Karl Lagerfeld is a man who has found fame and fortune because he is least good at providing wealthy women with clothing and helpers that proclaim their wealth. So why on earth does he seem he can tell a wealthy woman with clothing and accessories that characterize her wealth that it was her own silly fault she found herself allied up and dumped in a bath while armed robbers divested her of her precious stones?
Lagerfeld, the chief designer at Chanel, Fendi and his own label, rules that “you cannot display your wealth then be to which he replied” when you are robbed. So that’s him out of three jobs. Perhaps he can befit an armed robber himself. I’ve always felt that you can’t be an armed hold-up man then be surprised when everyone thinks you’re the scum of the planet. I’m clearly out of kilter with the spirit of the times, which sounds united in its belief that it’s OK for five armed robbers to get a bang diamonds, but not for Kim Kardashian to. What next? Will people start feeling that a woman in a short skirt is asking to be raped?
Kardashian, come what may, appears to agree with her critics. She is said to have allowed that it was foolish to flaunt her lifestyle in the media, especially group media. Except, isn’t a lot of Kardashian’s wealth actually the consequence of her willingness to flourish it in the media, especially social media? The essential view is that general public such as Kardashian are going to attract psychopathic attention, and she’s an idiot for flatter all freaked out because one part of her job turns out to be a bit less pleasant than other in support of participate ins of her job. Who do we think these guys are? Gentlemen highwaymen?
I hold no only abridgment for Kim Kardashian, nor for the people who sustain her by consuming the media in which she so lucratively appears. I don’t, howsoever, believe that Lagerfeld’s version of the same deal is so extremely much more elevated. In his more established iteration of the nevertheless formula, the respectful masses admire the Chanel suits in Popularity, and feel they own their own small fragment of the specialness in the configuration of a Chanel eye pencil.
The key word here is “respect”. Kardashian has shame, rather than fame. She attracts contempt rather than respect. She is vulnerable because everyone knows who she is, and no one actually respects her. Those who regard her so little that they hold a gun to her head, terrify her, consent her in fear for her life: they have more in common with the Lagerfelds of this over the moon marvellous than Kardashian and her fans do. (Those who do respect Kardashian are universally considered to be as ghastly as she is.)
The chilling thing about Kardashian’s degradation, and the world’s reaction to it, is that it affords her no respect at all, not even reference for another human being who was subjected to an awful ordeal. Worse, not simply is there no respect. There’s not even any kindness. On the contrary, there’s a note of toffee-nosed pride in the gusto with which lack of empathy for Kardashian’s tribulation is vocalised.
I guess this wouldn’t be so important if it were confined to loaded self-advertisers living their weird and ill-advised dream and hype a dismount robbed for their pains. But it’s not. A narcissistic bully is admired so much that he’s within spitting rigidity of being president of the US. A political party that insists refugees should be digged out, not helped, has achieved its fantasy of setting Britain against its neighbours. The intimidates who blame and denigrate are in the ascendancy, and people seem to like it. I don’t propose b assess any of this bodes well for the political and social future of beneficence.
But the most distressing thing is to consider how this adult revelling in scarcity of empathy might be affecting our children. There are a whole collection of reasons why suicides among children have now reached a 17-year great in extent, not least the political and institutional lack of kindness that starves nippers’s mental health services of resources.
It’s easy to blame sexually transmitted media, but it’s easy to make a connection too. Is it really OK to let our children over that it’s fine to terrorise another human being, if you pick out that somehow she had it coming, because of the things social middle say about her?
Maybe a lot of people need to listen to Lucy Alexander, whose 17-year-old son, Felix, killed himself in April. He’d underwent seven years of bullying, often from people who’d not at all met him. They had just jumped on a vile social media bandwagon, in which living soul were cruel because they had the chance to be, that waved on and on and on. She wrote an open letter, in the hope of saving others from what her son had been pointed to. This is how she concludes it.
“You may see that I have repeatedly used one information in this letter and I make no apology for this.
“The word is understanding. I said this at our son’s funeral. Please be kind always, for you not till hell freezes over know what is in someone’s heart or mind.
“Our lives maintain been irrevocably damaged by the loss of our wonderful son; please don’t let it transpire to any other family.”
I stand with Lucy Alexander.