women when they fail to ab­
stain from male affirmation—it is 
a very hard thing to do.
And don’t get me wrong: I 
understand the importance 
of exercising caution around 
twenty-something men. Howev­
er, there’s a difference between 
having concern for other wom­
en and relishing in their unful­
filled desires when they attempt 
to fulfill them. Through conver­
sations with fellow Haverford 
women, I know I am not alone 
in observing this. Too often we 
hear (or make) remarks like 
“she'll learn the hard way,” or 
“poor thing, she thinks he really 
likes her.” These refrains are 
often well-intentioned, but their 
recipients tend to experience 
them as patronizing and hum­
bling nonetheless.
Among feminist women, the 
interpersonal tension between 
yielding to caution versus 
desire is familiar. A structural 
dichotomy, reminiscent of the 
disharmony between the girl’s 
girl and the pick-me, was inte­
gral to the feminist sex “wars” in 
the 1970s. During this period, 
feminist figures like Andrea 
Dworkin protested against 
the exploitation of women by 
pornography, while others such 
as Ellen Willis challenged what 
they saw as the puritanism of 
anti-porngraphy feminism. 
Anti-pornography feminists 
believed that pornography was 
inherently harmful and patri­
archal, whereas sex-positive 
feminists believed that pornog­
raphy, frequent sex, and sex 
work are inherently liberating 
and feminist. Both of these bi­
nary feminisms had their flaws: 
anti-pornography feminists 
often repressed other women’s 
sexualities instead of focusing 
on the broader structures that 
harm women, whereas sex-pos­
itive feminists often enabled 
male sexual desires to take pre­
cedence over female rights. 
The 2025 debate about “girl’s 
girls” and “pick-mes” is danger­
ously reminiscent of the 70s sex 
wars. The idea that women can 
be classified as simply one of 
two nouns, which define them 
by their relationships to men, is 
sexist and confining. The idea of 
a “girl’s girl” carries implications 
about “pick-mes,” which allows 
for a modern revival of a pro­
hibitory feminist sisterhood that 
encourages women to be sexist 
toward those who appeal to the 
male gaze. The existence of true 
pick-me behavior is sexist be­
cause it is based on distancing 
oneself from other women, but 
criticisms of imagined pick-mes 
are often outsized compared 
to their actual prevalence. The 
idea of the pick-me comes 
from a place of judgment—and 
maybe even envy at others’ 
brazenness—as opposed to a 
true disdain for internalized mi­
sogyny. This reinforces scrutiny 
over other women’s desires and 
actions. 
Ultimately, I urge heterosexual 
women to stop blaming one 
another for seeking out male 
validation. Instead, I encour­
age us to question our instinct 
to constantly hold each other 
accountable for our respective 
decisions about men. Above all, 
I insist that we fundamentally re­
imagine or eradicate the binary 
classifications of different types 
of feminist women, instead of 
reducing women down to their 
interactions with men. Only 
then will we truly “be feminist.”
"She'll learn the hard way" 
19

View this content as a flipbook by clicking here.