On the "Girl's Girl"

By Julia D'Amato

---

A note from the author, Julia D’Amato, she/her: This article represents my opinions, not facts. Please take it with a few million grains of salt. 

It is time to talk about the “girl’s girl.” If you are unfamiliar with this phrase, the girl’s girl describes an often-heterosexual feminist who prioritizes her female friends over male validation. In theory, it is a lovely reminder of sisterhood which ignites authentically supportive communities. In practice, the flattened execution of the girl’s girl all too often serves as a covert yet powerful agent of misogyny whose embodiment and misinterpretation are counterproductive. 

I wholeheartedly admire what the girl’s girl trope is trying to do. It strives to advance the cause of women supporting women by reminding us that appealing to men at the expense of a friendship makes everyone feel worse. However, the concept has been twisted into yet another way of repressing women and pitting us against each other. 

A sadomasochistic cycle materializes when women discredit one another for valuing male approval. This excessive criticism creates a cultural sadism disguised as feminism wherein women are encouraged to scorn each other for ‘succumbing’ to the male gaze. However, these critiques are more than just sadistic desires to hurt others; they are also masochistic. By this, I mean that externalized judgment of other women can become internalized as self-criticism: that boy-crazy woman could easily have been me, was me, or secretly is me. We are relieved at our individual restraint, ashamed of our past naivety, or even desirous of the freedom that other women enjoy. 

I believe that a woman's worth should not be contingent upon whether she chooses to engage with or avoid sex and male attention. As you know, women receive messaging throughout girlhood about our romantic and sexual interactions with men. We are told by men and women alike that receiving male validation is great, but acting on that validation is bad. In young-adulthood, if a woman has not “de-centered” male validation or ‘grown’ out of her need for it, she is often labeled as naive, a bad feminist, and perhaps even a ‘pick-me.’ However, the desire for attention and love is a natural part of being human and should be treated as such. Of course, I would never suggest that women should make men more central. I know that any deliverance of respect within the terms & conditions of patriarchy is a meager reward, because it necessitates endless appeals to those with power. However, I do not believe in shaming other women when they fail to abstain 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. However, there’s a difference between having concern for other women and relishing in their unfulfilled desires when they attempt to fulfill them. Through conversations 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 humbling 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 integral 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 patriarchal, whereas sex-positive feminists believed that pornography, frequent sex, and sex work are inherently liberating and feminist. Both of these binary 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-positive feminists often enabled male sexual desires to take precedence over female rights. 

The 2025 debate about “girl’s girls” and “pick-mes” is dangerously 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 prohibitory 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 because 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 misogyny. 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 encourage us to question our instinct to constantly hold each other accountable for our respective decisions about men. Above all, I insist that we fundamentally reimagine 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.”

This article was originally published in CHICK Magazine Issue #1 on December 10, 2025