If in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel, “The Scarlet Letter”, women who committed things perceived as immoral had the letter A sewn on their clothes, now it is the Internet that does not forgive and does not forget. Andreea Raicu, Corina Băcanu or the sociologist Gelu Duminică are just a few of those who reacted after the “public judgment” of Ruxandra Luca. They raise issues such as the double standard when it comes to the mistakes of women and men. However, it is not the only ethical dilemma that emerges from this scandal.
Public figures denounce the disproportionate reaction of society
“The other day, a friend asked me if I knew about the “huge scandal” online. I didn’t know. I’ve been pretty disconnected. He told me that a woman he knew from a morning show was caught making out with a man at a gas station. And that the internet “caught fire”. I asked: where is the scandal? I was answered: “He was having sex in a public place.” OK. If the law has been broken, there are penalties. Simple. But it was not about the law. It was about shame. About moralizing. About public execution”Andreea Raicu wrote on Facebook.
In the same post, the former presenter raised several issues that she blames on the double standard:
“A woman is put against the wall. Especially because she is a mother. single mother It has a parenting section. Raises three children. As if motherhood should cancel out sexuality. As if, after you become a mother, your body no longer belongs to you. As if desire should disappear with respectability. The man was said to be married. And, paradoxically, even this information ended up being used against her as well. But faithfulness is not a collective responsibility. It’s a personal choice. A relationship and the promises within it belong to those who made them. Not to someone outside of that relationship. She was not married. She wasn’t the one who broke her promise. However, the public reaction focused almost exclusively on her. As if the blame should automatically be placed on the woman.”
The content creator Corina Bacanu also wrote about the judgment directed in one direction:
“The story actually begins with him. We just don’t know anything about him. We know he’s married and that’s about it. His face is blurred, his name is protected, his life remains whole, like a trinket you don’t want to dust off, for fear of losing it. He has family, we’re told, and that seems to automatically rule him out. Man has something to lose, so we don’t insist. We look elsewhere. (…)
There is a fault on her part too. He knew there was another woman. He knew that somewhere, someone was living an official version of the same story. And he chose not to look too closely there. He chose to put empathy on hold. This is a choice. She is not beautiful. But it’s human.
The problem is that this fault, limited and clear, has been inflated until it covers everything. (…). We don’t know how to say that he is responsible for what he promised, and she is only responsible for her own moral choices. We prefer the simple solution: quick verdict, clear target, blood on the ground.
This is how we come to know everything about her and nothing about him. Not because that’s the truth, but because it’s more convenient. Because it’s easier to lynch a visible woman, but free of obligations, than to shake the peace of a man protected by status, marriage, silence and a blur on his face. It’s not a story about sex. Nor about morality. It’s about the hypocrisy of a society that invokes the wet-eyed “babies” but has no problem stepping on their mother’s feet as long as order remains intact.”
Atena Boca emphasized, for her part:
,We don’t need the Last Judgment anymore. Most of us mortals have such pure lives that we can even handle the judgment of the few errant sinners on earth. Right here, on fb”.
“I don’t understand what you gain by throwing dirt on a man who has done nothing wrong to you”
Not only women criticized the way the shame and judgment was showered on Ruxandra Luca. Sociologist Gelu Duminică wrote:
,,A lady, with a presence in the public space, is caught by the paparazzi in intimate poses with a gentleman, somewhere in a gas station. If she had the legal framework, most of them would have disenfranchised her and lynched her. Only her. He would have shaken his hand: <
I don’t understand what you gain by smearing a man who has done you no wrong. And what happens if you add even more hurt to those involved, willy-nilly,’ in this story.”
How do those who criticize her justify things
Those who criticize Ruxandra Luca came up with replies, in the comments of the public posts:
“It’s not about the divorced woman having sex, it’s about the woman having sex with a married man whose wife isn’t his. And I know, he broke their vows, but she’s part of it. Newer is ok? Did I miss something? Also, since when is sex in public space ok? It was still broad daylight.”
Someone else talks about the discrepancy between the image displayed in the public space and reality:
“It’s not because she’s a woman that people react like that, but because she’s a public figure. Create and curate public opinion on parenting and beyond for your followers. When you’re a public person, you have to assume and learn to manage both the likes and the hate, not to mention that you have to be careful about the places and the pose in which you expose yourself. Through her posts, Ruxandra let us understand that she has a healthy, balanced marriage, it was a hope for her followers that yes, it is possible. Then he shocked the followers with the divorce. The impact that news like this has on followers, makes them believe that the lifestyle she promotes doesn’t exist or is very fragile like a sandcastle…
Then Ruxandra surprises again and we return to the public figure, who is by virtue of her position an opinion leader. (…) It could just as well be the opposite case, in which he – parenting specialist, public figure, with thousands of followers – is appreciated or not online for what he does. It’s a natural reaction for followers to react.”
Psychologist: “Society taxes women harder because it sees them as traitors”
We asked the psychologist’s opinion on all these things: from the tendency to judge women more harshly to the responsibility of those who give advice in the public space.
Regarding the disproportionality of criticism, Dorina Stamate, psychotherapist, explains:
“The roots of this asymmetric judgment are deeply embedded in a mix of historical archetypes and patriarchal structures that still govern our collective subconscious. The woman was, throughout the centuries, invested with the role of “moral pillar” of the family and society; she is the one who gives life and who, in theory, must maintain the purity and stability of the home. When a woman transgresses these norms, she is not simply “wrong,” but appears to challenge the very symbolic order of the world, which provokes a much more visceral and punitive rejection reaction from the community.
In contrast, men have historically been allowed greater freedom to explore and err, with their “immoral” behaviors often excused through the lens of an instinctual, considered “untamed” nature. This indulgence comes from a view in which the man is the one who conquers the outside, while the woman must preserve the inside. Thus, society taxes the woman more heavily because it sees her as a traitor to a sacred role, while it sees the man as a subject who has succumbed to a predictable weakness.”
Why men’s mistakes are forgotten more quickly, and women are left with social stigma
Men’s mistakes are not only less taxed, but also more quickly forgotten, society always shows us. Women, on the other hand, are often left with a stigma. Dorina Stamate says:
“She is no longer <
Something else is hidden behind this mechanism, the psychotherapist draws attention:
“There is an unconscious fear related to female autonomy. When a woman takes an action that is considered immoral, she demonstrates a frightening independence because she can no longer be controlled by traditional expectations. The constant reminder of the mistake (“she’s the one who…”) acts as an anchor that prevents her from redefining herself, keeping her in a position of vulnerability. It is a form of prolonged symbolic punishment to restore a balance that society feels threatened.”
What responsibility does the “other woman” have?
Is the person the man cheats with responsible for the cheating wife? – is another widely debated ethical dilemma now. Psychotherapist Dorina Stamate says:
“From a systemic and therapeutic point of view, the main responsibility for the integrity of a covenant belongs to those who signed it — that is, the spouses. However, the discussion of “the other person” is complex. Although the mistress did not make a direct promise to the wife, on a human and ethical level, there is a responsibility to empathy and to the impact our actions have on other human beings. To completely ignore another woman’s suffering under the pretext that <
However, we notice that public anger is often disproportionately directed at the woman on the outside, turning her into a scapegoat. It is much easier for a wife or society to hate the outsider than to accept the deep betrayal of the loved one or to analyze the cracks inside the relationship. Although personal ethics should stop us from building happiness on someone else’s ruins, it is essential not to forget that it was the husband who directly handled the trust and promises.”
Do what the expert says, not what the expert does
Many of the comments on the Internet refer to the fact that Ruxandra Luca presented herself as an expert in parenting, and for years sold the image of a perfect family. These aspects raise another dilemma: do those who teach others what to do have to behave irreproachably?
“In an ideal world, we would like our mentors to be congruent, that is, their lives to be a mirror of the values they teach. This need for “blameless role models” comes from our own insecurities; we look for someone who has succeeded so we feel safe following their advice. However, asking an expert to be flawless is a trap of perfectionism that robs us of humanity. A parenting expert is not a saint, but a man who possesses technical and psychological knowledge but remains subject to his own shadows. The principle <
However, this also understands the context of those who feel betrayed and draws attention to a quality that should be basic for those who want to influence those around them: authenticity.
“In the area of parenting and family, where vulnerability is maximum, hypocrisy hurts the most. We don’t have to be “flawless” (because it’s impossible and even unhealthy to imitate perfection), but it’s vital to be authentic. What disturbs is not necessarily the mistake, but the huge distance between the sermon and the practice, which destroys the bridge of trust between the mentor and the community”says Dorina Stamate.
“To be human means, by definition, to be vulnerable to error”
Beyond all the ethical and moral dilemmas, the psychologist concludes with an invitation to empathy:
“It is much easier to tear a man down than to try to understand the complexity of his pain or his wandering. I wish we were reminded more often that to be human is, by definition, to be vulnerable to error, and those who claim to possess moral perfection are usually just better at hiding their actions.”
