The “Karen” meme started as a humorous caricature of anti-vaxxer, entitlement-obsessed white women. But since spring it’s been increasingly adopted by social policing and Black Lives Matter protesters as an attack against privileged white women.
Karen has grown into a powerful advocate for 2020’s contentious social politics. Let us take a closer look at where this all started and what it means now.
Definition
Karens often act out of an entitlement mindset, believing they deserve special treatment and privileges. This entitlement can manifest itself in many ways, but the most frequent is through their often rude and disruptive mannerisms.
This type of behavior can be commonplace across many industries and it may lead to retaliation against an individual who has complained to higher-ups about another employee’s actions. The stereotype of Karens in the workplace poses particular risks since it could be used as an excuse for dismissing an employee who has expressed their concerns regarding a work-related matter.
Karen can be interpreted as a sexist stereotype, which should never be accepted. For instance, if an employee complains to their superiors about workplace policies or practices, this constitutes discrimination which is prohibited under federal and state laws. Furthermore, using Karen as an insult or derogatory term could lead to retaliation against the individual who has been called out on such behavior.
One of the most famous examples of this kind of behavior can be seen in the rise of “Karen” meme. Initially created as a joke about one type of white woman, its name has since come to symbolize various types of behaviors.
Even in today’s political atmosphere, Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot recently referred to White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany as a “Karen” on Twitter.
The term has come to symbolize an aggressive refusal by some individuals to wear face masks or comply with COVID-19 pandemic regulations, which is disproportionately impacting black and ethnic minority populations in the US. Furthermore, it has been criticized for suggesting that women are more likely than men to disregard coronavirus regulations.
This sexist and racist stereotype should be avoided by everyone. Furthermore, such behavior could lead to legal liability as well as retaliation in the future.
The Karen meme has become a cornerstone of contemporary social politics in the United States, revolutionizing how people perceive themselves. It has put a spotlight on various issues like racism and racial discrimination to Black Lives Matter and masks during COVID-19; additionally, it made it easier for people to connect with one another through previously difficult means.
Origins
Karen is a fictional character used to illustrate an entitled white woman. She often appears as an arrogant middle-aged woman with the attitude that she always has the upper hand and can speak her mind when necessary.
Recently, the term “Karen” has become a derogatory label for women who act badly or misuse their privilege in ways which could be seen as racist. It’s similar to other pejorative terms like “Chad” or “Gammon,” which have also been employed as condemnations against certain behaviors.
The term has become especially popular on Twitter, where it has amassed a large following and inspired various jokes and memes. Unfortunately, some criticize the expression for being an offensive sexist stereotype that should be avoided.
Linguists believe Karen is derived from Danish roots, often translated as “pure,” though it could have originated elsewhere too. This could be because Karen is a name for white people and may suggest some racial connotations.
Although initially used as a humorous caricature, the term has since taken on more sexist and ageist overtones due to its use in connection with Covid-19 as well as wider social discussions regarding how it should be viewed and addressed.
Particularly in the United States, it has been used to target those who refuse to wear face masks during Covid-19 or who call out other people for breaking rules. It has also been employed as a way of criticizing those who share misinformation on social media about coronavirus on the disease.
These are just a few examples of the type of behavior associated with “Karen,” but there’s much more to this viral culture phenomenon. People have been giving alliterative nicknames such as Barbecue Becky, Golf Cart Gail and Permit Patty to poorly-behaved white women who attempt to socially police their black neighbors or magnify minor misunderstandings beyond recognition.
Social Impact
Karen has come under fire for her seemingly arrogant behaviors, which stem from privilege. She displays an arrogant sense of entitlement and often engages in racist micro-aggressions. Additionally, Karen demands to speak to managers to denigrate service industry workers while opposing vaccination and science research.
She has a habit of calling the cops on nonwhite people. For instance, she called police to arrest a black man and his dog at a park, and recently she enlisted local law enforcement when her neighbor stenciled “Black Lives Matter” onto her porch.
The rise of the Karen phenomenon is an alarming indication of white supremacy, and if this type of behavior continues to escalate it could even lead to violence.
There is a long history of white women using their privilege and victimhood as weapons against Black and brown people, often out of an urge to feel in control and use their power for personal gain. Today, Karen represents this type of behavior at its most extreme.
Therefore, her actions can be lethal and she has the capacity to enlist others in her violence – even when not committing any criminal offense. She can easily call the police on those she doesn’t like or take matters into her own hands.
A San Francisco supervisor has introduced an ordinance to classify discriminatory 911 calls as hate crimes. The new rule is meant to make people think twice before harassing or abusing someone they don’t agree with, but even as we applaud her for taking such a bold step, there remains much work ahead to combat the damaging effects of Karen phenomenon.
It is unfortunate that people are so quick to draw conclusions about someone’s social impact before having the chance to truly comprehend the situation. We must all do our part to stop racial discrimination from causing deaths and damaging lives every day.
Conclusions
At Saint Clare’s Hospital in Denville, New Jersey, Karen’s condition had become so dire that doctors believed she would never recover. Despite a highly trained medical team’s best efforts, Karen’s condition worsened and she was eventually diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state.
According to her parents’ wishes and with the support of medical care, she remained in this coma-like state for several months. She had suffered an incredibly severe brain injury as well as extensive physical damage to the spinal cord. She was left emaciated with extreme flexion-rigidity of her arms and legs; moreover, she had lost at least 40 pounds and was in critical condition.
Despite her grim prognosis, she was kept alive through a respirator and catheter. She received 24-hour intensive nursing care as well as antibiotics and other treatments to ensure her survival.
At her trial, Judge Davies determined that Karen’s death had been sudden and her burns were consistent with a “flash ignition.” She had not been in contact with anyone else for some time after the accident, according to authorities, and her oxygen levels were low; additionally, there were no signs of recovery from her burns.
Her family, asserting a constitutional right of privacy and protection from cruel and unusual punishment, demanded she be taken off life support. However, this view was rejected by the hospital, her physicians, guardian ad litem and Morris County prosecutor.
The Court’s ruling was founded on the notion that “the interests of a State are always subordinate to those of an individual.” That is, when someone’s condition is so dire and her chances for recovery so remote that any minimal bodily invasion would be detrimental to her wellbeing, then individual rights take precedence over state interests.
Recent years, this underlying conclusion has been the focus of much criticism. Common arguments against it include that the State has the right to protect patients from pain, suffering and distress; that medical professions have an obligation to provide patients with the best possible care; and that governments have a responsibility to prevent unjust killings in prisons.
