For people who pretend "to be inclusive" and all that type of rhetoric it's really funny how they would go with such a misogynistic slur as absolutely acceptable and encouraged.

You see it in action too, how people substitute having arguments for simply calling people some label.

After a while you realize that most people online and offline tend to be very authoritarian and love witch hunting/piling on others. So any type of situation where they can other and freely attack someone they'll take it.

But yeah, don't like "karen" at all. Call them whatever they are, e.g.: "this woman went and was rude and entitled and did X". Also, demanding good service or a manager might be perfectly acceptable done in a polite manner. Consumer advocacy shouldn't be blanket attacked.

It basically means 'I hate white women' but that's ok because they are white

is Karen about whiteness? I assumed it was about being entitled.

Nobody says "black Karen" they just say "Karen", right?

And "Male Karen" is a thing, but we should probably use the words we mean instead of making up new words to say the same thing.

But that wouldn't be "cool".

>is Karen about whiteness? I assumed it was about being entitled.

Both

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_(slang)

After reading that: I am not a fan of how wikipedia calls Karen ageist, sexist & racist but the wikipedia page for mansplaining says that it's "one of the most creative new words in the last decade".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansplaining

To me these two terms are basically identical: Take a behaviour (Entitlement, Obnoxiousness) and genderise/racialise it.

It's stupid and divisive, but what I find is that right wing people are happy to use Karen and get mad about Mansplain, but left wing people are happy to use Mansplain but get mad at Karen.

Why is this?