What’s Kim Kardashian got to do with it?

2 Nov

Okay, so. I am very new to Kim Kardashian. Obviously I knew she existed, and I could have probably picked her out in a line-up but, until very recently, she was completely irrelevant to me. In fact, I am about to argue that she remains completely irrelevant to me; her only and very temporary relevance is that I now feel compelled to speak out against other people’s inference that her life and choices have anything to do with mine.

In the last few days, my Twitter feed has been full of people saying the exact same thing. (Well – most people I follow are white, middle-class, artsy, feminist, queer or queer-friendly, and educated to university standard, so this isn’t really very far out of the ordinary. But, anyway.) In the wake of Kim Kardashian’s now notorious seventy-two day marriage, pretty much everyone has been going, ‘AND YET GAYS COMPROMISE THE SANCITITY OF MARRIAGE.’ And I have been getting fucked off with every single one of them.

For one thing, it’s a logically defunct argument that, because Kim Kardashian is alleged to have had a brief heteronormative marriage for publicity and money-making reasons – an accusation of whose evidence I know little but feel is quite unfair given that divorce and relationship breakdown are usually actually really upsetting, so maybe she’s actually really upset – this means that non-heteronormative couples ought to be able to get married. Before we even get onto my feelings about “gay marriage,” this is wildly problematic, because it still positions marriage between people perceived to be of the “same” gender as something of a deviancy. The argument tacitly runs, ‘because Kim Kardashian can do this supposedly fucked up thing with the institution of marriage, so should people in non-heteronormative relationships,’ which does nothing to challenge the view that marriage between people in non-heteronormative relationships is deviant. Way to promote your cause. (It reminds me a lot of this awesome article about justification of abortion – TRIGGER WARNING.)

For another, taunts about ‘Kim Kardashian’s seventy-two day marriage’ carry the implicit assumption that marriages are not authentic unless they last a certain amount of time. I was particularly interested to note in the last month or so that Mexico is considering offering finite marriage contracts to its citizens which, of course, has also prompted some to complain about the ways in which this might threaten the “sanctity of marriage.” Personally, I feel that, if marriage has to be institutionalised – which I think it does at least in the short term – check-in points during marriages are a great fucking idea, because the idea that anyone would feel anything forever, let alone love someone, is one that I tend to find, in hypothesis, highly idealistic.

I would like to point out here that I do not believe all marriages to be doomed, or all those who choose to get married to be foolish. However, my reason tells me that such a promise would be far better framed as ‘I will always endeavour to be committed to you,’ although I am aware that not all marriage ceremonies involve this promise, and I am also aware that, just because someone promises they will always try to maintain commitment to whatever relationship you have agreed upon, this does not mean that they will actually always do that. I understand that my experiences of being the child of a desperately unhappy marriage and ensuing divorce probably have some sway over the way I feel about this, but I do not think that my approach is solely emotional: I couldn’t, in right conscience, however besotted I was with someone, tell them that I would always love them. I just couldn’t. Because human beings change all the time, and our feelings change all the time, and obviously some people will be more constant than I am, but to promise to be consistently constant? I’m afraid I don’t buy it.

There is also the issue of non-heteronormative couplings by marriage and queer assimilation. I don’t take the view that queer people oughtn’t get married because they’re copying straight people, although I do recognise the potential for oppression that homonormativity carries with it, although I think this potential lies more in those who would seek to oppress non-normative others anyway rather than those who choose to marry their “same-sex” partners. However, I worry about any degree of submission to an institution – and there will be some degree if you are legally married, however you choose to phrase your vows and maintain your relationship – whose history is steeped in oppression. Of course, just because marriage began as the facilitator of possession of women does not mean that it still necessarily does that; this isn’t even really a valid point to raise with many non-heteronormative married couples. But marriage can still function to facilitate oppression, whomever you are marrying – it can compromise recognition of equally important polyamorous relationships, it can compromise the idea of the significance of the non-biological family, and it can impose a hierarchy of importance upon others’ relationships.

I don’t know if my beef with marriage is really reasonable on these grounds – perhaps it’s similar to my feelings of concern regarding that K-Y intense advert and how it might fuel bigoted ideologies. What do you think?

Advertisements

3 Responses to “What’s Kim Kardashian got to do with it?”

  1. Alex Solomon November 2, 2011 at 17:07 #

    You raise some really interesting points. I, too, have felt a little uncomfortable with the type of reaction KK’s wedding and subsequent divorce has been receiving. There seems to be a lot of really quite negative emotion going on (understandably given the subject, I suppose) but there seems to be an underlying chord of spite that I find very off-putting. As though, it’s not enough that she’s apparently somehow implicitly furthering the oppression of those of us who don’t fit in the hetero-normative mould, she’s doing so as some cheap-o TV slut-with-a-sex tape. For me, this response smacks of misogyny and counter-feminist undercurrents.

    Personally, I think that KK’s short wedding is a realistic indication that the “sanctity of marriage” that so many people love to uphold as a reason to deny rights and further oppression, does not exist anymore… if it ever truly existed in the first place. News flash: there have and will continue to be marriages even more short-lived than this one, that is the world we live in, love it or hate it. To claim that allowing another sector of society to obtain legal marriages would cheapen the institution is thus a bit ridiculous.

  2. Dave November 7, 2011 at 09:47 #

    I agree with you here, Liz. Ever since I left Uni and have been surrounded by “normal” people that I wouldn’t normally meet outside my “uni circle”, I have discovered this trend of people who just want “gay marriage” (ugh @ the phrase) so that “gays” can be like “straights”.

    This is not a bad thing.

    BUT consider that it has become the quintessential argument and once granted, it completely ignores the fact that so many “normal” people will wash their hands of it once it is available because now “gay people” can be “normal people”, too. People will think that all discrimination has ended, forever. Now there are “gay married people” (and, presumably now legally also “gay divorce” and, “gay broken homes”.

    Bitch. Please.

    To use the example of a related struggle; so many people make comments such as “feminists won’t be happy until women are ruling over men” .etc, ignoring the clear evidence that sexism still blatantly exists. I don’t want “queer-friendliness” to become just as resented by the average person that is currently gunning for “gay marriage”. Just imagine; “we already allowed “gays” to become “normal” people and now they’re just being greedy and trying to get a better deal than “normal” people”.

    PS: Regarding KK, Who cares about what this fame guzzling “slut” did, and, who cares what her motives are? If society really didn’t like it then she would be shunned and not put in every freaking paper/magazine. She played the Western Society game better than most people can dream and now a whole bunch of sore losers are resentful.

    • Dave November 7, 2011 at 09:54 #

      PS: I should probably have actually used inverted commas to indicate when I was impersonating the voice of an ideology, and, the quotation marks when I was indicating that certain words/phrases are generalised, and, not really OK to use other than for the purposes of being succinct.

      Also my language skills are terrible now. Curse you, real world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: