If You Don’t Think There’s a Double Standard…

I don’t have much content for you today, Reader.

Really–I just have a couple of screenshots. That’s all it will take to make my point.

Here’s the testimony of a woman on the Humans of New York page about how she got dangerously drunk, then went into a jealous rage and threatened violence, and then kissed a stranger and eventually took her home as a rebound:

8.30.19 Gross Double Standard (1)

And here’s someone reacting to that story:

8.30.19 Gross Double Standard (2)


What else do I need to say?  We’re not even trying to deny it anymore…


I still don’t have much to add, but a few more male-hating feminists decided to pile on and double-down on their open biases.

Oy, help me, Lord…  The people who think they understand “justice” are making the world a worse place.

8.30.19 Gross Double Standard (3)

4 thoughts on “If You Don’t Think There’s a Double Standard…

  1. buckyinky

    This post raises a question that has always interested me. I suppose for this question to make sense you’d have to agree with me that feminism is the belief that women are always in particular danger of getting the short end of the stick, and that this belief is bogus. Assuming that is resolved, why is it that feminism gets such traction not only with women, but also with men? If it’s not true that women are particularly oppressed among humanity, why isn’t it just as likely that something like “masculinism” should have arisen to address the (equally bogus of course) claim that men are particularly oppressed among humanity?


    1. mrsmcmommy Post author

      That’s a good question, and I only have a guess. But I think Feminism is a type of rebellion against the places in Scripture where gender roles for families are emphasized. (So, as a result, it’s a rebellion against Nature itself.)

      Women aren’t MORE OPPRESSED than men, but they are different… Naturally smaller, naturally more intuitive, naturally more inclined toward nurturing and relationships… Feminists can’t stand that reality, and so they have misidentified those cultures where men and women observe the natural gender roles as “PATRIARCHAL” (meaning “bad.”) 🙂 In fact, even talking about natural gender roles as I’ve done here will be labeled “internalized misogyny” and rebelled against.

      If men just happened to be made the “weaker vessel” and referred to in Scripture as “helpers,” THEN we would see the male equivalent of Feminism taking root in both men and women across the globe. Why? Because humans are rebellious from birth. :/


      1. buckyinky

        Thanks for your thoughts. It’s not obvious to me that women have a greater opportunity for rebellion against Scriptural gender roles than do men. It’s arguable (I think, at least) that St. Paul’s requirements for husbands restrict their overall freedom more than the counterpart for wives. Requiring you to lay down your life for another is pretty restricting! St. Paul would have to answer for himself I suppose, but it seems that his reference to women as the “weaker vessel” is in a particular context for his particular purposes of argument, and not as an absolute across the board. I’m sure he is referring to limitations nature (and sin nature in particular) imposes upon women, but there are other contexts in which the man would be the weaker vessel. As an example there is a particular endurance that my wife has in caring for the mundane but very necessary needs of our children that mystifies me as a man. I could probably fulfill this function in a pinch, but with nowhere near the grace and apparent effortlessness that she does, and something makes me doubt I could even endure as needed if I pressed to do it. You mentioned also the intuitive nature of women, which in many circumstances life presents is a great strength, such as in being able to quickly read and understand people. In these contexts it could be said that nature has imposed limitations on the man when compared to the woman, and that he is the weaker vessel (I’m not criticizing St. Paul by the way; I’m sure he knew what he was talking about!). My point is that it is not obvious that women have less absolute freedom than men.

        I guess the hornet’s nest I’d like to poke at is this: regardless of whether feminism is accepted whole cloth in the end, just about everyone seems to talk as though there is at least a prima facie case to be made for feminism. That there is at least some explaining to do for what appears to be a raw deal that has been handed to women. But this is not obvious to me, and seems only to be acceptable if you imbibe at least a little of the feminist worldview.


      2. mrsmcmommy Post author

        Yeah, I’m not saying that women are more rebellious than men. I’m saying that the sin of Pitying–and then ultimately Idolizing–women is an act of rebellion no matter which gender does it. I agree with you that the Scripture isn’t unfair toward women. But plenty of people believe that it IS unfair, and so that’s what makes Feminism alluring to them.

        If the natural roles were reversed, then Feminism would become “Andrism” or something. And the god of this age would successfully convince both “woke” men and “woke” women to see EVERYTHING through the lens of men’s lovers liberation. 🙂

        I don’t think it matters to the enemy whether we’re putting men or women on an undeserved pedestal, as long as we’re so focused on humans that we’re not worshipping GOD.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s