Don’t pick a pick-me, pick ME! | HBR Talk 205


I really got into it this week with a nest of venomous termagants and the male feminists who fear them. It began with a post by one of their worker nags, in which she stated that babies should be aborted to prevent child abuse, and to prevent abused children from being a financial drain on the state. Aside from the fact that this horrifying idea parallels the logic of Nazis, there is one consideration that, if recognized and applied by the female population, would significantly reduce the incidence of unplanned pregnancy and child abuse. It was dropping the concept of that consideration into the conversation that led this week’s social media bar fight, as I was swarmed by enraged whammon for having the nerve… the gall… the screaming audacity to articulate it. 

So what was the horrifying idea that set off the femistazi of twitter?

Personal agency.

That’s right, guys. I merely expressed an idea about women that boys are raised to know will always be true for them as they mature into men.

You are 100% responsible for the things you choose to do.

Oh, the horror that was expressed by my detractors! Responsible? Women? For their own actions? The alarm sounded. Spotlights were shown. An alert went out across the landscape of the twitterverse: MISOGYNY! MISOGYNY! MISOGYNY!

Next thing I knew I was batting away the stupidest of arguments left and right. Biology is sexist. Birth control is hard to use. The birth control these women have tried to shame society into paying for with your tax dollars… doesn’t work. Spermjacking is ok and child support should be mandatory with no escape for men,  but women deserve multiple ways out of parental responsibility after conception… with no repercussions.

Being pregnant makes women slaves. A woman’s sacred right to control over her own body comes with no responsibility to exercise control over her own body. It extends to any life that relies on her care, with no responsibility to exercise her rights with any  care. She is the all-powerful arbiter of life-or-death, a position that makes her a victim of her own choices, which, conveniently, are all your fault, because of your super-powerful penis magic! And any woman who challenges this narrative is a boot-licking, patriarchy-loving, chill-acting, scrote-kissing Pick-me girl!

What the hell is a pick-me girl? From the context of feminist usage in social media debate, it’s any woman or girl who doesn’t despise and denigrate men and boys, or any female who is more liked by males than the speaker is. If asked, they’ll describe a pick-me girl as someone who pretends to be different from other girls for male attention, an ironic definition considering how often the same women make a point of telling us women are not a monolith. Some will even admit that labeling a woman or girl a pick-me girl makes her an acceptable target for abuse, because her existence and her lifestyle has been deemed a form of abuse against the sisterhood. They won’t say it that way. It’ll come out sounding more like “She was asking for it!”
Still, you get the picture.

I wish I could say the behavior I encountered shocked me, but it didn’t, especially after having spent two HBR Talk episodes examining the listicle we’ve been reading, 37 Lies You Were Taught About Men. As we’ve gone through that list, it has had the same kind of underlying themes that all boil down to a female shunning of personal agency. The writer expects men to be financially and socially successful, attractive, charming, and dedicated without having any standards whatsoever that his prospective partner should live up to in order to gain his trust, care, affection, adoration and dedication. In fact, she shouldn’t even have to reciprocate his emotional contributions to their relationship.

That would, after all, make her a pick-me girl… but spending her days in a forum for conversation about how to net a high value man without making any effort at being a high value woman totally doesn’t.

For the last two weeks, HBR Talk has been slogging through a listicle of talking points from the gold digger forum We’ve noted the writer’s use of fictional bad advice to excuse her own prejudices as well as her own failures. From her loaded talking points, we unpacked enough psychological baggage to fill a freight train. We still have her last 12 items to examine. Listen in this week as we square our shoulders, pull up our hip-waders, and search the psyche of an entitled princess for any sign of personal agency. The discussion streams on multiple platforms. You can tune in to the youtube livestream on Thursday at 7:30PM EST, or find other listening options on

Want more?

Support the badgers:

Patreon us on patreon:

Subscribe to us on minds

Follow us on twitter!

Join our Facebook group!

Watch us on twitch!

Brian –

Max Derrat –

Hannah –

Prim Reaper –

Karen –

Alison –

Anna –

Mike –

Aydin –

Deborah Powney –

Hannah Wallen
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About the author

Hannah Wallen

Hannah has witnessed women's use of criminal and family courts to abuse men in five different counties, and began writing after she saw one man's ordeal drag on for seven years, continuing even when authorities had substantial evidence that the accuser was gaming the system. She is the author of Breaking the Glasses, written from an anti-feminist perspective, with a focus on men's rights and sometimes social issues. Breaking the Glasses refers to breaking down the "ism" filters through which people view the world, replacing thought in terms of political rhetoric with an exploration of the human condition and human interactions without regard to dogmatic belief systems. She has a youtube channel (also called Breaking the Glasses), and has also written for A Voice For Men and Genderratic. Hannah's work can be supported at

By Hannah Wallen

Listen to Honey Badger Radio!

Support Alison, Brian and Hannah creating HBR Content!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments





Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather