Posts
Women--and men--have been behaving like this, since the beginning of time. In olden days, a woman acting like this was simply labeled a "bitch." Now, all of a sudden she is called a "Karen."
Why that name? It is perfectly nice and respectable. Was the first woman to be coined such actually named Karen? I feel sorry for those who are. Because some of them are nice, and polite, and have nothing to do with the obnoxiousness of the others.
And how come men don't have a name? Well, I can supply an easy one--a Bubba. There are as many as those as Karens, believe me.
To the rude Karens, I say choose another name. Something obscure. To those actually named Karen, you have my sympathy, and wait for the aforementioned change.
Heaven help the public service workers, who have to deal with these!
4 comments:
Exactly! What was wrong with the B word!!
You're misreading the gist of the "Karen" crap, RQ: it has nothing to do with obnoxious entitled women per se. It came about on Twitter (as most everything noxious these days does) as a method of shutting down and canceling any and all legitimate objections from white women in Brooklyn regarding antisocial or disturbing behavior from any non-white persons. Mothers upset by homeless schizos peeing in the schoolyard or threatening their kids, strange cars parked on their street blasting vulgar music at 2am, obvious gang activity in front of the Key Food: that sort of thing.
The indiscriminate "woke" crowd now views any desire to live in a civilized society based on mutual courtesy, consideration and social norms as "toxic racism" that must be expunged at all costs. So the "Karen" meme quickly evolved from mocking truly obnoxious entitled white incidents into a weapon to silence people from any sort of legitimate social grievance. The most controversial example being the incident in Central Park with the woman and her unleashed dog: without evaluating nuances in the situation, she was immediately slagged worldwide as a "racist" and her life destroyed by the Twitterverse.
This despite the fact the supposed victim of her "racism" has sheepishly admitted he acted like an asshole, and if he had behaved the same way toward a black or Latina woman she very likely would have made the same 911 call (or better yet bashed his head in with the nearest rock). He approached her suddenly in an isolated area, badgered her incessantly over her harmless dog being unleashed because "birds", and when the startled woman did not comply immediately got closer and threatened to lure her dog away from her with treats he carried "just for that purpose".
In the heat of the moment she panicked and called 911, hoping that would drive him away, but instead of course he took video and streamed it, knowing full well the mob would punish her. The whole narrative turns on her describing him as "an African American male" to 911. Well, how the hell else should she describe him? As a Martian? Or how about more accurately as a preening, smug, self-infatuated tool who thinks being an educated gay black queen entitles him to harass stressed-out people in the middle of a pandemic for the high crime of letting their dog romp off the leash in a vast unpopulated field for five minutes, because "birds"?
Had he tried that shit on Taraji P. Henson, she would have punched his teeth out, but since his target was a white woman she became a "Karen" pariah. Not that I'm defending the dog owner: she knew it was technically wrong to have the dog unleashed, and could have avoided the whole mess by just immediately leashing the dog and continuing on her merry way after being confronted about it (by him or anyone else). She over-reacted, to be sure, but he absolutely goaded her into doing exactly what she did by not dropping the matter and pulling that stunt with the ominous threat to lure her dog with "treats".
How the hell was she to know if he was a kindly birdwatcher offering harmless treats, or (far more likely) the more typical obsessed psycho New Yorker who's so consumed with the idea every unleashed dog will wipe out the bird population in Central Park that he carries poisoned treats to punish non-compliant dog owners?
And people still jeer and wonder and get angry that she was pulling the dog so close to her she almost strangled it? What the hell else was she supposed to do? It was desperately try to go to him and eat the treats! Which might have injured or killed him! All because that frustrated queen couldn't find something better to do in the friggin Rambles: how empty and sterile must you be as a gay man that your primary thought in the Rambles (the Rambles!) is to police people walking their dogs because- "birds"?
Even Dickens would have trouble believing the world today.
Victoria,
Indeed! The "b' word is just fine!
My Dear,
Indeed, what would Dickens have thought?
Had he written novels about this time, what
might they have been like?
Still, I did not realize the guy was gay,
or that both were in the area known as the
Rambles. Hard as this may be to believe,
I was never there, during "the day." Is
the Rambles still the Rambles? Because
if so, that guy may have been looking for
"birds," but not the flying kind. As
for Amy Cooper and her poor dog--whom I
have the most sympathy--did she know what
the area was (if so, why not go to another
are?) or, as I asked before is the Rambles
still what it used to be? Even at night?
And, of course, the ultimate question is,
both of them, at any time, could have just
walked away? Why didn't they?
Post a Comment