the consequences would be to open it up to everyone. As you dont approve of it, there must be reasons for your reservations.

    • Phil says:

      11:00am | 02/11/11

      @Xar,

      You didnt just seriously compare Women voting, owning land and black slavery to gay marriage did you?

      Thats the most laughable things ever.

      You cant prove that it would be a change for the better, you just see it as such as its something you want.
      Thats not a good enough reason for it to happen.

    • Shane* says:

      11:25am | 02/11/11

      I couldn’t care less about gay marriage. After all, they can go through any ceremony they want but they still can’t bring a child into this world.

      But I would like to point out that there can’t be “conditional equality.” Harp on all you want about equality, but don’t do it while denying the rights of people with Genetic Sexual Attraction, or polygamists. If everyone should be allowed to marry their love regardless of physically determined roadblocks, then you have to accept the GSAs and the polygamists too… It’s not a “slippery slope fallacy”... it’s the proper use of the word ‘equality.’

    • xar says:

      12:11pm | 02/11/11

      Phil - I’m not a member of the gay community, and I want marriage redefined. This is a majority oppinion in our country, I find it offensive that you suggest our society should not change in line with majority oppinion because it doesn’t match your view. Why should there be another term when we have one quite capable of embracing everyone? By your logic no one should want to get married, because they don’t need a public validation of their love…given marriage is still something some heterosexual couples want and see worth is, why would some gay couples not want and see worth in it in the same way? Phil YOU are the one who said your view was being portrayed in an unpopular light, and you can’t argue with the numerous poll results. I’ve not been “brainwashed” by anything, I take my media with a great pinch of salt no matter the source - the fact is I’ve never seen an argument against marriage equality that made any sense on close examination. By all means don’t change your mind, but if you can’t come up with well thought out and logical arguments beyond “it is the media! You are all brainwashed” you aren’t going to further your view.

      Absolutely I equate those things, I’m not surprised you can’t see the connection though given your confusion over the terms equality and discrimination. Equality always changes things for the better Phil, let me turn your question back on you - prove to me how it would make things worse, that this isn’t just something you DON’T want and that that is why you think there are no reasons good enough. I can prove without a doubt it makes things better for a section of the community and their friends and families, it does so in exactly the same way marriage brings possitive things to heterosexual couples who wish to be married and their families. It does so in the way that changes towards equality always have done…you know what it doesn’t do though? It doesn’t cause the sky to fall and it doesn’t impact negatively on heterosexual marriages!

    • Jason Todd says:

      08:58pm | 02/11/11

      Mm. I agree with Xar here. Phil, to bring the two debates together, marriage was traditionally between a WHITE man and a WHITE woman. There was resistance to mixed and interracial marriages as well, before the term was redefined to include those unions.

      I don’t see that Xar’s comparison between the female vote or equal rights for all races is laughable. In each case, we have a group (potentially a minority) campaigning for equal recognition with the majority group. In each case it required the redefinition of some laws and legislation. In each case there was a level of social resistance to the change.

      To equate the arguments, at least in my mind, your “Gays can marry, but call it something else” is the same as saying “I am happy for women to have an opinion, and I am happy to have them vote, but let’s call it something different because traditionally it has been one MAN one vote.” It is reinforcing tradition for the sake of tradition, and sacrificing equality to do it.

    • TimB says:

      07:20am | 02/11/11

      Crap. I hoped that Fairsfair’s comment in the open thread would be the only mention that this non-story got on the Pucnh. I should have known better.

      In The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, the Golgafrinchan civilisation tricked an entirely useless third of their society into believing that their planet was going to be wiped out by a mutant star goat. They then packed all these useless people into an ark ship and sent it as far away as they could.

      If we had the capability to do the same, I would propose that the Kardashians were the first names on the list. Closely followed by the Hilton sisters and the Jersey shore crew.

      (It’d be tempting to add the ‘Occupy’ protestors as well, but hey the rest of us need something to laugh at smile )

    • BB56 says:

      07:38am | 02/11/11

      Great stuff TimB - I think the ark ship would need to be larger for Australia

    • Mahhrat says:

      08:07am | 02/11/11

      @TimB, except the Golgafrinchan’s were summariliy wiped out by a virus from a dirty telephone.

      In that one sentence of the book is everything Adams did so well - he pointed out the absurdity of life’s diversities, but then made the case as to how important those things are.

      KK is exhibit A on that one.  She is utterly useless to anyone except those who love gossip and money.  Who is she hurting through her actions?  Nobody is being deprived of anything significant (excpet perhaps some oxygen).

      She is necessary, to show us what stupid is.  By going far too far, she helps us come to what’s actually important.

    • TimB says:

      08:56am | 02/11/11

      Yeah, I left that part out Mahhrat. Didn’t think it really applied here, because I viewed the Kardashian’s and their ilk as entirely useless (as opposed to the ‘mostly useless’ status of a telephone sanitiser).

      But your viewpoint is an interesting one I guess. Wouldn’t it be a giant kick in the balls if in some twisted roundabout way, Kim Kardashian’s existence is the glue keeping our society together?

      ...And that thought is so depressing I’m tempted to go jump in the harbour.

    • Steve says:

      10:40am | 02/11/11

      Yes, and then the rejected Golgafrinchans went on to found Earth.

    • Daniel Piotrowski

      Daniel Piotrowski says:

      07:22am | 02/11/11

      Wrong photo got slotted in! Fixing it up.

    • Woff says:

      07:40am | 02/11/11

      Sorry, but the whole family is a waste of oxygen.

    • Jade says:

      07:57am | 02/11/11

      How so? Because they have gone out and made something of themselves.. even if it did start with nothing.

      If people didn’t want to see them or their family they wouldn’t have numerous TV shows, millions upon millions of dollars in endorsements and wouldn’t be on the front covers of every magazine around the world.

    • Misanthrope says:

      08:51am | 02/11/11

      Nah - A waste of oxygen insinuates that they are somehow worthy of flesh, blood and organs. The real depressing thing is people like Jade genuinely believe that these idiots should be held in high regard because “they are on TV and are rich” totally ignorant to the fact that by thinking this they are the reason western society is at an intellectual and social all time low.

    • SimonFromLakemba says:

      09:28am | 02/11/11

      @Jade

      The mum is a fame whore, the daughter has a sex tape ‘leaked’ and her 2nd marriage by the time of 30 has ended.

      I do watch the show as I find it interesting and the same reson I watch Jersey Shore, to laugh at how stupid they are.

      And BTW they didnt start with nothing, their dad was a high profile lawyer who represented such outstanding people as OJ Simpson.

    • Kika says:

      12:55pm | 02/11/11

      Not to mention that she totally stole the whole Paris Hilton claim to fame thing by being her friend then copying everything she did to the letter. Arguably, she was better at it than Paris though. OMG how lame in actually crediting Paris Hilton with anything. Haha.

    • Jade says:

      01:52pm | 02/11/11

      I don’t watch the show and haven’t for a long time. Haters are going to hate, I suppose its not hard to be jealous, they get paid to travel the world doing nothing at all but be themselves and people love it.

    • Your name:tony montana says:

      02:51pm | 02/11/11

      Jade, ‘Haters are going to hate’, you say! Reasons for Hating the Kardashians, 1. Leaking a Porno movie to attract fame and attention. 2. Multiple face/ body surgeries. 3. Publicity stunts to attract TMZ headlines and red carpet invites. Tweeting and Facebook updates about themselves. Every few hours…Please!!!!
      5. Materialism. 6. Sham marriages all in the pursuit of Fame. They are disgusting role models for any young girls. KK & co can thank another great role model for girls -Paris Hilton. Both used Sex tapes to further their careers…wow what talent..bravo Jade. I’m not jealous of that, as i don’t worship Fame, materialism and money above all else, I look inside and love what i have in life..not alot but enough! Its great that you imply that all little girls should look up to women like that. No wonder you see women today with mental problems and can’t keep a bloke.

    • Troy Flynn says:

      03:25pm | 02/11/11

      So Jade, it sounds like you want to emulate Kim. Which begs the question, when is YOUR sex tape coming out? You want to be just like her don’t you. Make sure you get all the plastic surgery she has too. But forget about the possibility of a secure, long term loving relationship either. Also, where is Paris (her progenitor) now. Fame is a fickle friend to court.

    • Sam says:

      07:43am | 02/11/11

      Ironic that you profit from an article on the episode lamenting people profiting from the episode. Yet, lamentably, I don’t profit from a commment on an article where the author is profiting from an article about people profiting from the episode. ie.,. where’s my cut?

    • Shane* says:

      08:01am | 02/11/11

      “In a move shocking to precisely no one, Kim Kardashian, reality TV queen, perennial gossip magazine cover girl and not much else, announced yesterday that she and her husband of 72 days had filed for divorce.”

      CORRECTIONS IN CAPITALS:
      In a move shocking to HER HUSBAND, Kim Kardashian, reality TV queen, perennial gossip magazine cover girl and not much else, announced yesterday that she (WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF HER HUSBAND) had filed for divorce.

      As always, if you want the real inside scoop on celebrity gossip, you need to follow the NBA.

    • SimonFromLakemba says:

      09:34am | 02/11/11

      Always makes me laugh when people say he is a nothing or after her money, the guy is an NBA player who had just under $4 million last year, and is due for a contract extension, which could be $40 million over the next 5 yrs.

      Not to shabby if you ask me

    • Shane* says:

      10:23am | 02/11/11

      It might be cynical of me, but I would wager that the other Kardashian sister would not be married to Lamar Odom if he played in Minnesota instead of Los Angeles.

    • SimonFromLakemba says:

      10:35am | 02/11/11

      Correct, could damage the ‘Kardashian Brand’ :S

      Would be rather ironic if Lamar Odom left Khloe high and dry, considering he is on around $10million a year and she wouldnt be close to that.

    • iansand says:

      08:12am | 02/11/11

      DON’T BUY THE MAGAZINES.  DON’T WATCH THE SHOWS.

      Next problem!

    • Mahhrat says:

      09:55am | 02/11/11

      @iansand, I heartily concur, and yet I don’t buy the magazines, I don’t watch the shows (at least not on purpose) and I still knew about this.

      OOC, it’s down to advertising.  She is a medium, the same as the internet is a medium.

      Her entire being is making money, nothing more.  If Hubbard got one thing right, and that was it.  Advertising sucks.

    • Seanr says:

      12:21pm | 02/11/11

      Very simple solutions iansand, which unfortunately won’t happen.

      Part of the me admires the Kardashians (I always start thinking of Star Trek when I hear that name…anyway), Jersey Shores, Hiltons etc after all they are making millions without having any real skills or talent. My ire is directed more to the people who live vicariously through these people.

      I think Mahhrat (in his comment to Timb) has some very good points.

    • Troy Flynn says:

      03:36pm | 02/11/11

      @Seanr: Part of the me admires the Kardashians (I always start thinking of Star Trek when I hear that name…anyway).

      Yes, they feel to me like they are part of the “Obsidian Order”.

    • Alastair says:

      08:27am | 02/11/11

      Given the shameless profiteering of the wedding industry every day, is this really so wrong? Marriage is a just a commercial enterprise like any other, just ask any wedding dress maker, jeweler, function centre operator or celebrant. They are all trying to gain as much profit out of the on average $50,000 wedding in Australia - why then shouldn’t the people getting married get a piece of that profit action?

    • JS says:

      12:23pm | 02/11/11

      Thats exactly why the wedding business is pushing so hard for the pink dollar. Everyone is trying to make believe they want gay marriage because of “love” but really its for the white dress.

    • Dan is a man says:

      09:10am | 02/11/11

      Women and girls love this stuff, they think it is important ......suckers !

    • Kika says:

      12:59pm | 02/11/11

      And likewise why would we care about sports news? How is that important?

    • dan says:

      01:55pm | 02/11/11

      @Kika

      Whilst sport is not THAT important, it is REAL.

    • Kika says:

      04:00pm | 02/11/11

      Gossip is REAL to us too!

    • Fiona says:

      09:26pm | 02/11/11

      Do we???? How many women do you know?
      I’ve never watched their show, or bought magazines with her in it. Yet sadly I know of her, just as I see far more sports than I’d like to.

    • Traxster says:

      09:18am | 02/11/11

      BTW…..what was the name of the ...er….‘husband’... ?
      I’m presuming that there was a .....uhm…‘husband’.

    • Traxster says:

      09:22am | 02/11/11

      hang on…hang on…..I’ve just thought of another question….................
      ‘Why on earth is this news ‘??
      Who gives a ‘fundamental’?.
      Why am I even responding to this trivia…......... ?.
      Ooops..sorry that’s three ( 3 ) questions… innit ?

    • Jessica Grove says:

      09:25am | 02/11/11

      so true. i think that kim and her empire cause more damage to the sanctuary of marriage, than two loving gay couples that only want to get married because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their life with one another not become very rich from it.

      on the other hand its not entirely the kardashians fault, who would turn down 15 million dollars! the media are the ones that make people like this so called stars, were the ones that buy the magazines and watch the episodes, they are purely making a profit out of our interest. if it was really such an outrage there wouldbe no show or no reports on the kardishans.

    • alank says:

      09:55am | 02/11/11

      Oh NO!! - i was agreeing with all of Ruby’s fine piece until this popped up - “played into the myth that a woman’s wedding day is the happiest day of her life, further cementing our culture’s baseless conviction that a woman’s greatest role is as a wife, and shortly thereafter, mother”  Couldn’t help herself.  Brought up the victim card again, Ruby.  Lets re-write that par. as “...the myth that a man’s wedding day is the happiest day of his life, further cementing our culture’s baseless conviction that a man’s greatest role is as a husband, and shortly thereafter, father”.  God i am over the dumping on men in these columns - do all of the female posters here -(with the exeption of “Tina” who usually talks sense - have their heads up the collective anus of the Men are Bad and Women are Victims Club.  FFS. 
      Maybe there is this perception Ruby that women are stuck with this “limited” role of “mother” and “wife” - just as men are stuck with their limited role of “father” and “husband” just as much - is because shameless publicity seekers like the Kardashians survive ONLY because women provide 99.99999% of their market and their oxygen - women nourish the Kardashian industry, nourish the glamour weddings, the fab diets, the bling, the dream hubbie myth, the perfect figure myth blah blah that the K’s promote - all of it vacuous, but dined over by women.  No bloke i know gives a s—- about this s—-, but most blokes i know are “husbands” and “fathers” and happy with that .
      Dont worry Ruby, i can just see u in 15 years time enjoying your single, child-free comfortable life - which is your right.  I am amazed given Ruby’s intelligence that this modern life we live in, with its CLEAR improvement and opportunities for women and the breaking down of all sorts of barriers thank goodness in all walks of life is washed over in favour of a lazy journalistic cheap shot.  Anyone with a pulse sees the K industry for what it is and could not care less.  Ms K has a lovely bum though.

    • Rose says:

      10:10am | 02/11/11

      So where’s your rebuke of Erick who only ever plays the men as victims card, regardless of the topic.
      I agree that the playing the female victim card in this case is way out of line and it does seem that KKs husband is more the victim in this instance. However, these pages tend to support the Erick and Bev style anti-female stance than the other way around,
      The really sad thing is that as long as Erick and co blame only women, and Ruby and co blame only men, we take the focus off of condemning behaviour and blame gender instead. It’s a real cop out! It actually means the situation will never improve as people ignore the real issues and only seek that which reinforces their own narrow perceptions.

    • Kika says:

      12:48pm | 02/11/11

      Oh puuhlease!!! Men stuck with being fathers and husbands? What a joke!! Men are allowed and encouraged by the same ‘feminist’ media to be boys for as long as they can! A wedding is not about the man. It’s about the woman. Always was. Always will be. Traditionally this was the day she became someone’s maid and vessel for bringing children into the world. Nothing more, nothing less. While we have moved on and women can do anything they want these days, we still have the whole wedding thing hijacked from the men. Any role men want to play in the wedding is totally downplayed by the bride.

      And besides. My husband is NEVER harassed about when he plans on having kids. I am. Daily.  Men can get away with being rapscallion men-children for as long as they can get away with it.

    • The Cardinal says:

      10:06am | 02/11/11

      As a supporter of marriage equality, I find this article completely and reprehensibly offensive.

      Ruby Hamad, the grounds on which your arguments are based are at best facile and attention-seeking, and at worst, deliberately seeking to undermine the case for marraige equality.

      I would argue that it is unlikely that people would disagree that marriage is a public confirmation of years of commitment and love.

      Yet unfortunately, the basis of your argument is: “These two celebrities have eroded marriage, so allowing gay marriage can’t erode it any further.”

      Once again, utterly offensive, and idiotic in the extreme.

      This articles stands as proof that those that closley follow the Kardashians are not only vacuous, they are also hollow moral proselytizers.

    • Ruby says:

      11:21am | 02/11/11

      Hi Cardinal.

      Your comment stands as proof that you need to read my article again.

      Thanks,
      Ruby

    • fairsfair says:

      01:18pm | 02/11/11

      Ruby, I have to say I took the same thing away from the article. Heteros are allowed to trash the institution, so why is “concern for the institution” one of the reasons that people oppose the allowance of same sex marriage? This coming, from someone who doesn’t really believe in the institution anyway…

      Fact of the matter is a lot of people view marriage as a wedding and that is it. And a lot of homosexual people are under the same false view as the heteros. Its just part of our selfish, narcissistic HUMAN nature. Its all about me for the day, what every little girl wants…. apparently.

      I agree that it undermines the push for equality in a way. The “but he did it too” excuse never flew with my mum and though my second most favourite childhood line “its not fair!” may also apply, I don’t think it is really steering the direction of the debate down the required path.

      The superficiality of discussion is getting a little bit too much to take.

    • Ruby says:

      01:57pm | 02/11/11

      OK, maybe my points were too brief. Here is what I was hinting at: I don’t think marriage is sacred. It’s history, in all patriarchal cultures, including ours, is as a business contract whereby one male (the father) gives or sells his property (the bride) to another male (the groom). That’s why I clearly stated I am no fan of the institution. I was using a lighthearted approach to highlight that the furore that the anti-gay marriage brigade makes has more to do with protecting the traditions of patriarchy than protecting the sanctity of marriage (which doesn’t exist). If they were truly interested in ‘protecting’ marriage, they would ‘protect’ it against stunts like this.
      Thus, I don’t think Kardashian has ‘eroded’ marriage. I think she has merely shown how ultimately meaningless it actually is. However, I also clearly stated that I am well aware this this is simply my own opinion, and that despite the fact that marriage is, to me, pointless and its supposed sacredness easily subverted, that is no reason to deny others the chance to do as they wish their their own lives.

      I don’t understand why people want to get married anymore than I understand why people want to fight wars. But, who I am to stand in their way? And who is anybody else?

    • Wilma J Craig says:

      11:22am | 02/11/11

      Who ARE these people?
      What do they do?
      What have they ever done?
      What do they contribute to anything?
      Have they ever done anything which should be remembered & for which they should be congratulated?
      Does anyone really care?
      Should we really be wasting space on them?

    • St. Michael says:

      11:27am | 02/11/11

      I see nobody responded to the the bloggist’s trolling about the idea women should be on the frontline just because they want to, which is encouraging.

      In other news: I take a slightly different perspective to Erick on this one.  I’m uncertain you can characterise marriage as a wealth redistribution tool from the woman to the man as such.  On the other hand, the consequences of a marriage breakup are pretty heinous—to women and men.

      In the husband’s case, the advice is the same as I’ve always given: pick your wife very, very carefully.

    • Fiona says:

      09:33pm | 02/11/11

      The same goes for women.

    • Big Kim for PM says:

      11:43am | 02/11/11

      His “Big Kim” was bigger than Kim

    • stephen says:

      08:13pm | 02/11/11

      ‘Kardassians’ ?
      That’s Star Trek.
      Just a little short of the Klingons.
      (Actually, she’s so short, I reckon she can kling-on to any thing she can get her hands on : is his name Rod ?)

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter