@thebackroadbabe — 187x breakout

Loading video…

If Lindsay Clancy is found innocent because "hormones made her emotionally unstable" women better be very careful celebrating that.

@thebackroadbabe

218.1K followers · usually 1.7K views a post

Views

311.2K

Likes

20.2K

Comments

758

3.7K

Why it worked

The post likely resonated due to its provocative and controversial take on a sensitive legal and social issue, using a hypothetical scenario to spark debate and strong emotional reactions among viewers.

Summary

This slideshow uses a hypothetical legal precedent involving "hormones" to argue that women might face discrimination in job applications and custody hearings. It suggests that if emotional instability becomes a valid defense, it could lead to women being excluded from high-stress jobs and facing biased legal outcomes.

Structure

1Hypothetical legal precedent based on "hormones"
2Potential for job application discrimination
3Impact on custody hearings and legal roles
4Argument against discounted accountability for women
5Conclusion about the "glass ceiling" becoming a "padded one"

On-screen text

If Lindsay Clancy is found innocent because "hormones made her emotionally unstable" women better be very careful celebrating that. The law loves precedent. From that day forward, every job application is going to have a new question. "Are you hormonal?" Well yeah, duh.. I'm a girl. "Thank you, I'm going a different direction." Won't be able to carry a weapon. No female police officers. No air traffic controllers. No high stress jobs. And definitely no judges. Custody hearings will change overnight. Feminists have been fighting for years saying women are not hysterical, irrational creatures controlled by their biology, but one defense attorney walks into court and says "well what about the uterus?" You can't demand equal authority and then ask for discounted accountability. If women want equal rights, great, but equal rights come with equal wrongs. That glass ceiling is about to become a padded one.