As far as I’m concerned, that’s ridiculous.
My understanding of a Karen is someone, male or female, who invokes their white privilege and a holier-than-thou attitude. Typically conservative, not woke, and progressive. Would you be less triggered if I said Karen and Ken?
Are there not a lot of nice people named Karen or Ken? Then even if you claim that by adding “Ken” that removes the sexist part, it is still hurtful.
And since it applies, according to you, only to white people, it is bigoted. Just like calling a black child a “Pickaninn” or a Native American women a “squaw”.
You dont think that there are entitled, loud and rude people of all races and sexes?
We dont use Squaw anymore, not should we use karen.
In any case, even if you try to argue off the “bigoted” part, no matter what you do you cant argue off the cruel and hurtful part. That is not the way we should be.
Is calling a bigot a bigot bigoted? Is, for example, calling someone a “Trump Supporter” with a dismissive tone bigoted?
I don’t see a problem with calling out someone with a white-privileged, holier-than-thou attitude. YMMV.
And, if you don’t want to dissmissive of a Karen, you should use an uppercase “K.”
Not, IMHO, white privilege necessarily (though it can be), but certainly privilege. The stereotypical “Karen” is someone who has a certain amount of privilege and status, and “being a Karen” involves some sort of attacking or being unpleasant to someone whom she perceives to be beneath her in status.
People disagree over whether it’s okay to call such people “Karens” and to perpetuate the stereotype (and we’ve had whole threads on the subject here on the SDMB), but I think that people who do think it’s okay think that way because disparaging the “Karens” feels like punching up, and specifically punching up at people who are punching down.
I agree with most of your post. When I think of a Karen, the image that comes to my mind is that of a white privileged man or woman who tells a black girl that she can’t sell Girl Scout cookies on her block because she doesn’t live there…when in fact she does live there. If punching up to someone like that is wrong, then I don’t want to be right.
I suppose the Karen term can be applied to a non-white person, but typically it involves someone in more power bullying someone who has less power, usually from a marginalized group. I don’t mind hurting the feelings of someone like that. I don’t believe bully is a protected class.
You have a choice about being a trump supporter. If you are a nice white woman who just happened to be born with the name “Karen” that is not your choice. Isnt that what this is all about? Blaming people for the adult choices, not the accidents of their birth.
Sure, then call them a white-privileged, holier-than-thou attitude person, not a hurtful name Not all the 1.5 million or so women who just happen to have that name.
is hurting women in America actually “punching up”?
In an ideal world, someone would have come up with a better coinage for “spoiled adult brat” than “Karen” which would then have become popular enough that we all understand what the word means.
But if someone doesn’t understand the difference between a Karen and a “Karen”, well there’s no hope of useful discussion.
Words: they have multiple meanings.
Do we hate all the Katrinas because of what they did to New Orleans? Nope. Just one. Just the one that was a hurricane, not the million who are real women.
Consider it shorthand. But, I’ll stop doing that, if you stop calling coffee a cup of “Joe” (equating all those nice people named Joe to a beverage is punching down), and “Billy” clubs, and “Tom” foolery, and “Mary, Mary” quite contrary…and…
Are you serious, or just yanking chains? If the latter, good job! If the former…really!?!
I do not use those terms.
Great! Then we can be besties! In fact, that’s Jim Dandy! Sorry, I’ll excuse myself now.
Do people seriously not understand that someone named “Karen” is not automatically “a Karen”?
There is a group of people who are Karens . There are likely a few “Karens” among the Karen people, but nobody is slandering the entire group.
All I can say about the word Karen is that I am exactly in that demographic (not conservative though) and I’m even less comfortable about complaining to customer service than I used to be. As someone who worked in the food industry and other customer service jobs, I know how much shit people have to deal with from customers, and I generally stuff my complaints anyways. It takes a lot to rile me. But every time I think about maybe speaking up about something that is seriously messed up, I think about that stereotype and keep my mouth shut. I don’t want to be someone’s outraged Twitter post. Nobody who is called a Karen ever gets the benefit of a doubt.
I guess it’s not the end of the world that “Karen” probably has a chilling effect on white women unhappy with customer service, but I’m not a fan. I don’t need more reasons to be socially anxious.
My theory is you get to complain once per every compliment. If you text or IM or email or just tell the manager Good things once in a while, you get to complain also. Just dont be “that guy” who does nothing but whines and complains all the time.
You think they have problems? You should talk to my Uncle Dick.
Are we sure the word “stupid” is appropriate in this context? I call ignorant people on these boards “stupid”, and get chastised for it. Isn’t the OP referring to someone with a low IQ as being “stupid”? Don’t ignorant people deserve the insulting word more than people who are slow?
It has been mentioned before in the thread — the distinction between ignorant dumbasses, and the actually developmentally challenged. And that lampooning the first is still fair game.
I think playing the character as written isn’t wrong. I think writing the character like that can be. Especially if it’s a shorthand for villainy or buffoonery. Many physical traits, crooked teeth, crossed eyes, hunchback, etc. have been used as indicators for negative character traits. This exploits the behavioral immune system to trigger disgust and avoidance in the audience, lowering our empathy for these characters essentially unconsciously. We’re already predisposed to want to avoid these people and it’s not a far cry to go from there to actively disliking them if they display any traits of villainy. That’s why so many villains have obvious disfigurements, i.e. The Phantom of the Opera’s facial deformity. It’s lazy writing and there is a group of people dedicated to opposing it’s use in media.
I don’t object to an actor playing such a role, especially in a period piece, honestly working as an actor is hard enough, you don’t get to pick your roles in most cases. I do look askance at producers who choose to stage such pieces. My main issue is with modern writers who lean on this bit of human nature to avoid the work of fully developing characters.
Enjoy,
Steven
There is already is a word for being a “spoiled adult brat”: acting like “diva”,