Being a Karen (or Ken) has become a memé. One only needs to go to YouTube® and type in the name “Karen” to receive multiple results in which people are shown to be behaving not merely badly but also ignorantly and criminally. Unlike the memé above, Karens (and Kens) are found in more than one country. The name has come to symbolize the epitome of both ignorance and absolute entitlement. Karens will argue not just with the police but even with a judge because they are so convinced that their interpretation of their personal rights is the only possible correct interpretation.
To a Karen, others do not appear to have rights per sé. The classic report or video of a Karen is a person interfering with someone else because they are “protecting” either some principle or themselves. There are videos of Karens blocking delivery trucks and demanding identification, rather than calling law enforcement. There are videos of Karens using the rules of a community-owned swimming pool to attempt to force a racial minority family to produce evidence that they live there, rather than calling management. There are videos of Karens blocking entry to the owner of a condominium because they have not seen them there before, even when the owner shows them their key! Of course, there are the famous videos of Karens calling the police and screaming that they are being attacked, even though they know they are being videoed, which is proof that they are not being attacked.
But, the name has also come to symbolize one more trait. Karens are liars. Do your own research, in the newspapers, online, and in visual media such as YouTube®, Instagram®, Pinterest®, etc. One can read or see example after example of a Karen being caught doing one thing and lying to the police when they arrive. Or a Karen will fake an attack or an injury to try to press false charges on the actual victim. Or a Karen will try to justify their actions by claiming that the other person is the predominant aggressor. (For those interested, my State defines a predominant aggressor in the Alabama Code Title 13A under various sections of the Criminal Code.)
This type of behavior has caused extensive damage to the credibility of women who have been victimized. I am old enough to remember the battles for victim rights. When I was a young adult, it was still possible to destroy the reputation of a rape victim as a means of proving that she was “loose” and that, therefore, it was not rape. So the defendant would have several friends come in to testify that the victim had had sex with them as well, on prior occasions. The testimony was often accepted even though there was no proof, only the words of the friends. This was meant to show that the victim was willing to have sex with anyone and that therefore it could not be rape. That is, being a “loose” woman meant that you lost your right to say no. Often how a woman dressed could be submitted to the court as evidence that the woman was advertising her desire for a sexual relationship. Or, that the woman should have known that dressing that way would be to attract rape.
One of the great victories of the last few decades has been the “no means no” movement. If a person says no to sexual activity, then the other person must legally stop. There are no excuses. There are no explanations. “No means no.” Another great victory was in the area of domestic abuse and domestic violence. But, a large part of that victory was based on the presumption that a victim is telling the truth much more often than not telling the truth. That is, when law enforcement is taking a report in a case of sexual abuse, sexual misbehavior, rape, domestic abuse, domestic violence, etc., they are to give a preponderance of belief to the testimony of the victim. The result of this approach has been an increased conviction rate against perpetrators.
The rise of the Karen (and the Ken) is sure to begin undermining that foundation if it has not already. Christians often talk about the loss of morality in this country, and that is absolutely correct. Also being lost is the common good. John Adams wrote that “government is instituted for the common good.” A Karen (or Ken) embodies both losses in a singular person. The Karen has no conception of the common good. What they believe to be true is truth itself. There is no self-doubt nor possibility that they may not be perceiving a situation correctly. They are the incarnation of the Judge of the Universe and of the negative qualities of pride and arrogance.
Yet these people who believe that their perception of events is the only possible and true perception also embody the opposite of Truth and sound Judgement. They embody the concept that the ends justify the means. Since they are correct, lying in order to uphold what is true is perfectly acceptable. While claiming that they are only telling the truth about the event that triggered them, they will openly lie either about the details or about the events that happened after their intervention. They are dangerous because they will speak in an utterly believable fashion to law enforcement while telling the most despicable of lies. As a side note, they are also some of the most self-deceived persons around, as one can read or see them being interviewed after the event only to see them being utterly surprised that the judgment came down against them and not against the person(s) they attacked. A Karen is in shock when they are fired or sentenced because they could not possibly have been wrong.
The Karen is a boon to a lawyer who is defending a defendant. It will become easier and easier to defend a defendant the longer Karens (and Kens) savage the belief that a victim should initially have the predominance of belief. In society itself, the Karen damages the bonds of the common good as good people become more hesitant to become involved with their neighbor in fear of a false accusation or simply in fear of the “neighbor-from-hell.” Those who have been claiming that women should not be believed will have their point supported. This will verify the viewpoint of many in law enforcement who have, for long, believed that in any interaction with a citizen the primary assumption should be that they are lying. This generates instant suspicion and regrettable results.
What should we do as Christians? Do what we should do. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” We were given the Spirit of the Lord through Our Lord Jesus Christ who asked us to continue his mission to the world. The problem of the Karen (and our society) will be solved from within not from without. But, the without often sets up the within. So we “preach the gospel” and we “heal … proclaim … recovery … set at liberty.” We do both the inside and the outside. There is no such thing as the Gospel and the Social Gospel. There is only the Gospel which includes both proclamation and practical ministry. The Desert Fathers often remind us that the practical ministry includes our personal behavior and how we treat others. The Karen can only be overcome by the Desert Father within us.
Leave a Reply