>

I have seen rallies for women, and I have seen rallies for white pride (unfortunately). Whiteness and being a woman is an identity.
/u/Shimmy-choo (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I'm not making a racist statement when I use the name Karen to describe something. 
That's a name based on behavior. It isn't based on race. A person makes a choice to be a Karen. They don't make a choice to be born to a race. 
There is zero racist about the term Karen. There are lots of comments on behavior. >

It doesn't bother me.  I'm saying it as a matter of fact.

Be the defender of rude entitled women.

Are you the defender of violent black men when you raise an eyebrow when I talk about some thug attacking a random Asian person?
Or is it different?
Because fuck white people? >

Is there any way that I can tell you that Karen is a racist slur without you telling me that I'm upset?
It's an academic fact.  Dispassionate as 2+2=4 >


If you want to really claim that Karen is a racial slur on par with the n word or spic

When you resort to straw man arguments, you have to know, at least on some level, that you're wrong.
Let me break it down etymologically for you.
Racial: of, relating to, or based on a race 
Slur: an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo 
Racial Slur: An insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo of, relating to, or based on a race.
Karen is exclusively about white women.  It is a bad word you call white women.  Karen is a racial slur. >


on par with spic or the n word

I literally just called this a straw man argument.  You're projecting this part.  If we unpack this a little, you acknowledge that there are degrees of severity of a racial slur in that you keep saying spic but you refuse to say "the N word".  When you're comparing the badness of two words and you won't even say one of them, that's the worse word.
Great, so we agree that the severity of racial slurs cover a whole spectrum of severity.

So own that comparrison. Please tell me how spic, the N word and Karen are comparrible words.

Spic is a bad word you call someone that is race specific.
The N word is a bad word you call someone that is race specific.
Karen is a bad word you call someone that is race specific.

and not race.

Karen is a bad word you call someone that is race specific. >

Yeah any race can be a Karen, so its not specifically towards white women. I do think it's unfortunate though for everyone named Karen. They must hate it lmao >

As far as I understand, "Karens" can be any race. >

There is a big difference between discrimination and calling people out for their own bad behavior. Sure, the Karen “meme” typically is a white woman with short hair, but Karen behavior isn’t race or gender specific. If someone referred to all white women as Karen, that could be considered offensive but to call someone acting like an entitled jerk “a Karen” is not. Also, when comparing to the n or f words, Karen was not originally a term used to tear down a group of people for things they could not control (race or sexual identity) but a funny response to a specific type of bad behavior that is directly damaging to society. (And in my experience, typically due to “the Karen” being discriminatory based on profession/race/sexuality etc of the person she is being a disrespectful bitch to)
Sure, society would be a lot better if all name calling was eliminated but that isn’t realistic and white women who are respectful of others and don’t behave like a “Karen” aren’t offended by the phrase. If you are offended by the phrase as a white woman, bad news, you’re probably the problem. >

In my second edit, I made it clear that my concern is not that white women will be offended by use of the phrase. >

I also am not concerned about white women being offended by the word, my point is that it’s not racially based. In general, you cannot call a black person the n word as a white person and it not be offensive. This is because it is a racially motivated slur offensive to anyone of that race. Karen is only offensive to people who feel the right to abuse other people. 
And your first edit claims that Wikipedia also defines Karen based on race. This is the Wikipedia definition of Karen from right now (1/9/23 10:20pm CST)
Karen may refer to:
Karen (name), a given name and surname
Karen (slang), a term and meme for a demanding woman displaying certain behaviors
It’s not race related per your “source”. 
It’s a term very similar to jerk or asshole. Again, yea, the world would be much better without name calling and i don’t think anyone would want to change your view on that but in terms of comparing “Karen” to terms that have actually been used to discriminate against minority and oppressed groups? Gross. 
I get that you prefaced this with saying you were basing your opinion on “Karen” being defined as a white woman but that’s not necessarily an accurate definition so how is anyone supposed to engage in meaningful conversation about it?
That would be like saying, using the word retard is always offensive. Yes, it could be in certain context and when used to insult someone who is developmentally challenged but if you work in air travel, that word means to decrease throttle when landing. >

If you see the Wikipedia article I linked, the first sentence says: 

Karen is a pejorative term for a white woman perceived as entitled or demanding beyond the scope of what is normal. >


All reasonable people agree that as a society our goal is to move to a place where we are less prejudiced, 

I disagree with this assumption.
It seems to me that the obsession with being "less prejudiced" inevitably leads to prejudice against the opposite group. 
It doesn't actually reduce the amount of prejudice; and to me, it makes no sense to make a society with "no prejudice". 
For example, is it wrong to be prejudiced against murderers? rapists?
This stance just doesn't seem internally consistent to me. >

You're not prejudiced against murderers. That's not a prejudice, that's a judgement.
Pre-judging would be assuming they're murderers without evidence. >

The behaviour of the Karen is the larger issue. Not that everyone hates her and calls her out on it. >

Allow me to try to change your view in a different direction. Whether or not it is racist is irrelevant (though I do agree with you). Instead, we should just never use people's names as insults. People didn't ask to be named Karen, yet their name still gets dragged through the mud for no good reason. I have heard many stories of people getting bullied (even adults) just because they are named Karen. It's not right >

My friend changed her name because if this. >

The point is, the “karen” is most likely in the wrong to begin with. Nobody’s calling the nice white lady working at walgreens and minding her own business a karen, it’s almost exclusively used to describe near-tangible entitlement and gall. >

i think op is dumb but that being said this is the exact justification people use for other slurs, "i wouldn't call him blank if he was being civilized" >

You made it clear you weren't complaining of "reverse racism" but a lot of what you wrote that appeared to be exactly what you were complaining about...
Let me ask which of these statements you disagree with:
1) There are a fair number of white women who seem completely oblivious to their privilege.
2) Having to routinely encounter white women seemingly oblivious to their privilege is an understandably negative experience for a significant number of minorities.
3) It is understandable then that people would develop a word or term to use that is shorter than having to say "a white women completely oblivious to their privilege" every time.
4) Inevitably, this term is going to quickly gain a negative connotation as it describes people based on undesirable characteristics. >

I essentially agree with all those statements. In number 4, I don't think the term is used to describe "white women who are completely oblivious to their privilege", I think it is used to described "white women who are rude and entitled". Nevertheless, your point stands.
All your points are fair and reasonable.
What I really take issue with, however, is the sheer glee with which the term is used by so many. (See here for a convenient example). 
It is not simply acting as a linguistic shortcut, but as an insult. 
I still don't consider the term to be wise if a less prejudiced society is our goal, but you have changed my mind in terms of how the use of the term is understandable. - Δ >

My understanding is that the Karen term has been around for years in the black community. Entitled vs. oblivious to privilege is very close to the same thing. The idea is that black people aren't free to demand minor details go perfectly for them, raise a big stink, demand the manager, refuse to shut up until they get their way, etc...the white woman feels this will get her what she wants as opposed to being kicked out or arrested. That's why it's being oblivious to privilege. The "Karen" isn't knowingly being racist but is effectively saying "I should get my way because I am white". 
The woman with an unleashed dog in Central Park who called the police on a black birdwatcher is probably the perfect example. That's not just entitled, that's the "Karen" demanding preferential treatment due to her race.
But what has happened is once the term caught wind on the internet, now it's used mostly (from what I can tell, educated guess) by white men. I tend to agree that now it just comes across as meanspirited and sexist. >

Itt.... "It's not about race. Anybody can be a Karen! ...it's nearly always white people though."
Man. It's so annoying when people are openly racist and don't even know recognise it. >

I never thought a Karen has to be white. But let's for the sake of argument assume this is correct. 
I'm not sure commenting on someone's self-entitled demanding behaviour is really much to do with the societal goal of reducing prejudice, particularly when this behaviour is driven (as per our assumpton) by the privelidge of one's position. Your point kinda takes a reverse-racism stance, where no longer tolerating people's entitlement or intolerance is not to be tolerable. It rams head-long into the paradox of tolerance. Calling out racism where it exists isn't racism, it's anti-racism.
One could take a feminist approach, asking why Karens are always female, but that's not really your point here. Your lady with Juvenile Huntingtons is really nothing to do with entitled women being rude, unless she's acting entitled and rude in which case her condition doesn't give her a free pass on being a jerk. >


Calling out racism where it exists isn't racism, it's anti-racism.

That is an interesting point and one I had not considered. That is probably the best defence for the term I have heard so far. 
I'm still not convinced the term is a net good for social justice, however. I'd argue those who do not need to hear this message will take it on and feel guilty, where those who need to hear this message will entirely disregard it (if that makes sense). 
Nevertheless, good point, have a Δ. >

Thanks for the triangle

I'm still not convinced the term is a net good for social justice

Why does it have to be though? Can't it just be a neutral or something outside of social justice? 

those who need to hear this message will entirely disregard it

Maybe then the message isn't for them, but for the people around them? Hearing that someone else has noted someone's demanding self-entitled behaviour lessens its power because it's ridiculing them. The people effected by the behaviour are therefore going to take it less seriously and be less bothered by it. >


My core concern is if we don't want people to use slurs based on people's identity, then we should stop using slurs based on people's identity.

But it's not their identity; it's their behavior. >

Aren't we associating the behaviour with the identity though, through the use of the term?
We only ever use Karen to describe middle class white women. I think in doing so, we're conditioning ourselves to expect middle class women to be entitled.
I think it's similar to other negative stereotypes we've made in the past and regretted with good reason.
Not to mention people actually called Karen... >

Ironically, my family used the term/name in pretty much the same way before everyone else did, because of someone we know who is named Karen. . .but I do feel bad for the nicer Karens out there. 
The name Karen was popular for a fairly short period of time, but was very popular for those years and in that socioeconomic category. So unfortunately that demographic makes up the majority of Karens, and a pattern was noticed.
The weird thing is, everybody knows exactly what kind of person you're referring to when you say it. Is it just the name you object to, or just actually having a name/term for that kind of person? Like if we called them "let me speak to your managers" or something similar?
Also, it started as an inside joke/term among retail workers, do you think it would be ok if it stayed that way? >


The weird thing is, everybody knows exactly what kind of person you're referring to when you say it. Is it just the name you object to, or just actually having a name/term for that kind of person? Like if we called them "let me speak to your managers" or something similar?

I don't mind the entitled people being mocked. I don't l like the association with the name but also the stereotype of white women being entitled.
I know the majority of this kind of behaviour in the US is done by white, middle class women, but I don't want that demographic to have presumptions about them before they've done anything.
Similarly to how we avoid prejudging other demographics for things that are statistically more common for them.
Also I'm in the UK (and we are using Karen) and I personally know some middle class South Asian people who are absolutely Karens and so a more inclusive slur would be great XD >

You are right that's prejudiced can't judge people because they're idiots there's a lot of idiots out there we're all humans people forget that >


But doesn't otherwise well-intentioned people using a derogatory term that is clearly based on race and gender gives fuel to people who genuinely are bigoted? Why should 'they' re-examine how they think and communicate when 'we' are using slurs that we deem fit?

Have you ever seen older white people get disrespected for the first time when they're not used to it?  They had a lifetime to expect automatic respect in just about any social situation while giving none in return to those they feel are "lesser".  They've had decades to use whatever slurs they want without consequences.
"Karen" and "Boomer" aren't even that bad, but to some of these people, it's the end of the world.  A woman who, throughout her life, has looked down on minorities and treated them as subhuman.. gasping in utter disbelief as they're finally being called out for their bad behavior.  It's deserved.  Karen is about their behavior, not their race or gender.
Until they treat others the way they want to be treated, there will be no "less prejudiced society".  And they won't do that until they've learned that they get no special protection from criticism anymore. >

Eh... I see what you're driving at, but the societies in which "Karen" originated are societies in which most people are white; one of the neat things about being the normative group is that your skin color is generally not the defining characteristic of your stereotypes, since it's not a useful way of narrowing down who to apply the stereotype to.
If 4 / 5 people you meet are "white", it's not terribly useful to be like, "Hey, you know Susan from Accounting? The uh, you know ... the white lady?"
"Whiteness" isn't required to be a Karen, and I've seen lots of folks being called "Karens" who are not white. The fact that the stereotype is of a white woman is because its not a racial stereotype. >

Being called a Karen implies authority. It’s usually used to describe someone who is being rude to service workers, they have all the power in their interaction. Therefore insulting Karens is unproblematic. Calling rich people who are being dicks “fat cats” might be rude but it’s silly to act like it’s a problem. >

Karen is not inherently based on race. But the reality is, other races are often less likely to want to cause a scene adding to an existing negative racial stereotype. "Angry Black Woman" is already a stereotype Black women have to deal with, so a "Black Karen" has already been a drastically stronger and directly racist stereotype long before the label "Karen" even started.
So Karen being associated with being "White Woman" is a product of fear of other races wanting to cause a scene or already having the stereotype put on them some another way.
This all aside, lets say it is a racial prejudiced frankly is there any level of similarities to even warrant it being in the same discussions as others? Can you really say with a straight face it currently or has the potential to be in the same category of prejudice as the others? >

That is an interesting point. And to be honest, it is entirely possible that white women are statistically more likely to engage in such behaviours. But I still don't think it is a helpful term. 

This all aside, lets say it is a racial prejudiced frankly is there any level of similarities to even warrant it being in the same discussions as others? Can you really say with a straight face it currently or has the potential to be in the same category of prejudice as the others?

I feel I was very clear that this term is not comparable to other prejudicial slurs. >

The point is the term or it’s use is not attached to race. The N word was created to target black people. Karen was not created to target white women. 
And you clearly think it is comparable enough to bring it up in the same discussion and worth the same treatment of being shunned as these other words. The fact that you give it a slur label shows you see it as such. 
If you didn’t think it was comparable we wouldn’t be having this discussion about why other words  are shunned but Karen isn’t? >

For everyone to be claiming 'Karen' has no ties to race is just either ignorant or being deceiving. 
Karen as a term created by black ppl. It's to describe an entitled white person. 
Now, you can have your reservations about that, but it doesn't change what a Karen is or who it's meant to describe. 
Is it counter productive? Maybe. But nothing much has changed when it comes to the differences in how situations are handled differently for black ppl, specifically black women, to that of white women. >

Is it? >

Why do you want your view changed on this issue?  Do you feel like you're missing out by not calling women Karens? >

Sorry, u/thewanderingsail – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: 

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.  

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.  
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. >

shame is efficacious >

True >

I don't like that term >

It's not based on race or gender. If somebody calls you a "Karen", it doesn't mean they hate white people and women, it probably means they think you're acting prissy. It's a name for a certain type of person, like a Chad or a Becky. Honestly, this is a pretty Karen argument. Reaching to make a slang word sound like it's a slur-lite, making a huge deal out of it. If you're doing something prissy and someone calls you a Karen for it and that makes you absolutely lose your mind, that would make you a Karen. >

I would love to hear your definition of ‘prejudice’ because in my personal use of the word I can’t see how being called a Karen is prejudice and if you do I would argue that not all prejudice is necessarily bad. 
If we want a nicer and better society, Karen’s are part of the problem. Whether or not the right way to deal with these people or make them change their ways is to call them Karen is certainly up for debate, but calling a rude person a mean name is certainly not prejudice. Would you also consider it prejudice if I called someone a dick? >


Whether or not the right way to deal with these people or make them change their ways is to call them Karen is certainly up for debate

This is the core of my argument: that this is a counter-productive thing to do. 

I would love to hear your definition of ‘prejudice’ 

Perhaps I should have clarified: I mean prejudiced on the basis of person's identity. So broadly I would not consider calling someone a 'dick' to be prejudiced. I would consider calling someone a 'f-slur'. >

I think you’re misconstruing a slur, something that is used blindly as an act of prejudice against a person for their identity, with what I would more consider an insult, a reaction to someone’s actions that may or may not coincide with their identities. 
People aren’t called Karen’s because they are white women they are called it because of the actions they take. Similarly I wouldn’t call a man a dick because he is a man, but because of the actions he took and he happens to be a man. I don’t see how under your argument dick wouldn’t be considered just as offensive as Karen, since it’s an insult exclusively leveled at one identity group, you could even go as far to say it’s sexist. >

The difference between a slur and an insult is an interesting one. Not to nitpick, but I'm not entirely sure I agree with your distinction.
Of course someties a slur may be used blindly, based purely on the target's identity. But a person is more likely to use a slur if the target has acted in some way the slur-user disapproves of (not to defend it, obviously).
I'll admit it does muddy the waters, that 'Karen' is used to describe both a person's identity and their behaviour. 
Your point about calling a man a 'dick' is well taken. Any person who is behaving in a genuinely entitled and rude way doesn't really have the right to become offended if people call them a term they don't like as a result.
My issue with the term 'Karen' is not really that it may cause offense. My issue is that it is counter-productive to a less prejudiced society. I don't want to overstate the point: the use of this term is not a catastrophe for a fairer culture, but it is (imo) patently counter-productive.
Thinking thought this question hasn't quite changed my mind, but you have helped me clarify my position, so thanks: Δ. >


I'll admit it does muddy the waters, that 'Karen' is used to describe both a person's identity and their behaviour.

I don't think Karen is an identity, it's a signifier of behaviour. I've never seen any rallies for Karen rights, or any Karen pride events. Being a Karen isn't about who you are, it's about what you do, it's acting entitled and pushy.