When He Does It, He’s a Monster. When She Does It, She’s ‘Troubled’

 By Chaddrick Thomas

There’s a pattern society doesn’t like to talk about—but it’s everywhere once you start looking.

Same crime. Different genders. Wildly different narratives.

When a man commits an act of violence, especially against a woman, he’s instantly branded a predator, a monster, or a savage. There’s no nuance, no waiting period. He’s condemned before the ink dries on the arrest report.

But when a woman commits a violent act, we ask questions.

• What trauma has she endured?

• What was she going through?

• Was she manipulated?

• Was she on medication?

She becomes a victim of circumstance—sometimes even a tragic figure we feel sorry for. The public rarely calls her a monster. More often, she’s seen as “troubled.”

That word carries a lot of weight. And it does a lot of damage.

Media: The Mirror That Distorts

Look at how news headlines are written:

• Male Shooter: “Gunman Snaps, Kills Four—Mental Health History Cited Too Late”

• Female Shooter: “Woman Was Battling Depression Before Tragic Shooting”

One gets framed as dangerous, the other as damaged.

Same bullets. Different sympathy.

Women’s crimes are often given a psychological or emotional explanation. They’re treated as anomalies—moments when something just went wrong. Men’s crimes are treated as character—the inevitable outcome of who they are at their core.

That’s not analysis. That’s bias.

The Angel-Madonna Complex

We don’t just see women as different from men—we see them as inherently better, more nurturing, more innocent. That’s rooted in an old archetype: the angel-madonna complex. It teaches us that a “good woman” is pure, patient, and passive—and when she fails to live up to that, we assume something must have forced her out of character.

That’s how the narrative gets rewritten before the trial even begins.

We don’t apply this same logic to men. We don’t assume there must have been trauma. We don’t assume he was manipulated or gaslit or exploited. We assume he was evil. Period.

That’s not justice—it’s mythology.

Judges, Juries, and Sympathy Gaps

This double standard doesn’t stop at the headlines. It extends straight into the courtroom:

• Women are more likely to receive probation instead of prison time.

• When women are sentenced, they often get shorter terms than men convicted of the exact same crime.

• Women are more likely to receive downward departures (sentence reductions) under federal sentencing guidelines.

• Women are more likely to be seen as redeemable.

And what’s the most common justification for this leniency?

“She has children.”

“She’s been through enough.”

“She just made a mistake.”

But what about the men who have children?

What about the men who’ve been brutalized by life, by poverty, by systems that only seem to know how to punish?

Where is the second chance for them?

When Women Kill—and We Still Excuse It

Even in the most extreme cases—murder—we still find ways to soften the story when the perpetrator is female.

We say:

“She snapped.”

“She had postpartum depression.”

“She was in an abusive relationship.”

Sometimes those things are true. But what’s also true is that we don’t allow men the same humanity, the same context, the same compassion. When men kill, we assume they meant it. When women kill, we assume something must have pushed them to it.

That difference doesn’t just influence punishment. It influences public memory.

Female killers become true-crime Netflix stars. People cosplay as them for Halloween. They get fan mail.

Male killers? Condemned. Forgotten. Buried under the weight of the label “evil.”

And here’s the most dangerous part:

It convinces the public that justice is being served—even when it’s clearly not.

The Goal Isn’t More Punishment. It’s More Fairness.

Let’s be clear:

I’m not saying women should be punished more harshly.

I’m saying men should be treated with the same nuance, complexity, and grace that we already extend to women.

Because the way we excuse women proves something revolutionary:

We are capable of seeing people as more than their worst act.

So why don’t we do that for everyone?

As I’ve said before, I believe in the abolition of prison. I believe in tearing down this racist, classist, sexist institution that breaks people and sells their pain for profit. But until that happens, I’ll keep pointing out how unequal it truly is—especially along lines of gender.

When he does it, he’s a monster.

When she does it, she’s troubled.

And that’s not justice. That’s performance.