Dictatorial feminism. Credit: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty

The evolution of middle-aged white women into fearsome spectres of villainy has been just over a year in the making. It started in Central Park last May, when a woman named Amy Cooper was filmed making a 911 call in which she claimed that a black man was threatening her life. This 40-second video hit the internet at almost exactly the same time as another one — the one capturing the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
These two incidents were connected by neither geography, subject matter, or substance; the first was a tense but ultimately toothless conflict between two neurotic New Yorkers in which nobody got hurt, while the second captured not just a horrific tragedy but a gross abuse of police power. It didn’t matter: within hours, the two viral moments had fused in the public consciousness to create a monster, literally. She was a boogeyman spawned on social media, one we loathed and feared in equal measure.
And because we live in the age of movies spawned by memes, she’s coming soon to a cinema near you. A bedraggled and atrociously-hairstyled Taryn Manning will be playing a villainous white woman who antagonises the sweet and blameless black family who’s just moved in down the street. She’s the embodiment of all evil, the manager-calling bigot next door, the proud owner of a soap dispenser emblazoned with the confederate flag. Her name, of course — and the movie’s — is Karen.
You don’t have to see Karen (and based on the trailer, it looks like a pile of hot garbage) to know how it will end: the villainess will come to a brutally but suitably violent end, and we’ll all learn an important, even life-changing lesson about embracing diversity and equity — lest one end up disemboweled by a wine opener.
Manning herself believes that Karen will pack a powerful, even global punch: “I felt a social responsibility to take on this role,” she told Deadline. “Even if I had to play the villain to effect change around the globe, then I was more than willing to step into the role… It’s time for change, and for me to be a part of the bigger picture meant a lot to me.”
Alas, Hollywood has but one “Karen” to cast. But for white women who yearn to effect change by embracing their own inner villain, two new books offer a way forward. Nova Reid’s The Good Ally and Rafia Zakaria’s Against White Feminism, both published this month, invite white women everywhere into a new, exciting role: that of the bad guy.
“I felt like I was being eaten alive by a pack of wolves,” Reid writes early on in her book. But the feeding frenzy she describes isn’t a brutal, racist attack; it’s how she felt after George Floyd’s murder in 2020, fielding calls and emails from people who wanted to hire her as a diversity consultant. The tragedy in Minneapolis triggered an international wave of reckoning, and being recognised as an expert in her field, people turned to Reid for help. And those wolves? White women. Entitled, hungry, snarling.
The white feminist antagonist, inflicting countless harms in her desperation to do good appears in both Reid and Zakaria’s books — but it’s in Against White Feminism that the critique is sharpened to a point. Not that readers should feel attacked, mind you — “White women must not feel that the critique of whiteness within feminism is some crude intimidation tactic meant to silence them altogether,” Zakaria writes, even as she insists on the importance of denouncing “those who cling to exclusionary histories, stories, and forms”. (So, you may be denounced, but don’t let it intimidate you.) Reid, meanwhile, assures her reader: “Any discomfort you feel is temporary and pales in comparison to what Black people and People of Colour often have to experience on a daily basis.”
In reading these books, Reid and Zakaria become an omniscient authority, one who has never met you but knows you better than you know yourself. Zakaria explains that people of colour understand white women fluently, as a matter of necessity: this is the natural outgrowth of “the need to survive in a white-run world”. In practice, this means that Zakaria spends much of the book ascribing intent and motive to the behaviours of various white women; needless to say, her interpretation is not flattering.
White women’s reactions — or in some cases, what Zakaria imagines those reactions might be — are presented in turn as expressions of fragility, of defensiveness, of grasping hunger for power. For instance, Zakaria was married young to an abusive husband, a terrible situation from which she ultimately fled. But when the opportunity comes to tell this story to a group of friends, she assumes that this is beyond the scope of any white woman’s experience. In fact, she doesn’t tell the story at all, lest the other women “demote me mentally below the women who do the real work of feminism”.
“I know that my companions’ world is split into women of colour who have ‘stories’ to tell, and white women who have power and an inherently feminist outlook,” she writes. Remarkably, she’s so certain of this she never actually tests her hypothesis; instead she tells a shortened version of her life story and then quietly resents her friends for the rest of the night, first for their imagined lack of empathy, and then for failing to notice when she pays more than her fair share of the bill. (Zakaria, unlike her “prettily dressed, slightly soused, fashionably woke” companions, had refrained from drinking — a decision for which she also imagines she’s being judged.)
Zakaria is deeply suspicious of white women, perhaps reasonably so, but it’s hard to separate her historical analysis of white feminism from the grudges that animate the book’s more personal sections. Her anecdotes often include snide observations about other women’s physical appearances; Zakaria is antagonised by a “smug white professor” seen “duly sporting the scarves and baubles of the well-travelled,” or a “willowy blonde” with her hair in braids. And while she assures us that white women need not feel attacked, this may prove difficult even for the most open-minded reader; the words “white women” appear in Zakaria’s book 161 times (the book is 245 pages long.)
Sometimes, the entire case for this or that thing being fundamentally “white feminist” seems to rest on the presence of an individual white woman somewhere in the equation. One chapter, titled “White Feminists and Feminist Wars,” seeks to frame the War on Terror as a white feminist exercise primarily through the lens of Zero Dark Thirty, the movie about the killing of Osama Bin Laden, and its female CIA agent, Maya, who was instrumental in the operation’s success.
Here, too, Zakaria’s personal experience ends up dominating the narrative. She dwells at length on the screening she attended of Zero Dark Thirty at a movie theater in Indiana, where the crowd “repeatedly cheered” at the sight of “a brown man being waterboarded”, then gave the movie a standing ovation while Zakaria wept despondently in her seat. (Sidenote: I know the notion of a bunch of red-state yokels cheering for torture scenes before leaping to its feet to applaud the end of Zero Dark Thirty — in fact a pretty meditative work that in no way glamorises or glosses over the horrors of the operation that killed Osama Bin Laden — may hew believably to certain ugly stereotypes about the American midwest, but if you’ve ever actually seen a movie in the US, this scene is so out of keeping with how audiences usually behave that it’s hard to believe it’s entirely factual.)
Amid this myopic focus on a fictional CIA agent and a handful of real-life female soldiers, one could almost forget that the American war on terror was enacted, strategised and fought almost exclusively by men. And indeed, overlooking the role of men in lieu of vilifying white women is a recurrent theme in Against White Feminism. In one chapter, Zakaria blames “self-declared feminists” after an article she wrote for Dissent magazine is met with an Islamophobic response — even though the ugly backlash was apparently fuelled by a male editor.
In another, she recounts showing up to an event that was billed to her as a speaking engagement, but turned out, humiliatingly, to be a sort of global bazaar at which she was supposed to man a table of Pakistani handicrafts. Zakaria was urged to attend by two friends, both men, who evidently misinformed her about the nature of the event — but rather than blame them, her contempt falls squarely on the women in attendance. She rages at the organisers, at the white women drinking wine and buying crafts, and particularly at the “Black and brown women doing the bidding of my handler and others of her kind”.
Zakaria is at her strongest when she zooms out to a systemic distance, such as critiquing misguided efforts to support women overseas, where a lack of cultural literacy led to interventions that were more intrusive than useful. But even as Zakaria reasonably criticises various movements for “imposing the goals of white, Western feminists upon women who were neither white nor Western and did not necessarily share their concerns”, the bad actors at fault were massive organisations: the UN Global Alliance for Clean Stoves in one case, the Gates Foundation in another.
And in some cases, her anger at the “dictatorial feminism” practised by these would-be do-gooders is oddly reminiscent of the right-wing critiques that have lately proliferated surrounding the failed American operation in Afghanistan: both Zakaria and Tucker Carlson have similar things to say about the usefulness of neoliberalism in a nation ruled by tribal politics and religion, and its attempted imposition of Western gender roles on Afghan women. At any rate, it’s hard to see what the individual white women who make up her readership are meant to do with this information.
So, where does this leave Karen?
Out of commission, probably. If she reads Against White Feminism, she’ll be too busy wallowing neck-deep in self-flagellating guilt to get busy making a difference, or indeed even have the faintest idea how she’d begin to do so. If she takes the advice of The Good Ally, she’ll be journaling through her awokening with the evangelical zeal of the alcoholic trying to white-knuckle his way through the early days of sobriety (“The magnetic undercurrent of white supremacy is a force to be reckoned with and will tempt you to go back to your comfort zone when it gets too hard,” Reid warns.) Neither book offers concrete solutions; indeed, one gets the impression that asking for them would be just another expression of white feminist entitlement.
But that’s fine. Readers don’t buy these books because they want to be efficient activists. They buy them to marinate in the vision they sell — because while white feminism probably isn’t to blame for every last one of the world’s ills, there’s a particular breed of guilty white liberal woman quite eager to believe it is. Maybe it’s because, if you look at it just right, it suggests a victory of sorts: that feminism has moved beyond mere empowerment and into the realm of actual power, that some women have shed the mantle of victims to become formidable villains in their own right. After all, women can’t ever be truly equal to men until we’ve not only achieved power, but abused it, using it to crush those beneath us. Orwell once said that “if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.”
These books take that picture to the next level: imagine the exhilarating power of having your own dainty foot inside the boot.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeYou’ve got my vote, Niall but a quarter of the current price would be ok. My mother lived in the North of England. Very good train service (3 hours for 250+ miles)and for one person it makes financial sense to go by train but 2+ makes it a luxury. Alternative is a minimum 5 hour hellish motorway drive with all the inevitable hold ups. Pricing of railway journeys is farcical. Freeing up a bit of our horrendously clogged road network by a encouraging sensibly priced rail travel makes a lot of sense.
Like the NHS free at the point of delivery the Railways would develop a vast and expensive bureaucracy and service would be rationed and scarce.
I rember in my youth returning north by train from Bari in Italy where the carriage was so jammed with people that the toilet was full of cases and those wishing to use it had to be handed over the head of the crowds in the corridor and use the toilet with the door open as there was no room to move the cases. The journey was cheap but not one to be repeated.
Of course, health and safety would prevent this occurring today, instead you wouldn’t be able to travel when you wanted to unless you booked well in advance just as you have to book a GP appointment well ahead of need now.
Oh dear, we can’t have those plebs filling up the trains now, can we.
Have 1st class paying carriages: problem solved.
I’ve been on trains like that back in the 1980s.
These days in Europe you are far more likely to find a fast, comfortable, efficient, and reasonably priced rail network – outside the UK of course.
My experience was in the 1960s but even then I remember boarding an Italian express train in error whose level of comfort was superior to anything then available in England. Unfortunately, the extra cost of travel on this train was so high that as an impoverished student I had to make my excuses and exit at the next station.
Make travel to work a full tax break item.. that provide an immediate telief to the most affected..
Sounds like my one from Rome to Brindisi.
I’m always a bit dubious about “we should learn from (X policy n foreign country that’s only just been announced)”.
Germany has had a cut-price €9 (or something) special for most of the summer and trains have been mobbed, standing-room only. Not much scope for starting new novels, or love affairs, unless involuntary frottage counts.
I had a really wonderful experience of that kind in a London tube once: I had to apologise ..twice!
To my surprise she was AOK with the experience herself! Ah happy days: pre woke, pre me too etc..
As you type she was probably down the local nick filing a complaint
In the early 1980s the railway network had special offers on a few weekends when you could travel anywhere for a pound. I remember walking up the road to Brighton Station on morning and the crowds arriving and leaving looked like extras in a film fleeing a war.
The last time I traveled by train in the UK – almost five years ago – it was so crowded that one poor girl fainted. And that was in December. It must be even worse in the summer.
Not the FB of Quislington fame?
Yes. I tried to subscribe today. No payment channels were offered to me but I am now allowed to comment again, which is all rather strange.
Funnily enough a new client of mine revealed that he loves Unherd and has an office in the same building. As such he often sees Freddy and co coming and going.
He lives!
Perhaps not for long. Entered debit card details but they sent something to my phone containing a link, and my phone is an old and battered Nokia. I do not have a ‘connected’ smartphone. If only I could just send a cheque!
I to have “an old battered Nokia “, perhaps these are the last two on the Planet?
I affectionately refer to mine as the ‘Nag’ phone.
While I’m here, can I be the first to point out that one rather wishes the Germans had thought of rationing gas 80 years go. Talk about a day late and a dollar short…
The fact the passengers don’t pay does not make train travel free. It means the tax payers pay for it, or as the taxpayers can take no more strain, they forego something to give a minority free travel by train.
In other words, it is a totally daft idea. Those who travel should and must pay. There is a case for “free” health care and I suppose maybe for “free” education, but none for free trains. Free in every case to the users remember, not no cost.
If we can find a way to reduce the costs of running a railway system, then so much the better. The best would be to privatise it, but as history of the last ten years shows, Whitehall will slowly erode that!
It’s not free, it’s never free. It’s about who pays. The individual passenger using the service or the rest of us through our taxes. Before 2019 the rail industry already had an annual taxpayer subsidy of £5 billion. Thanks to Covid, season tickets have fallen by 75%, total annual ticket sales have dropped from £11 billion to £5.9 billion. Facetime, Teams, Zoom and Google Teams have made working from home a real alternative that business management now accept. Don’t use taxpayers cash to subsidise the railways, use it to upgrade the broadband network. The RMT can’t hold the Government to ransom today any more than the NUM could in the 1980s. Welcome to the 21st century.
I think it needs a proper discussion with numbers to come to an informed view. National Rail state that train companies make 2% profit and that the UK actually had faster growth in rail use than comparable European companies. Would we actually save all the money on the road network or would we need to spend it anyway etc etc.
Current exorbitant prices in the UK slash the earnings of commuting workers. I would like to read an analysis outlining the reasons for huge train fares. I like the cultural point this article made. I expect more people travelling by trains and less cars on the road would help the environment too.
The Heritage Site | Adam McDermont | Substack
Rather than provide free rail travel, it might be more useful to spend money on replacing diesel buses with electric ones, and invest in railway electrification. Electric buses should make our cities quieter and cleaner and be more likely to wean people out of their cars.
As for the railways, it would make sense to electrify certain key freight routes (such as Felixstowe to the Midlands). Although cars and small vehicles can run off batteries, it is much more problematical to do this with HGVs, especially those operating over long distances. Use electric freight trains to connect the ports with major conurbations and use HGVs for the last few miles.
Why do some people think that “free” = “civilized” despite the extensive evidence that usually “free” = “poor quality”.
If there’s a serious problem with English citizens not being able to afford train tickets, there are vastly better ways to solve this than making all the trains free and open to anyone.
The point is well made except of course that nothing is really free apart from air, rain and sunshine (although govts are probably working taxing those as well!)
And since all money eventually makes it’s way back to the govt in taxes of various kinds it’s a question if choice.
But do we want to choose ourselves who pays how much for what: or do we let the govt choose on our behalf is all that is in question when you boil it all down.
Free train travel is of little use if the unions are preventing the trains from running.
E periculoso sporgesi
The management of the Railways have been yet another great British fiasco.
The 1955 so called Modernisation Plan was a shambles, and the much reviled Dr Richard Beeching was given the unenviable task of saving what he could of the wreck.
Sadly his bold plan was never fully implemented, and thus many miles of almost worthless track are still maintained.*
The final solution, hit apron by that latter day genius John Major was ‘Privatisation’.
Needless to say it is a contradiction in terms, as it has meant enormous public subsidies to notional private companies,
the overall ‘bill’ far exceeding that previously paid to the ossified British Rail. Genius indeed!
(* For example do we really need a railway between Newcastle and Edinburgh? Beeching didn’t think so.)
(For example do we really need a railway between Newcastle and Edinburgh? Beeching didn’t think so.)
Er, yes (was that a trick question?)
Beeching II and Sir David Serpells 1982 Report recommended closing the ECML from Newcastle northwards.