X Close

Is Pearl Davis the female Andrew Tate?

Pearl Davis and Andrew Tate. Credit: Twitter

July 5, 2023 - 7:00am

In recent days, American women have been talking about Pearl Davis, a homely 26-year-old social media personality who has built an audience as a provocative anti-feminist voice. Davis, also known by her online moniker JustPearlyThings, promotes attention-grabbing “hot takes” such as the suggestion that women shouldn’t vote and that it’s their fault if men cheat on them. As of late, she has been branded the “female Andrew Tate”. 

The Internet is, as ever, flooded with armchair psychologists, eager to submit their diagnosis. Davis acts like this because she’s “busted”; she’s lonely; she’s a “pick-me” who is husband-shopping in the darkest corners of the web. Some have also speculated that she’s bitter after being dumped by “toxic ex” and TikTok micro-celebrity Oneya D’Amelio. Others think she’s deluded. Frankly, it’s more likely she just wants to be famous.

Whenever I write about women, particularly those with large audiences, who operate within the Online Right — a digital ecosystem that’s distinct from (but sometimes related to) mainstream Right-wing thought — someone invariably tells me to pick up Andrea Dworkin’s Right-Wing Women. In the book, Dworkin puts forth the theory that women gravitate towards the Right, which she believes is against our interests, as a form of protection from the brutality of men. Women conform to survive. It’s an interesting idea, even if not one with which I entirely agree. It’s also almost wholly irrelevant when considering social media.

The biggest mistake one can make when examining the big, flashy names online (Davis being one of them) is to assume their sincerity. The goal of these nominally “Right-wing” women isn’t to advocate for one set of values over another, or to bring back an environment they see as morally superior, but instead to distinguish themselves from their competitors. They are, first and foremost, entertainers who would otherwise be singing the praises of orthodox Marxism or second-wave feminism if it were expedient in the attention economy.

People who want an audience will make do with whatever tools they have at their disposal. A beautiful woman might sell her body on Instagram or TikTok, and a less conventionally attractive one may, instead, opt to sell her mind on a podcast or Twitter. If you’re a woman who wants to make a living on the Internet, though, your best bet is to enter male-dominated spaces and recapitulate male talking points, especially if these involve arguments most women would refuse to endorse.

Davis is a particularly egregious example, but so-called “tradthots” (a portmanteau of traditional and thot) and “pick-mes” have long been prevalent online. They typically achieve prominence under the guise of instructing women, all while claiming to be “one of the good women” who want to help amplify men’s grievances in a world of oppressive feminism. 

More often than not, though, these are just marketing ploys. Although they benefit from being validated by men, Davis and her ilk aren’t exactly champions for the male philosophies they’re microwaving either. Men, funnily enough, are mostly annoyed by these figures, female shit-stirrers who serve as rage bait for women and liberal men while building huge followings from the anger they inspire, as opposed to being instructive or validating for conservative audiences. 

Of course, there are women who sincerely shine a light on men’s issues, but they’re not the ones with hundreds of thousands of YouTube subscribers. There are also plenty of women who want to advocate for more traditional lifestyles, but they are usually married mothers who offer a mix of practical advice and a positive vision of what that lifestyle might look like. Put simply, they don’t tend to be romantically unattached social media girlbosses.

But then the actual trads aren’t the ones duking it out on podcasts with audiences stretching into the millions, evangelising about why women should be denied the franchise. It turns out that living these values, fortunately or unfortunately, looks very different to being an online firebrand.


Katherine Dee is a writer. To read more of her work, visit defaultfriend.substack.com.

default_friend

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.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

25 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bronwen Saunders
Bronwen Saunders
10 months ago

“The biggest mistake one can make when examining the big, flashy names online (Davis being one of them) is to assume their sincerity. The goal of these nominally “Right-wing” women isn’t to advocate for one set of values over another, or to bring back an environment they see as morally superior, but instead to distinguish themselves from their competitors.”
The arrogance of this statement is truly breathtaking. Are we seriously to believe that only women with left-wing views can be sincere? That Pearl Davis, Candace Owens et al. volunteer to take part in deeply hostile panel discussions purely for sport? Is that the best defence their detractors can mount against them?
Meaningful discourse requires serious engagement with views you do not share. That in turn entails assuming – literally for the sake of argument – that your interlocutor is just as sincere and well-meaning as you are and addressing the opinions they actually espouse. 

Gorka Sillero
Gorka Sillero
10 months ago

“Are we seriously to believe that only women with left-wing views can be sincere? ”
The focus here is solely on Pearl Davis, and it becomes rather evident that she is merely a grifter who spouts various nonsensical statements in order to gain clicks and attention on YouTube.
I would recommend checking her interview on Triggernometry. Not only does she display a lack of depth and substance, but she also lacks any genuine understanding of political matters. Her actions are driven solely by the pursuit of amusement, rather than any solid ideological foundation.

Michael Walsh
Michael Walsh
10 months ago
Reply to  Gorka Sillero

Bad enough that those two cucks took cheap shots at her, but shortly after can be seen fervently kissing Piers Morgan’s @$$. Not a good look.

Michael Walsh
Michael Walsh
10 months ago
Reply to  Gorka Sillero

Bad enough that those two cucks took cheap shots at her, but shortly after can be seen fervently kissing Piers Morgan’s @$$. Not a good look.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
10 months ago

Calling another woman ‘homely’ is a strange thing for a feminist to do. Not that it should matter to the quality of her ideas – but she is a perfectly pleasant looking person. I am not here to defend all her views – but the reason she attracts followers is that she says things that many people know are true but have been conditioned not to say. So – for example – most men are unlikely to want to marry a women who they know has slept with a 100+ other men. Or who does porn on Only Fans. Or who dresses like a stripper. Young men flock to shows like Pearl’s because they are one of the few places they will hear from a woman that not every single thing they are, do, or say is toxic. I don’t think women have any idea how tedious the never ending drumbeat of feminist propaganda we are all subjected to can be for men.

Last edited 10 months ago by Peter Johnson
Gorka Sillero
Gorka Sillero
10 months ago

“Are we seriously to believe that only women with left-wing views can be sincere? ”
The focus here is solely on Pearl Davis, and it becomes rather evident that she is merely a grifter who spouts various nonsensical statements in order to gain clicks and attention on YouTube.
I would recommend checking her interview on Triggernometry. Not only does she display a lack of depth and substance, but she also lacks any genuine understanding of political matters. Her actions are driven solely by the pursuit of amusement, rather than any solid ideological foundation.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
10 months ago

Calling another woman ‘homely’ is a strange thing for a feminist to do. Not that it should matter to the quality of her ideas – but she is a perfectly pleasant looking person. I am not here to defend all her views – but the reason she attracts followers is that she says things that many people know are true but have been conditioned not to say. So – for example – most men are unlikely to want to marry a women who they know has slept with a 100+ other men. Or who does porn on Only Fans. Or who dresses like a stripper. Young men flock to shows like Pearl’s because they are one of the few places they will hear from a woman that not every single thing they are, do, or say is toxic. I don’t think women have any idea how tedious the never ending drumbeat of feminist propaganda we are all subjected to can be for men.

Last edited 10 months ago by Peter Johnson
Bronwen Saunders
Bronwen Saunders
10 months ago

“The biggest mistake one can make when examining the big, flashy names online (Davis being one of them) is to assume their sincerity. The goal of these nominally “Right-wing” women isn’t to advocate for one set of values over another, or to bring back an environment they see as morally superior, but instead to distinguish themselves from their competitors.”
The arrogance of this statement is truly breathtaking. Are we seriously to believe that only women with left-wing views can be sincere? That Pearl Davis, Candace Owens et al. volunteer to take part in deeply hostile panel discussions purely for sport? Is that the best defence their detractors can mount against them?
Meaningful discourse requires serious engagement with views you do not share. That in turn entails assuming – literally for the sake of argument – that your interlocutor is just as sincere and well-meaning as you are and addressing the opinions they actually espouse. 

William Shaw
William Shaw
10 months ago

What a nasty, mean spirited, hit piece.
Slurs and innuendo proffered as quotes in a cowardly manner.
A feminist writer denigrating another women for wrong-think.
Disgraceful.

William Shaw
William Shaw
10 months ago

What a nasty, mean spirited, hit piece.
Slurs and innuendo proffered as quotes in a cowardly manner.
A feminist writer denigrating another women for wrong-think.
Disgraceful.

Daniel P
Daniel P
10 months ago

BTW…..you had to go after her looks?

Bit catty that.

And…although she is not a stunning beauty, she is pretty.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
10 months ago
Reply to  Daniel P

Huh?

Sharon Overy
Sharon Overy
10 months ago

The very first sentence describes Pearl as ‘homely’. It’s American for plain or unattractive.

Last edited 10 months ago by Sharon Overy
Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
10 months ago
Reply to  Sharon Overy

I know, but she is homely. And she is certainly not pretty.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
10 months ago

And that frock. It is like she is playing a caricature.

Kat L
Kat L
10 months ago

No she’s not. She just doesn’t inject her face and pack on the makeup. She’s a natural and healthy looking young woman.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
10 months ago

And that frock. It is like she is playing a caricature.

Kat L
Kat L
10 months ago

No she’s not. She just doesn’t inject her face and pack on the makeup. She’s a natural and healthy looking young woman.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
10 months ago
Reply to  Sharon Overy

I know, but she is homely. And she is certainly not pretty.

Sharon Overy
Sharon Overy
10 months ago

The very first sentence describes Pearl as ‘homely’. It’s American for plain or unattractive.

Last edited 10 months ago by Sharon Overy
Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
10 months ago
Reply to  Daniel P

Huh?

Daniel P
Daniel P
10 months ago

BTW…..you had to go after her looks?

Bit catty that.

And…although she is not a stunning beauty, she is pretty.

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
10 months ago

I think her views are more sophisticated and better crafted to wind up liberals than the article describes. Some of the animus against her (as with another article about a different Youtube channel a few weeks ago) is motivated by the fact that she has mostly young people from diverse backgrounds giving honest and therefore sometimes “controversial” views such as men need to man up, women need to rediscover femininity, abortion is evil and divorce is a curse upon the children affected. Pearl mostly just acts as a mediator between guests and as a spark for new avenues of conversation.
The article is pretty fair although it doesn’t mention the comical controversies around her not practicing what she preaches. I wouldn’t argue that a “trad” shouldn’t have an online presence – it can’t be that the space is ceded to progressives with no alternative.

Last edited 10 months ago by Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
10 months ago

I think her views are more sophisticated and better crafted to wind up liberals than the article describes. Some of the animus against her (as with another article about a different Youtube channel a few weeks ago) is motivated by the fact that she has mostly young people from diverse backgrounds giving honest and therefore sometimes “controversial” views such as men need to man up, women need to rediscover femininity, abortion is evil and divorce is a curse upon the children affected. Pearl mostly just acts as a mediator between guests and as a spark for new avenues of conversation.
The article is pretty fair although it doesn’t mention the comical controversies around her not practicing what she preaches. I wouldn’t argue that a “trad” shouldn’t have an online presence – it can’t be that the space is ceded to progressives with no alternative.

Last edited 10 months ago by Milton Gibbon
Marko Bee
Marko Bee
10 months ago

“…. a homely 26-year-old social media personality…”

Really? REALLY?!? You start an article like that, and expect to be taken seriously?

REALLY??!?

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
10 months ago
Reply to  Marko Bee

Well I have never heard of this woman, but the picture posted looks like someone who is trying very hard to look 50s housewife homely.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
10 months ago
Reply to  Marko Bee

Well I have never heard of this woman, but the picture posted looks like someone who is trying very hard to look 50s housewife homely.

Marko Bee
Marko Bee
10 months ago

“…. a homely 26-year-old social media personality…”

Really? REALLY?!? You start an article like that, and expect to be taken seriously?

REALLY??!?

Daniel P
Daniel P
10 months ago

I dunno, I suppose she is as intentionally controversial as any other “influencer” trying to catch attention in a swamped market place.

That said, I have seen some of her TiKToks and some of her Youtube videos, she often makes a kind of sense.

The author here seems a bit…..agitated and reactionary.

Daniel P
Daniel P
10 months ago

I dunno, I suppose she is as intentionally controversial as any other “influencer” trying to catch attention in a swamped market place.

That said, I have seen some of her TiKToks and some of her Youtube videos, she often makes a kind of sense.

The author here seems a bit…..agitated and reactionary.

Bernard Hill
Bernard Hill
10 months ago

…but isn’t the traditional voting model just a device of the Patriarchy?

Bernard Hill
Bernard Hill
10 months ago

…but isn’t the traditional voting model just a device of the Patriarchy?

Daniel P
Daniel P
10 months ago

Seriously? This author and this drivel are in the same place as Kathleen Stock?

Daniel P
Daniel P
10 months ago

Seriously? This author and this drivel are in the same place as Kathleen Stock?

Mike Smith
Mike Smith
10 months ago

Anyone who winds up feminists is on the right track even if it might be just a way of grifting. I saw her on a YouTube video in an interview with a well know feminist journalist and the feminist lost due to her inability to stand up to basic points of logic.

Mike Smith
Mike Smith
10 months ago

Anyone who winds up feminists is on the right track even if it might be just a way of grifting. I saw her on a YouTube video in an interview with a well know feminist journalist and the feminist lost due to her inability to stand up to basic points of logic.

Nikki Hayes
Nikki Hayes
10 months ago

Reposting as my first comment is awaiting approval so I changed a word:
I’ve never heard of Pearl Davis before, I have little interest in US culture, but you lost me when you used the word “homely” – wow, talk about catty!

Nikki Hayes
Nikki Hayes
10 months ago

Reposting as my first comment is awaiting approval so I changed a word:
I’ve never heard of Pearl Davis before, I have little interest in US culture, but you lost me when you used the word “homely” – wow, talk about catty!

Stephen Quilley
Stephen Quilley
10 months ago

No she’s not. And Tate is not a traditionalist or a conservative. He’s a symptom – part of the same breakdown that produced trans.

Stephen Quilley
Stephen Quilley
10 months ago

No she’s not. And Tate is not a traditionalist or a conservative. He’s a symptom – part of the same breakdown that produced trans.

Kat L
Kat L
10 months ago

It’s so telling that feminists cannot let other women have opinions other than the prevailing orthodoxy. The remark about her looks is typical hypocrisy.

Kat L
Kat L
10 months ago

It’s so telling that feminists cannot let other women have opinions other than the prevailing orthodoxy. The remark about her looks is typical hypocrisy.

Caroline Watson
Caroline Watson
10 months ago

Women who are in the public eye in this way are usually making money and running successful businesses. By their very nature, therefore, they are not living the type of life that they advocate for others. People who take them seriously are too stupid to recognise that.
They are the anti-feminist version of the journalists writing scathing commentary on homeworking civil servants from the comfort of their own homes.

Caroline Watson
Caroline Watson
10 months ago

Women who are in the public eye in this way are usually making money and running successful businesses. By their very nature, therefore, they are not living the type of life that they advocate for others. People who take them seriously are too stupid to recognise that.
They are the anti-feminist version of the journalists writing scathing commentary on homeworking civil servants from the comfort of their own homes.

Yana Way
Yana Way
10 months ago

Disgusting attack from a “feminist” against another woman. Attacking her looks? Vile.

Yana Way
Yana Way
10 months ago

Disgusting attack from a “feminist” against another woman. Attacking her looks? Vile.

Nikki Hayes
Nikki Hayes
10 months ago

I’ve never heard of Pearl Davis before, I have little interest in US culture, but you lost me when you used the word “homely” – wow, talk about catty!

Last edited 10 months ago by Nikki Hayes
Nikki Hayes
Nikki Hayes
10 months ago

I’ve never heard of Pearl Davis before, I have little interest in US culture, but you lost me when you used the word “homely” – wow, talk about catty!

Last edited 10 months ago by Nikki Hayes
Kevin Dee
Kevin Dee
10 months ago

I’ve seen a few clips and would say she has some fair points but like many many people looking for online fame she seems to just talk about the same stuff with similar groups of people over and over again. Get’s boring quite quickly.

Kevin Dee
Kevin Dee
10 months ago

I’ve seen a few clips and would say she has some fair points but like many many people looking for online fame she seems to just talk about the same stuff with similar groups of people over and over again. Get’s boring quite quickly.