In Defense of Karen(s)

My wife's name is Karen.  She's a lovely person.  She has the patience of Job, which many would say is an understatement considering her husband.  She's social, personable, inclusive, kind, thoughtful and every other good thing a person should be.  

As most people are aware, the name Karen has fallen into disrepute.  My wife bemoans her name, claiming it is antiquated.  I've always thought it was beautiful, especially compared to some truly antiquated names like Beulah, Lorna, Myrtle and Maude.  But it is now bandied about as a term to denote a woman who is a nuisance or, worse yet, a racist.  As one columnist (Karen Kirk) put it:

"Karen" has become a label for racist white women who call the police on innocent Black men, point guns at protesters, refuse to wear masks and generally behave outrageously. It has become a misogynistic stereotype of all the things that I am not and all of the negative qualities that I don't possess (except perhaps occasionally asking for the manager).

So woman are now branded with this name if they don't measure up to another person's expectation of how a woman should behave in a given situation.  The trouble with this usage isn't that the women in given situations don't deserve some sort of criticism, because they do.  The trouble is that by using my wife's name, my wife indirectly is besmirched as possessing the name of a vile person.  That's unfair.

What also bothers me is that this use was coined by blacks for white women who did things that, according to the blacks, were racists to varying degrees.  Its usage has expanded to include misbehaviors that are not racist in the least bit.  Conduct that is rude, or stupid, or selfish, or loud, or obnoxious, or socially inept -- the woman exhibiting such behavior is labeled as Karen.

My wife, when giving her name, now says "My name is Karen -- one of the good ones."  Fifteen seconds after meeting my wife is enough to know she doesn't live down to the stereotype.  Yet the unfair taint that attaches to my wife by virtue of her name as applied to other women who misbehave is inescapable. 

One miscreant named Gary even thought it was funny.  The really ironic part of this is that this moron took a post off Karen's FB page that was critical of a Christian singer who was making fun of Karen's in a song.  Karen lamented that a Christian would choose to use this for comedy and not see the hurt it caused women carrying that name.  Gary, more interested in proving his comedic chops, took offense when Karen challenged him.  Had I been quicker, I would have proposed that we replace Dick with Gary, to give Dicks across the country a respite from hearing their names used as an epithet, hoping that Gary would gain traction so that he would know what it's like to be tarred by other people's misconduct.  The likelihood that my proposal would ever gain traction is miniscule, but I'd like to try it.

There are problems using this term.  What happens to black women named Karen?  Are they exempt from being similarly insulted?  Or what do we call black women who misbehave?  Shanequah?  Or is it racist to suggest that black women misbehave? (Given the number of videos showing black women getting violent in fast food restaurants, I would think any claims of racism are easily disproven).

It's time that use of Karen was given a rest.  There may very well be white women out there named Karen who are vile beings, but I'm sure there are just as many Marys, Sues, Kims and Brittanys that are at least as horrible.

Besides, I love my wife.   She doesn't deserve this.

(c) 2023  The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Reckoning for the MSM?

 For years, I've tried to determine how best the MSM would be forced to fess up and admit its bias.  It can't be sued, as there's no statute that would provide for a cause of action.  We can't shoot them, because then there would be no confession.  About the only thing that I could come up with was to use sodium thiopental, the so-called truth drug, and put them under oath to answer questions.  

As of now, however, there is no real way to get to the truth about the MSM and its Leftist leanings.

Over the course of the last few years, however, the MSM has been losing in the courts of law.  Of course, given the numerous settlements into which it's entered, it can claim that it didn't lose.  But if it were so confident of being vindicated at trial, especially given the standard of New York v. Sullivan, it would never have settled.

It began with Nicholas Sandman's settlement with the Washington Post of the defamation lawsuit he brought against the newspaper.  Although the terms of the settlement weren't disclosed, the fact that the paper chose not to go to trial is indicative of how it viewed the probable outcome.  On the heels of that settlement, Mr. Sandman then settled with CNN, again due to the likely outcome.  Even so, two titans of the MSM buckled when confronted by a teenager, because they defamed him.

After that, President Donald Trump took networks to task.  First, he humbled ABC to the tune of $15M, which will go toward his presidential library, along with an apology, for George Stephanopolous repeatedly referring to the verdict in favor of E. Jean Carroll for sexual harrassment.  Stephanopolous continually referred to Mr. Trump as having raped Carroll, when the jury specifically found he had not done that.

On the heels of that, Meta settled with Mr. Trump for $25M for suspending his account.  Not to be outdone, X settled with Mr. Trump for $10M for the same reason.

At almost the same time, NBC settled with Dr. Mahendra Amin for falsely reporting that he had performed dozens of unwanted and unnecessary hysterectomies on illegal aliens.  The trial court had all but decided the case on a motion for summary judgment and ruled that the reports were verifiably false.

One case that did go to trial involved the defamation lawsuit brought by veteran Zachary Young against CNN.  Discovery provided damning emails and correspondence, not to mention horrendous deposition testimony.  At trial, the CNN witnesses were unrepentant.  The jury found in favor of Mr. Young, awarding him $5M, but also advising the court that he was entitled to punitive damages.  Seeing the writing on the wall, CNN settled before the punitive damages phase began.  Experts have reckoned that punitive damages could have exceeded $100M.

Perhaps chastened by Mr. Young's victory, certain of these other lawsuits were settled in short order.

One would think that the MSM had gotten the message and would change its wiley ways, but if the behavior of the CNN witnesses in the Young case is any indication, that's hardly likely.  In fact, certain producers involved in that case were later promoted.  As long as advertisers are willing to spend money with these outlets, nothing is going to change.

But if nothing else, shots have been fired.

All that remains is for the Supreme Court to tweak the Sullivan standards.  If that happens, perhaps there will be real change.

(c) 2025 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles