To Take the Red Pill or Not


Eunice Kim, Features Co-Editor

The concepts of staunch-conservative podcasters and confident speakers who dive into the binary of men’s and women’s duties are appealing to some but with it, a wave of judgment that is divisive and worse has emerged—harmful to others who don’t or won’t conform. 

Content Warning: This article discusses the themes of abuse and domestic violence. 


In a dating talk podcast titled “Whatever,” when a guest asked a panel of men what a woman should do if she were to undergo a physically abusive relationship, the men on the panel responded with how she should go about enduring it. The guest in the square suit assertively emphasized how one should “endure it. Abuse was about equivalent to “hard times,” and a divorce would upend the lives of the children, so it was out of the question to them. When the guest then posed unfaithfulness from a woman, the same guest in the suit was less flippant and said “crucifixion” with the others adamantly agreeing on divorcing her.

To this panel, the very emotions they might not have deemed argumentatively valid from women were evidently used as fodder here. After all, divorce was suddenly seen in a better light not for abuse — but for unfaithfulness.

Perhaps this is an extreme case, but the channel wields influence. Someone is watching it and receiving confirmation of how this makes sense.

YouTube channel “Abe N Preach” later released past allegations against the man in the suit of instances of physical abuse against women. 

Oftentimes, when  staunchly conservative male podcast hosts talk of dating, there is an appeal to authority such as the Bible or statistical evidence (which might be factual but not necessarily represent the full picture). This leads to having the onus lie smackdown on the women for being too promiscuous or impure. They also uphold a more binary black-and-white, “facts over feelings” stance when detailing the duties of men and women. Apparently, these individuals aren’t being judgemental but “rational”; for some, women could not have struggled as hard as men and felt like feminism is still necessary if men fought in wars and men were breadwinners. 

However, exhibiting judgment for others can still exist in the same exact plane as one’s attempts of being practical (“It’s just a preference”). 

Nowadays, when people hear “male podcasters,” it isn’t quite innocuous-sounding. The term jolts many — the view of Andrew Tate lounging around a mic in sunglasses might come to mind. Still this polarizing individual, for one, is either praised for his unapologetic, assertive take on his preferences or denounced for being a misogynist. He isn’t solely hated. He appeals to many with his dominant voice and self-assuredness about his relationship with women and what he seeks in a partner.

And it’s not just men that evoke this aura. YouTuber and speaker Pearl or “JustPearlyThings” maintains a polite, steady tone as she explains that she will always advocate for men due to her own heartfelt experiences with her brother. But she argues with women against feminism with big picket signs and questions what women actually bring to the table for men, even exemplifying them not cooking or catering to men in this Western time. Comments under videos of her praise her outspoken, traditional rationale and denounce the opposing side’s emotionality; others call her a “pick-me” individual — or a person who goes to lengths for male approval. 

After all, her own personal history does not align with the traditional aspects she preaches. 

The conservative term “trad wife” has also emerged and gained traction to detail a woman content in tending to the home and her husband’s needs. This threatens some who believe this lifestyle is oppressive to women — the danger might, however, be if she were to begin to enforce this way of thinking for other women as a way to be proper. YouTuber “RealFemSapien” — like Pearl —  also maintains an air of confidence, but some of her conservative ideals are undeniably disparaging to women, who simply may not wish to pursue the same avenues she has entered of serving her husband as the provider.

In whole, the realm of podcasting is the safe space for many men (and women) with conservative takes on the binary of designated roles for men and women to blow some steam off — especially if there is an echo chamber of like-minded folks. And on the opposite side, they are the laughingstock to many individuals who think their views are extreme and outdated.

Still, the problem lies in how an individual extremely passionate about a cause or belief behaves in response to the opposing side. If statements are taken on by staunch-conservative individuals as factual and enforced, can judgment and respect still exist for detractors? Does it have to? For instance, many of these very conservative voices are proponents of God and the Bible, but being a disciple does not necessarily make one less sanctimonious and more guiding.

There are modern terms used to label both men and women found on TikTok shorts: the very colloquial “304” and “for the streets,” “high-value” men and women, “red pill” podcast men (which echoes “The Matrix” as one can either choose to take it to learn life-altering things or stay in a content reality by taking the blue pill) that many of these hosts are, “modern women,” etc. An individual who vehemently sees these concepts as factual will uphold them, but the difference is when the language against individuals translates into action — such as the aforementioned guest who currently has allegations to his name. 

A man who deems himself “high value” wishes to have a proper wife and one of the most significant attributes she needs to maintain is her sexual integrity. Otherwise, it makes her the euphemistic “304.” These same individuals don’t detail too much about their own sexual endeavors and if they do, it’s not put on the same pedestal as women.

Further, on a smaller note, the question is if these outspoken individuals really believe what they’re saying. Some big voices on podcasts or YouTube may be saying especially outlandish, outspoken things if their words can gain traction and popularize their name. Additionally, some of their words sound like cherry-picking what one wishes to see and throwing out the rest.

Anthropologist Robert Briffault says thatthe female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family.” He further states that “where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.”

This quote implies that a woman can allow a relationship to take place — as she sees fit. If there’s no benefit or belief that there will be benefits soon, there won’t be any growth in a connection.

But many “high-value” male podcasters turn this topic on its head. What they bring to the table isn’t brought up as often as how a proper woman should act and what an improper woman is. In response to Briffault, they might say that they will not be allowing a woman to call all the shots — at least, not anymore.

We’ve heard it before: the notion that a woman is her youth, service, and appearance whereas a man is his resources, protection, and wealth. 

In a video from “FreshandFit Podcast”, two individuals ask each other questions. When Myron — host of the podcast — is asked if he can cook, he asks the interviewer Chian if she can fight and calls her question “pointless.” He then asserts that all women want a man better than them, which brings Briffault to mind. The interview evokes different responses — some lauding his unhesitant tone, and others stating that cooking is simply not on the same level as fighting.

The binary of men’s and women’s duties is appealing for certain. For many, it offers them solace and certainty that these are ingrained, necessary ideas. But not all of the thoughts can be painted as factual just because one sees it that way — due to family upbringing or religious background. 

The issue is that it seems hard. 

Judgemental, harsh words that cross the lines of respectful dialogue in a social setting such as interviews or podcasts are ultimately harsh. Much of it also simply stems from one cherry-picking what they wish to derive from the rules of the binary or a call for more traction.

It seems that the words hide beneath a bed of moral flair but to others, it’s just not conducive to helping others see their dialogue — simply just being correct.

Image Courtesy of cottonbro studio