Microcredit-microfinance revolution is founded on an overwhelming accusation: Conventional banks are prejudiced against the poor, the poor women in particular. This paper examines this popular accusation and argues that its conceptual foundation is weak. First, because commercial banks and microcredit NGOs have differing mandate and motivation, their social roles are not directly comparable. Second, providing loans to micro-entrepreneurs requires special skills as well as a special frame of mind. Commercial bankers may not have this kind of employees due to the nature of their business. Third, the microfinance theory suffers from academic soundness because it is founded on value-laden terms. Fourth, characterizing commercial bankers as anti-poor is professionally unfair. Fifth, holding orthodox economics responsible for poverty creation in the developing world contradicts the reality. Sixth, the criticisms that the para-statal agencies have failed to 'ignite the tires of subsidised agricultural development' are too hasty. Finally, the distinction that microfinance theory makes between commercial bankers and micro-lenders, concerning profit-maximization, has created a new puzzle in microeconomic theory.