The 'Pick-Me-Girl' and all her flaws

The “Not-Like-Other-Girls'' or more recently coined the “Pick-Me-Girl” is a phenomenon that has existed throughout time. Whether it was the greaser girl of the 1950s or the Nirvana fan of the 90s women have attempted to reject the more ‘girly’ or ‘feminine’ traits that populate the media. The photo above is an example of this concept, to the left is a drawing of a girl wearing makeup and a low cut top, above her there is a list of her characteristics one of which is “always looking for male approval”. To the right is a girl wearing no makeup with some pimples clearly visible, frizzy, stringy hair and a high necked sweater. One of her listed characteristics is “I’m not like other girls so please pick me”. This example is clearly a critique of the ‘Pick-Me-Girl’ but there are similar memes that are created and posted very earnestly. While the ‘Pick-Me-Girl’ claims to not want male validation as a way to distinguish herself from ‘Other Girls’ it's very clear that she's using this as a tactic to receive male attention. It’s a form of reverse psychology. The ‘Pick-Me-Girl’ manipulates a man’s sexism against ‘Other Girls’ and their more traditionally feminine qualities, to make their more traditionally masculine qualities more appealing. This was a very popular trope in 90s movies like “Ten Things I Hate About You” but in the mid 2000s it fell a bit out of fashion. The trope never vanished completely but it became less popular until 2020 when it had a resurgence through the development of the ‘Pick-Me-Girl’. The ‘Pick-Me-Girl’ is essentially the ‘Not-Like-Other-Girls’ for the new generation. Instead of existing in movies though, she exists in social media like Tik Tok. The Tik Toks will often feature a young woman complaining about “girls these days’ and how they’re too obsessed with the way they look, what they eat, and having boyfriends. Although it's clear from these videos that the girls make them feel the same way, they are just attempting to disguise it through disgust with others.

Marianne Weber spent a lot of time examining the ways in which women were made subordinate to men especially within the bounds of marriage. This is demonstrated through her explantation of how monogamous marriage came about “The creation of monogamous marriage as an institute of law was the work of the Greeks and Romans. This means that they created legal monogamous marriage, which did, of course, forbid the husband from taking several wives into the home, and only allowed him to gain legitimate children from one wife. However, it hindered him neither legally nor morally from possessing as many other women as he liked outside the home without any obligation. Also, at that time, the commandment of marital fidelity was imposed, under threat of severe punishment only on the woman.” (Weber, 2003:87) Here Weber shines a light on a double standard imposed on two partners in a marriage, men and women make the same vows on their wedding day, yet only women are expected to uphold them under threat of authority. Weber also spends a good deal of time explaining how women have no choice but to be subordinate to men in order to satisfy them, continuously putting their own wishes and desires behind that of their husbands because that is what is expected of them. When discussing the ways in which the modern women attempts to balance her career and marriage Weber offers up instances when women from previous generations felt unable to do this, leaving resentment towards their husbands and a rotting in their marriages “But then it is very difficult, with respect to a husband who has been used to her subordination up until that point, to find courage in her own opinion and thereby upset the marital equilibrium. How often have even noble and brave women been able to find no other way out of the conflict between the dictates of one's own conscious and the dictates of ones husband than to pretend to submit themselves to him, but to secretly circumvent such submission.” (Weber, 2003:94). These examples of the way women are constantly held down next to their male counterparts offers us insight into how Marianne Weber would view this concept of a girl who is ‘Not-Like-Other-Girls’.

While Marianne Weber would not have ever come into direct contact with a ‘Pick-Me-Girl’ there are other observations she made in her writing that can be applied to this situation. This is touched on perhaps most explicitly on page ninety“Husband and wife are declared to be ‘originally equals,’ and marriage a contract through which the wife voluntarily subordinates herself to the husband.” (Weber, 2003:90). The ‘Pick-Me-Girl’ is an example of a woman voluntarily subordinating herself to a man. She will take on more masculine traits to try and attract him, and to attempt to prove his preconceived notion that males are the superior gender. Of course as Weber explains it is not actually voluntary. Voluntary subordination can only occur according to Weber “Voluntary subordination, devotion, which is offered as a free gift of love, is something different than compelled subordination.” (Weber, 2003:93). The ‘Pick-Me-Girl’ cannot offer voluntary subordination because everything she does is in search of male validation, it is not an act of love for her but an act of desperation. This means that the ‘Pick-Me-Girl’ falls unknowingly into the trap of compelled subordination. She is compelled by the attention she seeks to replicate certain behaviors she observes in men, one of those aforementioned behaviors being vocal hatred of other women, in order to make herself more desirable. The ‘Pick-Me-Girl’ and the ‘Not-Like-Other-Girls’ tropes demonstrate that the patriarchy has so much rule over female expression that even those who believe themselves to be liberated from it are still in constant desire to appear subordinate to men.

Anon.n.d.Https://Ashiamonetb.Medium.Com/Ya-Protagonists-Still-Arent-like-Other-Girls-5b0806813540.

Weber, Marianne and Craig R. Bermingham. 2003. “Authority and Autonomy in Marriage: Translation with Introduction and Commentary.” Sociological Theory 21(2):85–102.