Lao A (online alias “斯奎奇大王”) is a Chinese internet commentator who gained widespread attention for his dramatic accounts about life in the United States. He portrays American society as deeply dysfunctional, sometimes using sensational metaphors to describe crime and social decay. At the same time, he has made sweeping and crude claims about Chinese female students and accompanying mothers in the U.S., suggesting they are morally reckless or easily exploited. His framing combines anti-American storytelling with gendered insinuations.

His remarks generated significant traction inside China. On platforms where user IP locations are publicly displayed, some online attackers began targeting accounts showing U.S. IP addresses—especially women—with sexually explicit insults and slurs. Rather than clearly condemning this wave of harassment, certain state-affiliated media outlets reported on Lao A’s content in a way that amplified his persona and effectively performed or dramatized his narrative, further increasing its visibility.

Any blanket stigmatization of a group—especially one defined by gender and nationality—is irresponsible. Reducing diverse individuals to crude stereotypes does not clarify social problems; it exploits fear and resentment. When gendered attacks are packaged as patriotic “truth-telling” about America, it becomes a populist communication strategy: complex realities are simplified into emotionally charged morality tales, and women are turned into symbolic evidence in a larger ideological argument. That is not serious social analysis—it is narrative mobilization.

More broadly, this episode reflects a familiar pattern in Chinese political communication. Official messaging has often portrayed the outside world as dangerous, morally corrupt, and hostile—implicitly warning citizens that engagement with the West carries social and ethical risk. When stigmatizing rhetoric about women abroad is tolerated or indirectly amplified within that ecosystem, it reinforces a propaganda model built on fear and external threat. Such messaging may strengthen short-term emotional unity, but it does so by narrowing debate, encouraging suspicion, and discouraging independent thinking rather than informed judgment.