I understand the connections you are making, but I see many, many more depictions of Karen as a generally entitled white woman. Though this often seems connected to class privilege, it is also an expression of the racial privilege that white women have relative to all women of color regardless of class/economics.
Historically, I note that the term ‘Karen’ came after ‘Becky;’ I perceive Karen as a fine-tuning of ‘Becky,’ who is often younger and more naive. That is, a way to distinguish a younger white woman from an older one.
The term ‘angry’ female attaches to black women more readily than others, even though their anger is often justifiable, and to some extent to other POC’s; for example, Middle Easterners may be ‘angry’ while Far Easterners may be ‘model, good’ minorities, etc. Regardless, against a larger canvas, white women are typically not cast as the angry ones, WOC’s are.
I can appreciate that all women are denigrated, to some extent, in a ‘down girl’ fashion which supports the status quo of the patriarchy. But it is not entirely accurate to blur the distinction between white women and women of color; there is a significant distinction in the privileging of whiteness that gives white women — and only white women, of all women — a privilege that simultaneously damages WOC through the binary of white supremacy that still exists. This must be acknowledged in order to address ALL issues of identity correctly. A quick perusal of the internet indicates there are many white Karens and only very infrequent ones of color. This is likely because onerous stereotypes about WOC’s have always existed and are simply considered ‘normal,’ while stereotypes of white women are relatively new.
Regardless, yes, women are cast as angry in order to control us. BUT, WOC are also subject to onerous racial and ethnic stereotypes that make an equivalence between white women and WOC inaccurate, at least in this (important) regard.