But is it 'capitulation'? I can't stand her, but I understand how she's done it. I understand, too, that it is a path to success; one that utilizes the weaknesses of patriarchal roles allowed to the majority of men. So, is she capitulating to patriarchy or understanding how to utilize patriarchy's expectations of her (and the enforced roles that men are expected to play within it) to be her path to success?

I would argue that it's too early to say. After all, she is still making a LOT of bucks on playing off her youthful beauty. What she does in the future is - I would argue - what would show whether she has capitulated (or will capitulate).

The breasts on the wax figure look larger than those on the human.

what if she just enjoys what she's doing? some women say their looks make them feel powerful, and that getting longing stares from men makes them happy. is it possible we all just have a different attitude about these things? is the implication that she is doing something wrong? or that she didn't fully make this choice herself because of our patriarchal society? i'm curious. i recently attended a conference about sex workers. many who spoke said that they enjoy their work and enjoy (what most people would call) being objectified. however, they do not feel bad about themselves and they don't feel used. they were very clear that they made these choices for themselves because they wanted to. not because they were forced or pressured. (of course, sadly this does not apply to most sex workers.) point being, some people don't view this sort of thing as a struggle or exchange with the patriarchy. are we correct about what they're doing with their own lives because of feminism 101? maybe we should not so hastily draw conclusions about other people's experiences!

I think it's worth looking at the complex interactions between structure and agency in a case like this before readily dismissing her. What choices has she had within the particular patriarchal structures for maximising her power and freedom? What has she attempted to make of the vile, privacy-invasive "sex tape" that made her famous? And so on.

If enough women make a "patriarchal bargain" is it really a patriarchy? Maybe it means that both men and women have made choices that have contributed to our concept of gender and that some modern feminists see it as a patriarchy only because modern attitudes reject traditional roles as less enlightened. In that case the concept of the patriarchy is nothing more than a scapegoat created by a certain brand of feminism to blame men, rather than both men and women, for the less enlightened ideas of the past.

I sympathize with a lot of feminist views, but the "patriarchy" concept is useless and absurd. Its situations like the one in this post that prove it, here you have an example that shows that cultural attitudes about gender are not pernicious - it is merely that women can capitalize on appealing to men just as men can capitalize on appealing to women - but to fit it into the patriarchy framework requires rather large distortions of the model- women betraying feminism, capitulating to the patriarchy.

There are always women who gain fame and riches from beauty (& men, as well), the difference is that often these are models who achieve a kind of starved, gaunt beauty, and meet a certain white standard of beauty. Kim presents a different kind of beautiful woman: an ethnic woman who eats. She eats, and eats (at least on her reality show), shows/has shown cellulite, is known not for a wasted, boy-thin figure but an ample one. She is in a kind of realm of "non-whiteness," Armenian, and her friends, boyfriends, and family friends a mix of different colors (in fact, on the show, white men are almost never considered as desirable partners). I think part of her fame is that she is beautiful in a different way than the media previously allowed: beautiful in a way that allows for ethnic difference and difference in body types, which makes her of course popular with so many women, too, who seem desperate for any kind of image of beauty that is different than the one that requires us to be hungry. How being famous for having what affluent white women disparage as a "big butt" equals being famous for being the patriarchy's ideal woman doesn't compute.

"A patriarchal bargain is a decision to accept gender rules that disadvantage women in exchange for whatever power one can wrest from the system. It is an individual strategy designed to manipulate the system to one’s best advantage, but one that leaves the system itself intact."

By this logic, any path that Ms Kardashian could take toward success would merit the same criticism.

Take, for example, getting a Sociology degree. If you're fortunate enough to be both admitted into university and able to afford it, then at several points down the line you've accepted a set of rules that disadvantage others. You've used your intelligence, your social capital, and possibly someone else's money to attain status in an institution that promotes economic equality even as it creates opportunities.

Similarly, in obtaining any kind of career (no matter how "respectable") we utilize the advantages and privileges we bring to the job market - including that degree - and capitulate to rules and compromises of capitalism in order to advance our own well-being. Our cause may well be noble and just, but it does still leaves the class system - in which the gap between rich and poor is far greater than that between men and women - fully intact.

For that matter, even in creating happy relationships and families we perpetuate this cycle. We use our youth and beauty and inherited social abilities to attract partners in a system that disadvantages the old and unattractive and awkward. And we extract the advantages of those partnerships largely at the expense of our own desires and individual pursuits. And the system remains intact.

The trouble is, all of those examples are tangible, even though they're firmly embedded in the broad construct that we call patriarchy. We know exactly who we're bargaining with, and what rules we're agreeing to, and with that knowledge we have the means of refusing to bargain or disobeying the rules. Patriarchy itself, on the other hand, is a purely rhetorical construct; what it is and what its rules are depend primarily on what social trends the speaker wishes to demonize.

With each individual charged with the task of advancing the cause of herself, you could say that more women attaining power and status - regardless of the means -does collectively present a threat to patriarchy. On the other hand, attacking women for their success, and devaluing it based on ideology, doesn't really accomplish that at all! (Even if, in Kardashian's case, it's arguably deserved)

NFL players are another great example of this kind of bargain. They play into the traditional role of men as warriors, work hard all the time to become the best at what they do instead of maybe doing something else they'd like (writing poetry, sitting around watching tv, getting their nails done, whatever). In return (some of them) get mega bucks and fame like Kardashian. However, they might get seriously injured in the process, the work is grueling and dangerous and this path is really only open to certain genetic winners in the first place, sorta like the beauty lottery for women.

What we have here is a MATRIARCHAL BARGAIN. A matriarchal bargain is a decision to accept gender rules that disadvantage men in exchange for whatever power one can wrest from the system.

NFL players accept the gender rules that privilege female safety and comfort, and exalt men for being warriors and accepting hardship. While these rules might result in the virtually 100 to 0 male to female casualty ratio in our current two wars, and an extremely dominant male presence in dangerous professions like commercial fishing and coal mining, these athletes use these rules to their individual advantage. They attain enormous wealth, power and social status, meanwhile the rules that hand them these advantages place other men in the line of fire in battle.

Patriarchy is a rhetorical concept, a tool used to advance a certain political agenda and world view. The reality is that it is not men or women that create gender roles, it's people. There isn't some shadowy commission of patriarchs meeting in a bunker somewhere planning on how to enslave women. Nor is there some vast conspiracy of all men planning to keep women in their place.

We all create gender roles. Men, women, all of us. All these things are are ideas that we come up with and enforce ourselves. GET THIS, ideas are much more powerful than men. Men are not creating these gender roles, many of these gender roles are much more harmful to men than they are to women, we as a society collectively come to the decision by our individual actions that this is how we would like to structure our society. This doesn't mean that our current structure is fair or smart or wise. It isn't. But the term patriarchy places the blame squarely at men's feet (at least rhetorically). Women are just as responsible for this bullshit as men are.

There is no matriarchal bargain unless you live in a matriarchy. Kim Kardashian lives in the U.S., a patriarchal society. "Patriarchy" doesn't mean "men". Look it up.

NFL players accept the capitalist bargain - they get attention, adulation and perhaps money in exchange for brain damage, torn knees, broken bones, etc. For many players it's a route to an upward shift in class, in a society that values violent entertainment over almost everything else.

I doubt that there will ever be a society were beautiful women do not get a bargain of some kind.

Generic statement of the oppression of males in American society.

Can I just say, Bagelsan is great. That is all.

My first reaction to this article is, what makes any reality tv personality worthy of fame. I don't watch a lot of tv, so Kim Kardashian is just a name to me, I doubt I would know her walking past me on the street. Cashing in your beauty for fame so, in a very short term, worthy of a wax figure in Madame Tussaud's relies on viewers, a market for the sort of thing she is famous for. While I say she is just a name, I do have some mental picture (the actual picture helps) of a sexy type of person on magazine covers, but I have also thought in the past that women don't just dress the way they do for men, this is how they engage competition with other women for men. I don't know if men like to watch her on tv or read about her in people as much as other women do. So, is she making a patriarchal bargain the rest of us can ignore or playing out a demonstration how it's done if you want what you want, you can get it by looking really hot.

I mean, it's stupid to ask whether there's still a patriarchy for her, she is not just making a decision for herself but influencing other women. Does that influence over-ride the patriarchy because we should take the advice of an influential woman? I guess this just gets more complicated. I don't think she is even that famous because of men. Men are probably not her main audience on a reality show or reading gossip rags; those reach out to a demographic of young women - young who have maybe not gone to college yet, or thinking about it. I don't think she's the only one or maybe even the best one of the current generation. Actors and models and singers all cash in on their looks - who really looks the way they want to without thinking how good they look to other people?

It's just like the athlete example above, football players are in the patriarchy too, it's a genetic lottery, but their abilities are analogous to fighting other men for the attention of women (that women do with beauty and fashion), and women aren't usually subject to this harsh physical demands of sports, men don't do it to protect women from having to be warriors - they do it to impress other men. Men consume sports, women might, but definitely a lot less. If you want to be attractive to women also, you have to be, like, Tom Brady or whatever. Most women aren't as impressed by all that warrior-ness unless you are also handsome, so... nothing like a matriarchy.

Doesn't/didn't she own a successful clothing store even before she was famous? So whoever was talking about this being the only way for her to have success is just talking out of their ass. She wanted a different kind of success and accomplished it with a carefully planned leak of her sex tape.

i see how you are saying this.she is in fact aHUGE whore, all america sees it being played out. I wish all their shows would cancel....

Kim is so beautiful. I don't know how she got famous. Or who is to blame. Maybe her friends, that have been in and out of prison made her who she is. Maybe making illegal sex offender tapes for the world to see. I admit, she has really gotten beautiful. But her actions are so incredebly awful! She needs to go cold turkey and stop being a fool. Her modeling is great, and she has a wonderful career in designing clothes! She is really set now to be a pro! But why would she still want to crap out, seeing popintless brainless boys, that are total wife beaters. And not thinking about the people that are her most adoring fans and want her to have a good life, with love and happiness. I am sure that is what her Dad would want. I can tell immediately when she messes up, becasue no normal decent gentle man will date her while she is a freak like this. And if someone is not really there for her, they should really be ashamed becasue of the good things she has done rececntly. Her show needs to be cancelled now. And she needs to be on her own working, and learning something or goto a school. How else can the media destroy her. I think what is done is done. Kim you have real beauty, I will marry you, but turn in a right direction so that we will now be proud of your accomplishments and see you be proud of other people. Not always thinking about Kim. She will defeat herself in the business world if she can't grow up. Or be propelled further until she realizes how the world opperates.

well this is America folks and over here SEX sales!!!!!
i do agree Kim Kardashian is famous for nothing and its such a big joke! but she is making money off us americans either way. i believe that only truly talented skillfull people should be famous or recgonized. todays society of famous is just basically a stupid popularity contest rather than talent! and its so bad that alot of people who have no talent are making music albums now and coming out with their own perfume/clothing line.. its such a big joke! they try to cover things up to make it look like they are actually doing/designing something when they basically just used a middle man to make their debut album or clothing line/cologne! and what i hate is how american TV is filled and full of stupid Reality shows!! reality TV sucks.... and MTV sucks for not being a music channel anymore. America really has a messed up mentality, i mean i guess anyones face who is blastered all over magazine covers,pictures,TV,videos,commercials, Americans will start developing this mentality that they are perfect or famous! and Kim Kardashian looks more indian like from india. i was really suprised when they sayed she was dutch/irish. its probably because of her black hair and brown eyes, thats why she looks indian. forget the skin color, because everyone has dark and light skin from any country in the world. so skin color doesnt really matter!

I do not think that Ms. Kardashian has just fulfilled a patriarchal bargain, but a matriarchal bargain as well -- capitulating to the expectations of the women around her to be a certain type of female.  Women do not just mold themselves to please men, they behave to please other women as well.  But it is so easy to reflexively and passingly blame males and patriarchy for all of women's ills, when women contribute to the ills of their fellow females as well.  

I watched nearly half of this before I realized one of them was a wax figure. I honestly thought it was one of the other sisters posing with her.

this in general hurts women because it devalues us to being less than humans, thus sexual objects. furthermore, is the reason why we have so much violence against women; how can one have sympathy on a degraded being? society only sees an outer shell and not a real person, with ideas, thoughts and feelings. it's degrading and she thinks she is profiting by selling herself.