*Note that ‘African’ here is used to refer to black people, including those historically displaced by slave trade and the colonial and neo-colonial processes. 

It’s 2021 and the feminist movement has circled right back to the unnecessary out-grouping through the #Pickme and #Tweetlikeapickme trends. I say circled back because it has been pointed out through many historical events have shown to us that more than anything that divisiveness is counter-productive to the feminist movement. It became clear that any racial divisions that were underlying in the women’s suffrage movement resulted in wins that only really benefited the white women who had the significant racial advantages of the time, it did not result in a successes for all women, hence the ensuing waves of feminism and identification of the African Feminist Movement, often with limited trend based participation from those who benefitted from earlier movements.

The African Feminist Movement functions alongside other human rights movements as we saw during the 2020 BLM protests following the cruelty the world witnessed against George Floyd, it was clear that the injustices associated with being black resonated among black people all over the world. Feminist protests in solidarity with this captured Angela Davis’ notion that Black Lives Matter embodies feminism. Anyway, I digress, my point is this movement cannot be a success for as long as there is any amount of injustice existing  alongside it, this is why it does not make sense to me that it be the source of any amount of injustice especially when it is directed towards women, the very group it seeks to protect. Out-grouping seems to only be recognized as an injustice when it captures men as the villains, e.g the exclusion of women from the workforce, but what about when it villainizes the people the movement seeks to protect? In this regard, the out grouping of the pick-me seems totally justified because she has aligned herself with men.

A comparative look at the unjust out-grouping of transgender women and the out-grouping of the pick-me. In both instances there seems to be a failure or refusal to accept that ‘they’ are women too, your need to understand and accept them is not the point , the point is that the movement seeks to defend us in all our differences. No woman needs to fulfill a certain standard to gain validation of her femininity, this includes the pick-me. The exclusionary ‘they’ labeling is what I am addressing here. It is counter-active to the goal of unification and change, an unnecessary divisive pause which strengthens the solidarity of those against the movement.

The pick me phenomenon was created to call out women who were allegedly directing their actions in favour of the male gaze. It came as a response to women who supposedly thought they were better because they fulfilled the terms of the patriarchy. A common example is the classic African church aunty who chastises young women because of how they fail to meet the patriarchal standard of the perfect woman, one who simply accepts the rules that are there to make the life of a man simpler; cook, cleaner, passive sister-wife, child bearer and rearer, modest dressing beautician with a wild side in the bedroom, one who strives for marriage through being a man pleaser… the whole lot.  Or the ever portrayed chill, all vibes girl who has gained the trope of ‘not being like other girls.’ Although the term seeks to make the women reflect and change their behaviour, the interests and characteristics of those who allegedly fit this description often spills over to innocent bystanders. For example, the African church aunty may hold a deep respect for women’s rights while enforcing rules to do tasks and chores around the household as a means to add healthy structure and discipline in a young woman’s life, she may view this as a healthy way to prepare them for an unbalanced world especially if she felt these lessons were helpful to her and her generation mates. The chilled girl and her trope may have been a result of undue male sensationalism rather than a deep desire to seek the male gaze, the interests she is often described to have can be had by anyone, the application of the term ‘pick me’ in association with specific interests alienates any young woman who may have those interests and further distances them from the feminist movement, rejecting what has rejected a part of who they are. It is a term that often neglects context and situations with the sole goal of exclusion.

Granted there are characters who have fed into maintaining patriarchal views, she is no more a threat to the movement as a whole than a child who believes some things are just for boys and some are just for girls. The true villain is the one who taught them that and keeps enforcing it, the real villain is the one who has made those views seem to be facts. More often than not we see that this woman has been taught that there is virtue in resilience and endurance, in many cases she suffers some form of oppression as well. She may choose to accept it as a norm or may really be enjoying the benefits that are beside this suffering, she does not mind her reality. A narrow focus on creating a blanket “type” of woman like this, distracts from the greater reality, which is that of the oppressive force behind her, aiding that position by giving sense of justification to be antagonistic.

While this woman, the pick me, has contributed to the oppression and confinement of other women, oftentimes seen as the face of men’s rights movements that undermine feminism and believe feminism to be an anti-men movement, with little to no knowledge of the intersectional aspect of feminism, her goal may be to protect the men in her life who have been helpful to her, her fight, albeit naïvely informed, is against social exclusion and in favour of some sort of justice. In this regard her actions only manifest as further evidence of the injustices that feminism seeks to fight, she is not an enemy, just a tragic tool of the enemy, like if the movement against black slavery became solely focused on putting down house slaves or those who worked along the slave masters. They were a sore part of the problem, but they were not the problem.

The context in Africa is such that divisions were created through the formation of very static boundaries between countries, various language groups, customary groups, dialects not to mention factors such as colourism and the massive gaps between social classes. There are injustices surrounding each factor I have mentioned, which have caused and still cause separation between people who are suffering together, there is no need to create any more division among ourselves.

It is a term that ultimately defies the entire goal of the movement. If anything the ‘pick me’ should gain some empathy for being trapped or viewed simply as a woman who is living her own truth, even if that truth is not particularly palatable, she must be addressed, individually on her view points directly, rather than to create an exclusionary term, fulfilling the movement’s desire for non-gender specific classifications. To give this group of women a diminutive term only creates more division in a group that would probably be more successful if there were efforts to create solidarity, an unnecessary division at that which only amplifies the perspectives of those against it; the idea that feminists claim to be in favour of amplifying all women’s rights in all their phenomenal uniqueness, yet still excluding women who act in a certain way.

So what if she claims to be better and gains the attention of a man? Or iff she is a ‘puppet for the patriarchal agenda?’ It is inconsequential if the women who are part of the feminist movement are pushing that agenda rather than placing efforts on petty out-grouping, it is the equivalent of echoing their alleged message that ‘you are not a good enough woman!’