To think they call us Karen because they fear us

[InformEducateEntertain]

I absolutely hate the term Karen. It's pejorative and deeply unpleasant.

Middle aged women (of whom I am one and to whom the term is most generally applied) are bloody amazing. Putting us down for our don't give a f**k badass attitude and willingness to fight back strikes me as lazy categorisation.

I'd go as far to say that those who use it are scared by the knowledge that looking the menopause in the eye has given us the courage to have a voice at last.

AIBU?

Estimates for what are 5% of GDP?

I'm not suggesting the calculation is inaccurate, but I would like to know what assumptions it's based on because it seems very unlikely to me that if Britain had never had any colonies or slave trade our GDP today would still be 95% of what is. I wonder whether it's 5% that can be directly attributed to a colonial or slave trade source today whereas I was thinking about the overall multiplier effect on the economy - the public infrastructure that empire and slavery funded allowing the UK to punch above its weight globally and generate further wealth.

That’s not racism.

It’s rather shocking you think black people during slavery were racist.

Remind me what slavery were they suffering less than a decade ago? Read the report. :)

I think it’s not a case of you not understanding but that you don’t want to understand. Wilfully obtuse if you will.

If you wish to believe that criticising and highlighting gendered forms of racism is racist then go ahead. Make a fool of yourself.

And I…oop!

I mean if you bothered to read the linked articles instead at stopping at the Wikipaedia summation (which appears to miscategorise the information in the linked articles) you would see a long discussion of the history of the gendered manifestations of racism referred to by the term including this titbit from Time.

”Visuals of Karens exploiting their privilege when things don’t go their way have become Internet shorthand of late for a particular kind of racial violence white women have instigated for centuries — following a long and troubling legacy of white women in the country [this article is in a USA context but these experiences are not unique to the USA] weaponizing their victimhood.”

Read or don’t read. I don’t care but stop with the ignorant miscategorisations.

In order for something he be “gendered manifestation of racism” it would have to be something racist men wouldn’t also do. Still waiting on an example of that.

@JandamiHash
Haha, 100%. I shudder when I think of those boil in the bag curries with sultanas in from the 90s. 🤢
They ruin so many otherwise good foods (not the boil in the bag dm would serve though), as they're an abomination all by themselves! 😂

If we think about the social signalling associated with nicknames, teasing etc, it is simply a social way of giving feedback that someone's behaviour isn't acceptable for us. It is far easier to slap someone down with a name that is universally seen as "difficult" than to explain the intricacies of why they shouldn't behave that way.

At the same time, every stereotype has a kernel of truth, otherwise it wouldn't be a stereotype or cultural meme. The thing is, we all know what "Karen" means, and we all know someone who could fall into that category.

"Badass attitude" isn't necessarily a good thing. Rudeness, being demanding, arrogance, obnoxious behaviour isn't okay, regardless of which sex is doing it. That is, in my view, the definition of a Karen and I think it has less to do with sex than it does with using a term to describe a pattern of behaviour. Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Kevin the male alternative to Karen? I may be wrong.

I think we need to actually define exactly what a Karen is and then work toward not doing things that are Karen-ish (both sexes!):

1. Demanding - especially to see the top person because of a relatively minor complaint (a criterion for narcissistic personality disorder, ironically)
2. Excessive entitlement (ditto above)
3. Weaponisation of victimhood (according to black scholars)
4. Confrontational behaviour (not assertiveness, that isn't the same thing)

In short, rather unpleasant folk.

So maybe we should stop being Karen-y and start being compassionate, understanding, tolerant, kind and not so mean to one another! We shouldn't accept Karen-ish behaviour from any person regardless of sex. There is absolutely no problem with women being confident, assertive, expressive of their emotions etc. The problem is when people say "how dare people call me a Karen!?" rather than take responsibility for their own rather ghastly behaviours.

What I want to know is who was the original Karen? The innovator of Karen-ness? Who was the person who thought "come on Karen, I've had enough... you are the epitome of Karen-ness!"? And why did it catch on so much? Is there a cultural phenomena where people called Karen have a higher likelihood of being a Karen in this context?

TLDR: I don't like the term and at the same time stereotypes don't come out of thin air. Maybe acting less "Karen-ish" would prevent people being called Karens (or Kevins) in the first place.

On a side note, blessings to all my Karens out there. I salute you!

Oh give over with the both sexes nonsense. There aren’t any Kevin memes.

There's lots of examples given already. So no, you're not still waiting.

But the key point is the weaponisation of womanhood/perceived vulnerability/weakness.

A racist man leverages his societal, physical and economic power. This specific manifestation of racism involves a woman leveraging her ability to present as a victim in need of help and rescuing.

pointswinprizes · Today 07:47
"In order for something he be “gendered manifestation of racism” it would have to be something racist men wouldn’t also do. Still waiting on an example of that."
.
Most racist men probably don't cry.

There's lots of examples given already. So no, you're not still waiting

None that are particularly convincing.

The woman in the video didn’t cry. She seemed a bit belligerent actually.
Perhaps she wasn’t the best example?
I see what you’re getting at though.

Case study from a College Journal in the States as an example.

A group of student affairs professionals were in a meeting to discuss retention and wellness issues pertaining to a specific racial community on our campus. As the dialogue progressed, Anita, a woman of color, raised a concern about the lack of support and commitment to this community from Office X (including lack of measurable diversity training, representation of the community in question within the staff of Office X, etc.), which caused Susan from Office X, a White woman, to feel uncomfortable. Although Anita reassured Susan that her comments were not directed at her personally, Susan began to cry while responding that she "felt attacked". Susan further added that: she donated her time and efforts to this community, and even served on a local non-profit organization board that worked with this community; she understood discrimination because her family had people of different backgrounds and her closest friends were members of this community; she was committed to diversity as she did diversity training within her office; and the office did not have enough funding for this community's needs at that time. Upon seeing this reaction, Anita was confused because although her tone of voice had been firm, she was not angry. From Anita's perspective, the group had come together to address how the student community's needs could be met, which partially meant pointing out current gaps where increased services were necessary. Anita was very clear that she was critiquing Susan's office and not Susan, as Susan could not possibly be solely responsible for the decisions of her office. The conversation of the group shifted at the point when Susan started to cry. From that moment, the group did not discuss the actual issue of the student community. Rather, they spent the duration of the meeting consoling Susan, reassuring her that she was not at fault. Susan calmed down, and publicly thanked Anita for her willingness to be direct, and complimented her passion. Later that day, Anita was reprimanded for her 'angry tone,' as she discovered that Susan complained about her "behavior" to both her own supervisor as well as Anita's supervisor. Anita was left confused by the mixed messages she received with Susan's compliment, and Susan's subsequent complaint regarding her.

So being a passive aggressive arse basically. I was right before. It is like talking to a man

”But I’m not sexist”
”I never said you were but you see-“
”I SAID I’M NOT SEXIST”

The defensiveness alone is sus.

I mean I’m sure there are men who have victimised women who have accused another man (not them) of harassment on the grounds they’re a trouble maker, don’t believe it, closing ranks etc so there’s that. But no, they almost certainly don’t cry or play the victim.

pointswinprizes · Today 14:58

"So being a passive aggressive arse basically"

If that's what you take from that little example you do you. So a woman of colour is not allowed to have a firm voice ?

What is “womanhood”? Sounds pretty sexist and regressive to me

I also think these catch all statements only serve to prop up stereotypes. Not al men have physical strength and not all women cry easily. You can never really use this to talk about men and woman as individuals unless you have a penchant for stereotyping

To me womanhood is being a woman in a woman’s body. It’s pretty hard to use your body as a weapon as a woman when most of the time it’s used against you

No they just get angry and aggressive, an emotion which seems to offend people far less than crying does.

Er..I meant the white woman? Is that not kind of obvious? Or did you read the first line of the post and then quit?

Although tbf im assuming you’ve read my previous posts. Maybe you haven’t.

It doesn’t “offend people far less”, but with anger and aggression there’s a clear perpetrator. When the aggressor cries and plays the victim, guess who then is viewed as the aggressor?