I want to take a moment to thank the person who chose the name "Karen" -- and not mine -- to represent the stereotypical privileged white woman of a certain age.
Yes, I feel badly for the thousands of Karens out there, who must, every day, face down the stigma, magnified by the relentless memes, of Karen behaving badly. "Karen" shouting that she will not wear a mask. "Karen" standing outside her home, threatening peaceful folks of color with a rifle. "Karen" complaining she didn't want onions on her Big Mac but got them anyhow.
There but for the grace of God, etc.
In the year of my birth, "Karen" was ranked as the #4 most popular girl's name, preceded by Mary, Susan and Linda. My name took the #11 spot.
I do believe, if we find it necessary to give a name to a woman who behaves badly, why don't we have a male counterpart? It may be because, if you look at boys' names from the same period, they are still in vogue today. During the Karen era, the most popular names were Michael, David, James, John and Robert, all of which are still used today.
In fact, going down the Top 30 list of boys' names, none jumped out as being dated. Which brings up another question. Why are boys' names timeless, while girls' names can often be pegged by generation?
Jennifer, Amanda, Jessica, Melissa and Sarah topped the list for 1980.
In 1990, the top 5 were Jessica, Ashley, Brittany, Amanda and Samantha.
Fast forwarding to 2000, we have Emily, Hannah, Madison, Ashley and Sarah.
2019: Emma, Ava, Olivia, Isabella and Amelia.
I will grant you that boys' names have become more diverse over the last 20 years. While William, James and Benjamin still made the Top 10 in 2019, ranking high on the list were Liam, Noah and Logan.
Still, I wasn't able to find a boys' name that is unique to my era.
If we have a "Karen" we should have the male counterpart to represent the white guy of privilege.
Maybe "Donald" would work.
I'm open for suggestions.
No comments:
Post a Comment