Now Reading: Laci Green, the Red Pill and Anti-Feminist Discussion


Laci Green, the Red Pill and Anti-Feminist Discussion

July 8, 20179 min read

In case you haven’t heard, popular YouTube feminist Laci Green has taken the red pill. “Taking the red pill” refers to the choice faced by Neo in The Matrix, where the red pill represents freedom and knowledge and the blue pill represents blissful ignorance. Laci has finally woken up to the “toxicity of feminism and SJW culture” and has decided the pave her own way for herself and the whole feminist movement. It all started with this video. She returned from her hiatus and stated she wanted to open “debate and critical analysis” between feminists and the “ANTI’s” that seem to plague the YouTube sphere. She believes that “(SJWs) heightened sensitivity is leading to censorship (of ANTIs) by making ideas too taboo to talk about” and that our apparent sensitivity means these “poor, censored voices more sympathetic” to the hateful views that they hold.”

In order to change this oppression of the sad souls belonging to the right-wing—white men on YouTube—she has opened a (self-proclaimed) discussion with people on “both sides of the fence”, from anti-feminist Blair White to anti-feminist Chris Ray Gun, her new beau. I’m sure you can notice the lack of conversation that’s happening with feminists and so-called SJWs that feel the criticism from Laci’s peers. Instead, she’s been doing the opposite of what she’s said, through shutting down conversation with feminists like Kat Blaque through calling her a “sociopath” and henceforth stopping herself and others from understanding what feminism actually means—especially as Kat stands for everything intersectional. What’s even more disturbing is that Laci will shut down anyone calling the ANTIs she talks to alt-right or Nazis, but continues to perpetuate stereotypes such as the “angry black woman” shown in Kat, and the “female hysteria” that comes with feminism. Marina Watanabe (@marinashutup) makes a good video on this which is linked below. The problem with this reaction is that it tells a one-sided story, pandering to the world Laci now tries to be a part of. It’s possible to have a discussion on social politics without alienating feminists as “cannibalising themselves—as usual” and perpetuating the belief between SJWs and ANTIs that has caused this divide for so long.

Instead of provoking a critical analysis and debate of the movement, she’s essentially saying that only the adults can have the debate, and we silly feminists are too socially inept to be a part of it.

Another issue I find with Laci’s approach to being “red pilled” is her very passive nature to the abuse people have felt from the anti-feminist groups online. These groups have been responsible for the witch hunts of many trans creators, who create their own versions of censorship Laci complains about. The same anti-feminist groups also encourage the doxing of many feminists online, something which Laci has again criticised from feminists themselves. No one is justifying what both feminists and ANTIs have done to Laci or people from either sphere, but demonising a group whilst arguing you’re trying to reach an equilibrium between the two simply won’t work. She continuously undermines their toxicity, whilst holding the feminist movement accountable for the toxicity of the few radicals that we don’t claim. Laci’s approach to opening discussion is through using science and “logic”—which she deems is free from an emotional response – to have arguments with those we disagree with. She believes “everyone can protest, ask critical questions, counter the narrative, highlight fallacies and moral failings of the argument” through this logic that’s required in order to have a level-headed discussion. And I get that, I see how that may be helpful. But who says that statistics are helpful in discussing issues like sexism, gender identity, racism or ableism—all of which depend on individual experiences and the human connection associated with them? She fails to fully address how the community she defends often uses violent and aggressive language in their confrontation of minority groups. These groups are ridiculed, objectified and dehumanised by anti-feminist creators who work to dismiss the work of feminism and the like, whilst adding nothing more to the conversation.

She fails to fully address how the community she defends often uses violent and aggressive language in their confrontation of minority groups. These groups are ridiculed, objectified and dehumanised by anti-feminist creators who work to dismiss the work of feminism and the like, whilst adding nothing more to the conversation. How can we “highlight fallacies and moral failings” when anti-SJWs act to “wreck” or “own” their opposition without creating arguments that aim to open discussion? Also, what right does Laci have in telling people that have been harassed or threatened by her new peers that they’re acting “too emotionally” and are therefore unable or undeserving of offering their two cents? However, in her response to Sargon of Akkad, otherwise known as mildly infamous anti-feminist commentator Carl Benjamin, Laci was emotional due to his past treatment of her and his subsequent apology. Are the emotional reactions of the left only warranted when coming from someone such as Laci? Furthermore, if she is able to show this emotion and move on from her harassment in order to open a dialogue, can feminists, the trans community and black people expect their apologies in the post? No? I didn’t think so. This shows Laci is acting to protect the ANTI community, again silencing people and their experiences simply because they don’t fit her narrative—which is strangely what she criticises feminists as doing. Glad to see she’s still one of us, I guess!

Laci Green was one of my first introductions to feminism. I watched her in the beginning of high school, which changed my perception of social politics and attitudes towards sex and body image. It was her comments about Muslim women and the trans community that showed just how much of a shitty activist she is. This new approach by Laci again reaffirms that she was never acting on behalf of minorities, instead just protecting herself and her views regardless of the methods. I’m not arguing that she “took the red pill” for the views or because of her new boyfriend, but rather that she has never completely understood intersectional feminism. Now instead of understanding, she took to changing her position to get kudos from the right wing seeing as she never fully got it from the left. Hope it was worth it Laci, but we don’t need your conversation tactics.

How do you vote?

0 People voted this article. 0 Upvotes - 0 Downvotes.

Grace M

Grace is a 17-year-old student living in the North of England, with interests in social politics, literature and dogs.