Main Edition
US
FR
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.
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“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.
“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.
Bad enough that those two cucks took cheap shots at her, but shortly after can be seen fervently kissing Piers Morgan’s @$$. Not a good look.
Bad enough that those two cucks took cheap shots at her, but shortly after can be seen fervently kissing Piers Morgan’s @$$. Not a good look.
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
BTW…..you had to go after her looks?
Bit catty that.
And…although she is not a stunning beauty, she is pretty.
Huh?
The very first sentence describes Pearl as ‘homely’. It’s American for plain or unattractive.
I know, but she is homely. And she is certainly not pretty.
And that frock. It is like she is playing a caricature.
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.
And that frock. It is like she is playing a caricature.
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.
I know, but she is homely. And she is certainly not pretty.
The very first sentence describes Pearl as ‘homely’. It’s American for plain or unattractive.
Huh?
BTW…..you had to go after her looks?
Bit catty that.
And…although she is not a stunning beauty, she is pretty.
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.
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.
“…. a homely 26-year-old social media personality…”
Really? REALLY?!? You start an article like that, and expect to be taken seriously?
REALLY??!?
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.
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.
“…. a homely 26-year-old social media personality…”
Really? REALLY?!? You start an article like that, and expect to be taken seriously?
REALLY??!?
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.
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.
…but isn’t the traditional voting model just a device of the Patriarchy?
…but isn’t the traditional voting model just a device of the Patriarchy?
Seriously? This author and this drivel are in the same place as Kathleen Stock?
Seriously? This author and this drivel are in the same place as Kathleen Stock?
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Disgusting attack from a “feminist” against another woman. Attacking her looks? Vile.
Disgusting attack from a “feminist” against another woman. Attacking her looks? Vile.
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!
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!
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.
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.