"How the 'Karen Meme' Confronts the Violent History of White Womanhood"

[quote Goosefoot]This article about implicit bias training was quite interesting I thought.

I didn't see the show it talked about, but I remember people discussing it like it was a revelation. It sounds horrible.

unherd.com/2020/07/anti-racism-training-for-children-is-cruel/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3[/quote]
It’s very interesting. However, it calls the test into question as all women seem to be biased against women when using the implicit bias test. I would actually think that is correct, and is essentially something others have argued here. There isn’t a real ‘sisterhood’, we are are divided in a way men are not. There aren’t discussions between men judging each other for their choices in bringing up children, they are not judged for being of child bearing age (their entire adulthood) etc...
If anything this article (especially the inclusion of the evidence showing all women are at least some part biased against women) cements my view that the implicit bias test does actually show bias and can predict where someone is likely to behave in a biased way.

@peadarm it was an insult when I was growing up and I went to school in England so isn’t only a US thing. This was prior to memes or even social media. The internet was in its infancy.

As is unthinking ethnocentrism on the part of many Americans who otherwise appear to be progressive.

Can you start another thread on this please?

I'm quite interested in teasing out what is patriarchy, what is prejudice against women, what is an inability to socially and economically value caring, what is woman-hatred etc.

I know I'm inconsistent and use imprecise language at times - and I also think I might know you from another place? and that even though I often disagree with you (if it is you!) I come away sharper.

But I think it's better on its own thread.

Yes, I'll set this up tonight, and then I'd best be off to bed. I think it could be interesting.

Yes, we do know each other from that other place. I find it quite funny to pick out people I've talked to elsewhere on message boards, it always seems slightly uncanny. I imagine philologists in 500 years trying to tease it out.

This article about implicit bias training was quite interesting I thought.

I didn't see the show it talked about, but I remember people discussing it like it was a revelation. It sounds horrible.

unherd.com/2020/07/anti-racism-training-for-children-is-cruel/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3

I'm quite interested in teasing out what is patriarchy, what is prejudice against women, what is an inability to socially and economically value caring, what is woman-hatred etc.

I know I'm inconsistent and use imprecise language at times - and I also think I might know you from another place? and that even though I often disagree with you (if it is you!) I come away sharper.

But I think it's better on its own thread.

The researchers who invented the implicit bias test say it's not valid in the way it's being used in diversity trainings!

[quote HarryHarry]@DancelikeEmmaGoldman I’m currently trying to read White Fragility just to find out what her argument is - my husband has to attend one of her training sessions at work - but so far I’m struggling to see how she managed to stretch it out to a whole book. She could have just said “Everyone’s a little bit racist, you have to constantly check yourself to make sure you’re not acting on an unconscious bias, end of book”. I also don’t understand the bit where she had to grovel to a black web developer because she was offended by DiAngelo ignoring the questions on the survey she gave her because she found them tedious. It’s not racist to have an opinion on somebody else’s work!

I’ll keep reading to see if I’m missing something but so far it’s utter drivel.[/quote]
The unconscious bias stuff she based her research on is pretty dodgy in the first place. There's little evidence that it's valid.

I think patriarchy gets tosses around too liberally.

If you want to apply it to ancient Roman law or more modern versions of the same, yes, it's functioning as a clear and technically useful word that denotes something specific and definable.

But the ways it's used most of the time by western feminists it just means some undefined and often mysterious set of somethings that result is the disadvantaging of women in some way. It reminds me a lot of what Adolph Reed says about the term systemic racism or even just racism - it's just a name you apply to an effect, but it doesn't tell you anything useful about the cause or mechanisms surrounding it. Because it's abstract and unfalsifiable it lends itself to fuzzy thinking. And it doesn't at all lend itself to suggesting solutions or alternatives.

[quote HarryHarry]@DancelikeEmmaGoldman I’m currently trying to read White Fragility just to find out what her argument is - my husband has to attend one of her training sessions at work - but so far I’m struggling to see how she managed to stretch it out to a whole book. She could have just said “Everyone’s a little bit racist, you have to constantly check yourself to make sure you’re not acting on an unconscious bias, end of book”. I also don’t understand the bit where she had to grovel to a black web developer because she was offended by DiAngelo ignoring the questions on the survey she gave her because she found them tedious. It’s not racist to have an opinion on somebody else’s work!

I’ll keep reading to see if I’m missing something but so far it’s utter drivel.[/quote]
She's comes across as a grifter. It's her job to make money from this.

@DancelikeEmmaGoldman I’m currently trying to read White Fragility just to find out what her argument is - my husband has to attend one of her training sessions at work - but so far I’m struggling to see how she managed to stretch it out to a whole book. She could have just said “Everyone’s a little bit racist, you have to constantly check yourself to make sure you’re not acting on an unconscious bias, end of book”. I also don’t understand the bit where she had to grovel to a black web developer because she was offended by DiAngelo ignoring the questions on the survey she gave her because she found them tedious. It’s not racist to have an opinion on somebody else’s work!

I’ll keep reading to see if I’m missing something but so far it’s utter drivel.

I explained the Shaniqua thing, the Katrina thing and the Isis thing to my kids last night. So sick of women’s names always being the ones used. My stepson said they should start calling things by Male names, like Dick.” 😂😂😂

oops - typing cant keep up with my thinking:

They have no substance, and in fact allow entitled white people (in the clip women) to think they are somehow part of the problem.

should have been:

They have no substance, and in fact allow entitled white people (in the clip women) to think they are somehow NOT part of the problem.

I came on this thread because I haven't really been that engaged with the social media current trend of "Karen" but was hoping for some clarification for what it was meant to be about. I had inadvertently seen a discussion on tv this morning that showed the BBC clip (everyone just thought they were really silly) but then moved onto what I can only say was an outpouring of white outrage at being unfairly criticised.

So very much appreciate Ginnyhip46 comments. We need to say exactly what the issue is and in what way. This supposed short hands that smug young woke people use to prove to themselves and each other how on message they are just do exactly the opposite. They have no substance, and in fact allow entitled white people (in the clip women) to think they are somehow part of the problem.

From reading the news about the US I have been alarmed and distressed to see the number of occassion when white women have felt able to call the police for what seems no other reason than that a Black American is nearby getting on with their life. Just how far has Trump pushed the US towards white racist nationalism?

I am not saying this would never happen here in the UK but we need to be talking about the reality here. How these women thought they could talk like that is extraordinary. It just trivialises racism. And for the BBC to broadcast it just seems another of their desparate attempts to be relevant to a younger age group. And of course allow young women to sneer at older women.

(The tv discussion I mentioned above was on the Jeremy Vine on 5 show that used to be called something else - the Wright Stuff I think. But clearly having an inadequate middle class male like JV take over has been like a green light allow the most entrenched little englander farage like white racism. The topics included this BBC Karen clip, the stop and search of the young althlete couple, and whether Cressida Dick should apologise for an early police stop and search. All the calls were filled with white out rage, and how the boys in blue were saintly and never ever in the wrong. Sorry I know this is a bit off topic but the snide facile exchange in the Karen clip was in away almost as depressingly awful in its smug whiteness as the gammons phoning in from the arm chairs to JV. We seem to be living in a era that is a relentless downward spira.)

I’ve not read this whole thread. I’m a POC. Just an observation from what I’m seeing on FB this week and what my three kids were muttering about yesterday.
I’ve seen lots of woke white men recently on FB calling JKR a Karen. So I’m starting to think that whatever its original connotations were it’s now being used as an insult for women woke male folk don’t like. And I’ve not seen any similar names for men.
I’ve also seen it used for Black women and Chinese women. Personally I would rather say a person is a racist entitled woman or man than give them a kind of pet name that works as shorthand and that can now be used for any women people don’t agree with. Kids are using it in their WhatsApp chats to mock girls with.

But in some ways the attitudes towards women under patriarchy have just migrated to things like porn.

And yes.

Yes I think that's a good point, merrymouse. I think a lot of people think it means something just short of Gilead in the Handmaid's Tale, to feminists, so they sneer at the idea.

Patriarchy is still in literal existence in places on this globe.

It very literally still exists in the House of Lords.

However, patriarchy can just be a system where men, for whatever reason, hold most positions of power. You don’t have to believe that all men are involved in a plot against women to observe that a society is patriarchal.

Patriarchy is still in literal existence in places on this globe.

It's within some women's living memories, being given the vote for the first time. Some women are imprisoned for not confirming to patriarchal religious law. Etc.

Patriarchy in those pure forms is much diminished in the West, it's true. But in some ways the attitudes towards women under patriarchy have just migrated to things like porn.

And thats YOUR logic?