So offensive was “Jack”, in fact, that those in polite 18th-century society euphemised “jackass” to “Johnny-Bum”.Īnd, just as “John Doe” has his “Jane”, so too does “Jack” have his “Jill”, as in “Jack and Jill” - a couple whose common names made them useful to a famous story about a drink-run gone bad. In fact, extended uses of Jack have produced well over a hundred different words and phrases, ranging from the slightly disparaging to the wildly offensive (we’re hard-pressed to think of a tabooed bodily function and secretion that doesn’t have an expression featuring “ jack)”). “Jack” is a familiar alternative for John, so it’s probably not surprising to see it being used (since the late middle ages) in a similar everyman (“manual labourer”, “lumberjack”) or derogative sense (“jackanapes” for a “person displaying ape-like qualities”).
Public” (for everyday citizen), “Johnnie Raw” (for a new military recruit), or “John-of-all-trades”, among many, many others.īut we’re likely more familiar with a “Jack-of-all-trades”, which points to another common phenomenon: a proliferation of naming alliteration around “j” names.
Indeed, the sheer number of Johns in English history means this name’s most prominent purpose is to “erase” or “anonymise” - in other words, to reduce its referent to an “everyman”, as in “John Q. Karen appeared on the most common names lists in the late 1960s but is no competition for “John”, which has been among the English-speaking world’s most common names since the 13th century.Īnd “John” and “Johnny” have been pressed into service for a range of meanings in English, including “the client of a prostitute”, “someone easily duped”, “a sailor”, “an immigrant”, “a vacuous aristocrat”, “penis”, “hospital gown” and “an onion seller from Brittany”. Karen joins those whose names have been swept into society due to sheer number. And often there’s verbal play involved, as in the end-clipped rhyming slang “Miley (Cyrus)” for “coronavirus” or “jeffed” and “jeffing” (famously from “Jeff Kennett”, but echoing many an effective cussword).Īnd then there’s frequency. Media, politics and celebrity are obviously important (“Melba”, “Bradman” and poor old “drongo”). Whether, when and how people (or animals!) enter this club depends on a range of factors. That said, it’s worth sympathising with people named Karen, who have entered a sometimes less-than-illustrious club of people hard done by in the English language, unkindly “joed” and “joshed”, often for centuries. And, to loosely paraphrase the Claytons faux whisky ad, Karen debates are the debates you’re having when you should be debating privilege.
Karen then joins a series of labels like “Miss Ann”, “Mr Charlie” and “Becky” to call out obnoxious behaviour and privilege.
A viral video led to the spread of the catch-phrase: “It’s too strong for you, Karen.” Famously, last year an actual person named “ Karen” did a Karen by trying to take down a neighbour’s Indigenous flag. Of course, these issues have long existed in Australia, too. Some Black writers noted a surge in Miss Ann-like behaviour around the time of Donald Trump’s election. Many Black Americans have framed this behaviour in terms of a “Miss Ann” social type, historically linked to the white women of slave plantations. Importantly, the sort of entitled (and often racist) behaviour “Karen” is being used to call out existed long before the term.