Some time in the near future—maybe two years, maybe ten—the generations that popularized the nickname “Karen” as meaning “annoying person who does things like complain incessantly at service workers and their managers” will realize the label was sexist all along, and that by using it, they’ve been unintentionally perpetuating the same systemic misogyny that we’re simultaneously trying to overcome.
Am I the only one who sees it? Am I the crazy one? I’ve watched the rise of the label “Karen” from relative obscurity to becoming an effective and popular insult within a matter of years. Now it’s so widespread, such a potent contributor to the cultural zeitgeist, that people are actively avoiding naming their children Karen, because children named Karen are being bullied over it! It’s an absolutely wild development in popular culture.
And yet… It seems like hardly anyone has ever stopped to consider the implications. How did “Karen” catch on so easily? Why that name specifically as opposed to any other name that could have been chosen instead, like “Richard” or “Thomas” or “Mary” or “Kimberly”? Those were all equally popular names at the height of “Karen”’s popularity in 1965, and the modern day “Karen” pejorative carries subtext of “usually middle-aged,” so those names could have just as easily played the role. So why didn’t they? And especially why not “Richard” or “Thomas”?
Because sexism. Sexism is why.
“Karen” works where “Richard” and “Thomas” don’t because it plays on existing stereotypes and cliches of “nagging women,” stereotypes that don’t have an exact enough equivalent for men. Heck, when was the last time anyone has ever seen the word “nagging” in a context other than being about wives or girlfriends or women? It’s a totally problematic word that English-speaking countries (or, the United States, at least) have loaded up with baggage, and honestly it should just be dropped.
And now it can be, because people are unknowingly using “Karen” as a replacement. “Karen” has effectively become a dog whistle for the very same concept!
“But, Jesse, people who act like Karens are usually women—therefore, a feminine name is more appropriate than a gender neutral name.”
Okay, hypothetical strawman debate opponent; follow that line of thinking a few levels deeper. What does that mean?
“Well, it means I’m consciously choosing to use a feminine name as an insult specifically because it’s a feminine name… Oh god… What have I done?”
It’s okay, imaginary opponent. You’re not irredeemable. All you need to do is just stop using that word. Why did you even need a word for “person, implied to be middle-aged, implied to be a woman, who loudly complains at retail workers about things they have no control over” anyway? How often does a concept like that come up in organic conversation?
Unfortunately, it comes up a lot more often when everyone shares a word for it in the first place. This is one place where language being a feedback loop comes back to bite us.
I genuinely think that over time, the people who’ve popularized the nickname “Karen” will realize all of this, and then they’ll look back on these “Karen” years with embarrassment.
No anti-Karen argument is complete without addressing the “origin story” of the term, which is also bound up in “white woman privilege” and the entitlement that comes from that.
I’d say it’s the fact that this “ur-Karen” can argue that she’s disadvantaged as a woman that makes her so entitled as she argues against people who are disadvantaged in other ways (or even the same way). Ex. imagine a middle-aged white woman arguing with black employees at a fast food place and feeling she can raise her voice but others cannot. This implication has been diluted over time, though.
“Karen” has drifted into generic insult territory and is basically just “nag” now. We should be using “entitled” instead, and/or at the very least, if we’re gonna badmouth anyone, we should insult people of all genders with “nag” and drop our own stereotypical notions.