Not in the conscious, "I'm better than you" sense. But in the subtle, identity-level way, where being “a good person” is central to the female ego, and any serious deviation from that image threatens the cohesion of the self.

Here’s the pattern I see. When a guy screws up, it’s open season. Generalizations fly: “Men are dogs,” “classic male entitlement,” or my personal favorite, “this is why we can’t trust them.” And sure, sometimes those jabs have a point, nobody’s denying men can be awful. But flip the script, and it’s like the room gets quiet. A woman commits paternity fraud, lying to a man for years about a kid that’s not his?

Suddenly, it’s “maybe she was scared” or “he wasn’t meeting her needs.” False rape accusation ruins a guy’s life? “She might’ve been confused” or “we can’t judge without the full story.” A woman cheats? “Emotional neglect” or “her husband was probably distant.” Even when a woman’s actions scream cold-blooded intent, like manipulating an older guy for clout or cash, it’s framed as “power dynamics” or “she was just young and naive.” Why the double standard?

There is this consistent refusal, or perhaps inability, to accept that a woman can be the villain without justification. The conversation gets reframed, contextualized, softened. Excuses are manufactured. Empathy is weaponized. And curiously, this happens reflexively, especially among other women. Maybe the reason so few women hold other women accountable is because female self-worth is often unconsciously rooted in being “a good person.”