In today’s installment of “how did the patriarchy screw up the media?,” we’re going to talk about the infamous “not like other girls” trend.
Some may be under the impression that this movement was the result of “angry feminists” who sought to desecrate the sacred concept of femininity.
But in reality, it was just another cage the patriarchy designed to trap women within its expectations.
In order to really understand this phenomenon, we need to take a look at what this mentality does for marginalized girls within a patriarchal society.
Let’s say you’re a teenage girl, coming of age in the 2000s/2010s (though this still does happen to some extent today). You’re flat-chested, with limp, dark, sun-deprived hair, a personality that amounts to being a wallflower in gym class, and a fashion sense that’s more “sleeping bag” than couture. None of the other girls want to be you, and no boys flock around your every step. You’re lucky if you have one friend; maybe the “kooky” girl who doesn’t care about what anyone else thinks.
According to media standards, you’re an ugly, boring mouse who can only wish you looked as good as the models in magazines and the actresses on TV. The only way for you to be beautiful and desired would be for you to dye your hair, get a tan, and blow your allowance on the top-name labels at the mall.
But who has the time and money to do all that?
And, more importantly, who wants to feel as if they have to undergo an extreme physical and personality makeover in order to become loved?
But there’s no need to despair! It turns out there is another way—a way for even the most drab, counterculture, boy-repellent girls on the planet to feel like they’re still winning the patriarchal game.
SLUT-SHAMING!!!
It’s absolutely no coincidence that the “not like other girls” trend always goes hand-in-hand with slut shaming.
The important thing to remember is that “not like other girls” wasn’t demonizing the way the patriarchy wanted to see women. You never could find a story about an FMC who made fun of the quiet, nerdy girl who liked to wear pretty dresses. You never saw a shy student who didn’t like to flirt with anyone become vilified over the glitter she sprinkled upon her backpack.
This trend didn’t demonize femininity—it reframed those behaviors and appearances in a way where it could still condemned by patriarchal standards.
And it did so using one of patriarchy’s favorite topics—sex.
The female character who represents the pinnacle of traditional femininity is always chastised because of her sexual habits. Her dresses are mocked because they’re skin-tight. Her feminine bodily features amount to large breasts that she conspicuously dangles from her too-short shirt. Her hair is blonde because she bleaches it to get the boys’ attention. She may be popular; but she’s actually just a slut, teasing all her classmates with the possibility of having sex.
This is an important nuance to note, because to be a woman taking charge of her sexuality, and/or to be a nonvirginal, unmarried woman, are two of the highest sins within a patriarchal society. No girl is exempt from the standards of chastity. Sure, Angeline from homeroom might be far taller and blonder than the MC, and have actual boobs; but she’s using her feminine traits in all the wrong ways—to entice the boys she always hangs around with.
An FMC who feels superior to her more “feminine” classmates doesn’t feel better because she doesn’t like dresses or glitter or long hair—it’s because, if she did enjoy all of those things, then it would obviously only be to attract the sexual advances of a man.
Once again, this is why it’s important that the vilified female characters are never a shy bookworm who just likes princess gowns, or a chubby blonde girl with perfect long blonde hair.
It’s not about the actual feminine features—it’s about using them to be a slut.
Therefore, the MC who’s failing to meet the patriarchal standards can still enjoy a sense of superiority over her peers—and, most importantly, she can still feel like she has a chance at winning the game (even if no one really does).
So what if the MC isn’t a supermodel, or if she doesn’t she feel much of an attraction, if any, to boys? So what if she has no alleged fashion sense, nor any ability to charm another person? That doesn’t have to mean she take a look at the system and realizes there’s something wrong with it.
No—instead, she should just reassure herself that at least she’s not a slut!
* * *
We should also note that whenever the “unusual” FMC does find that one boy that’ll sweep her off her feet, it’s completely accepted for her to then melt into a doormat manic pixie dream girl in his arms. (Cough cough, Bella Swan.) Because, once again, this phenomenon is not about feminism or empowerment—it’s about making sure every girl feels she can still achieve the patriarchal dream. It’s about pitting her against her peers, so they’re all stuck in the same fruitless rat race of pleasing the men at the top.
* * *
A second but absolutely no less important side to this phenomenon is the way it reigns in queer women.
A girl who doesn’t feel any attraction to a boy can’t possibly reach the conclusion that she’s gay—that could lead her to spurning conservative norms altogether.
But she doesn’t have to worry; her lack of attraction is simply a byproduct of her not being a wanton slut. It has nothing to do with where her actual romantic and sexual orientations lie.
The “not like other girls” trend reassures her that she’s not “broken”—she’s just a different type of girl, only able to be loved when a boy can see just how sexually restrained she is.
* * *
Another problem with this phenomenon is that it gets audiences to start hating on the idea of women being different.
Even if a portion of the audience doesn’t fall for what the MC is supposed to be selling, their hatred for the FMCs who “aren’t like other girls” turns into a condemnation of any FMC who isn’t feminine enough.
Even if a character doesn’t put down any of her fellow women, so long as she wears masculine clothing, spurns a man’s attention, and/or expresses distaste at having long, soft hair, she’s making a “mockery” of femininity.
Merely by being different, she’s excluding.
It’s just another way to get women to believe they have to chain themselves to patriarchal standards. Under this ideology, there’s no such thing as a woman who isn’t feminine in the least. Every butch girl really wants to don a dress for the party. Every wallflower really dreams of being swept off her feet by the right boy.
If you create an FMC who doesn’t stake any investment in traditionally feminine standards, then by default, you’re implying feminine women are weak, pathetic, and live only for the male gaze.
* * *
What’s the correct solution, then? How are we supposed to both allow our female characters to be who we want them to be, while making sure nobody gets hurt?
The internet would have you believe you have to sacrifice the first in order to achieve the second. No FMC is free of the scrutiny that real-life women face. You have to make sure she isn’t too masculine and strong (and God forbid that strength be physical).
But that is, frankly, bullshit.
The correct solution is to make room for the non-feminine girls, so they don’t feel like they either have to be glitzy or overly chaste in order to earn their right to exist. So long as your narrative doesn’t condemn anyone for the harmless ways they express themselves, then you’re good.
If your FMC is the prettiest, sparkliest princess to ever live? So long as she’s not making fun of her tomboy classmates, then you’re set. If your FMC wears overalls and likes to fix up cars in her spare time? So long as she isn’t touting the superiority of her chastity over her airheaded “slut” friends, then you’re fine.
Just like we should do in real life, don’t judge female characters—or any real women—by the standards you wouldn’t also hold to any of your fellow human beings. Treat others the way you want to be treated, and don’t judge other people’s harmless life choices.
Leave a comment