A reality check about Kim's kind of fame
Well done, Dr Helen Wright. The headmistress of one of Britain's leading girl schools held up a cover of Zoo magazine featuring a scantily clad Kim Kardashian and denounced it as representing "almost everything that is wrong with Western society".
She went on: "It's not about a person. That single photograph brought together two aspects of our society - fame for fame's sake, the distorted view of reality that that brings, and our over-sexualised culture.''
Wright has been dismissed as a killjoy, dumping all of our ills on some hapless reality TV star. Boo! Dr Wright, boo!
But is she wrong? Well, not really ...
Why is Khardashian famous? For her brains? Her talents? Her contributions to the arts? Being a great philanthropist?
Nope, she is famous because she is sexy in a manufactured kind of way. Which is appropriate because she has manufactured a career out of little more than a desire to be famous. That's it.
And for KK you can read your BB "sexpots", your "new Katie Prices", your "celebrity wags".
For all the talk of post-feminism and empowerment, spending your life dreaming of appearing on the cover of Loaded, Zoo or even Heat doesn't do anybody - either the individual or women in general - a lot of good.
Getting them out for the lads is not really a career option.