Disclaimer. I don't actively follow Pearl's content and I'd be happy to see counter-evidence to the below. Not too concerned either way.
...And plenty of women listen to her. I'd bet that 10% to 20% of her audience are women which would be between 200K and 400K. Those aren't insignificant numbers.
An interesting point. It remains to be seen how many women are listening and are influenced positively. That said, it does reflect the main benefit of females copy/pasting insights and talking points derived from men:
--> The ability to capture the attention of women who would be less likely to be receptive to the same message if it came from a man <--
...A lot of women will automatically dismiss anything that men say no matter how smart or well reasoned the man due to feminist brainwashing.
Agreed. This can provide indirect benefits to men. For instance, a man can share a clip from a woman online as a way to introduce a concept to her in a more palatable manner. It's hard to overemphasise how powerful female-to-female influence can be. Men criticising women can be entertaining although these kind of dialogues are unlikely to result in many changed minds:
"Ma'am you are a wh0r3"
Further, any female who publicly challenges the popular delusion that women are always right deserves some level of consideration. A related video and description follows.
Making women feel right is a business: telling people what they want to hear pays well
PsycHacks
6 Aug2024
While making men angry might be a business online, it is dwarfed in size and scope by the business of making women feel right. By validating women's emotions and reflecting back to them what they already believe to be true, certain content creators are paid handsomely for helping women feel as though the sources of their relationship problems lie elsewhere. However, if a woman has yet to secure the relationship she would prefer, she must eventually consider the common denominator in all of her past experiences: herself.
Beyond this purpose of opening the eyes of some women, there is less direct benefit for men, such receiving piercing analysis and original ideas, let alone actionable information.
...She literally rehashes manosphere/redpill talking points and restates it to a male audience as a "woman." She makes money off of simps, basically. She's an "entertainer."
Yep.
Personally, I am beyond sick of seeing women get extra attention for unoriginal ideas and seduce men into believing they're worth paying attention to simply because of their gender. Male professionals in many areas, along with male content creators online, have to work extra hard just to compete with mediocre content pumped out by women with less expertise and experience-based wisdom.
Even without showing skin, women get clicks easier. This underscores their modern, highly understated soft power that continues to be denied en masse.
Pearl is definitely a hypocrite. She is trying to push the message onto women that they should marry when young but I don't see her married yet.
I can't judge her. Though I will say this: people like Pearl may be able to share ideas, concepts and knowledge, however they fail to provide a more important point of meaning and credibility -- namely, being able to behave and live as a role model.
--> It is MUCH easier for people to merely say things and preach ideals, rather than embody them and teach others how to get there <--
Thus, people can make money by preaching ethical or social standards online while not (a) living congruently with these stated ideals in real life OR (b) offering actionable steps forward towards their stated ideals. Seems pretty convenient.
I don't particularly like her but she's a shock jock, it's entertainment. It's not her job to lead women to the promise land, or lead by example...
I know most folks here don't like this broad but I find her to be getting better with age and hilarious. She is becoming a great self-deprecating, anti-feminist master troll...
Yes. Figures such as Pearl do provide casual entertainment and a sense of vindication and validation for men. It seems to be more about attention seeking and awareness raising, rather than providing solutions and practical how-to's. This may seem like it's a partial solution (sharing information) however it can do more harm than good in some cases (enhances chronic pessimism).
--> Raising awareness of certain negative issues without discussing possible responses can leave people trapped in a mental cage of persistent cynicism and hopelessness <--
Polarising figures like Pearl tend to capture the strongest interest of men who are going through certain phases of pain or disillusionment, such as the young clueless man looking for someone to blame for his struggles; or the angry, divorced man who is socially isolated and feels validated by her content.
Content creators like Pearl can be a stepping stone for young people to get redpilled and hopefully move on to greater things. Still, keeping men angry is a business. Further explanation:
Description
MAKING MEN ANGRY at women is a BUSINESS: the system of creators, consumers, and platforms
PsycHacks
2023 19 May
Making men angry at women is a business -- and it's big business of social media platforms, like YouTube. For this reason, it's very important for the young men who are the primary demographic of these channels to take what they learn there with a grain of salt. In this episode, I dissect the interconnected system of creators, consumers, and platforms, explaining how they all more or less conspire to promote increasingly sensational content, which directly contributes to the polarization of society.
No doubt, watching Gorlock the Destroyer on the Whatever podcast get
taken down by a voice-over is highly entertaining
Yet after a while it gets a bit stale hearing commentators dump on easy targets like literal whores wanting marriage or single moms with high standards on tinder. Debating women with PhDs in economics or human behaviour would be a lot more insightful yet less entertaining and generate fewer clicks.
[Warning: language]
[
Referenced video: "if the 'women are dumb' podcasts didn't only use dumb women"]
This point is referenced in the below video -- timestamped at 6:30:
Pearl Davis is making things worse
Baggage Claim
2 Jul2024
Pearl Davis, or Just Pearly Things, has had a couple public setbacks including getting demonetized on YouTube. Why is this happening? Is Pearl being silenced? In this video, I dive into Pearl and her relationship with controversy
Conclusion
In the vein of similar shock jocks like Paul Joseph Watson, the Whatever podcast, and Fresh n Fit, Pearl's content and style is well suited to reaching a large audience and exposing issues relating to women, relationships and feminism. In particular, Pearl can be a good entry point for introducing women to concepts such as why women lack accountability. She also provides entertainment and validation for men who want to see pop-feminist points challenged and idiotic whores get dumped on. Similar content can be a useful stepping stone for younger people who need some insight to push them forward beyond mere cluelessness. Pearl got big for a few reasons.
That said, she appears to be an entertainer above all, rather than a credible authority figure or a role model. She seems to lack credibility for not embodying her stated ideals, may alienate her female audience through insults, seems to rely on easy targets in debate, offers little actionable help to individual men, and doesn't mind stoking resentment for views.
An alternative. If you're looking for a more serious channel of a woman keeping other women accountable, I recommend among others, Karyn from the Happy Wife School. More details here:
https://christisking.cc/threads/the-destruction-of-modern-women.59/page-69#post-73237
