Not Mothers, Not Monsters, Not Whores – Just Criminals

“Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both.” – Eleanor Roosevelt 

It is often said that justice must be blind; but when we compare the violence committed by  men and women, there is a huge difference as to how the world perceives it. On one hand,  crimes committed by men are evaluated in terms of ideology, strategy, and psychology, while  on the other hand, crimes committed by women are not judged on these grounds. Instead,  they are viewed through the lens of their gender, believing that women’s crimes are less  severe and significantly less impactful than those committed by men. Time and again, violent  women are reduced to 3 types: grieving mothers, deranged monsters, or deviant whores. This  had led to absolutely no accountability on the women’s part since it implied that the women  are not capable of choosing violence rather they do so because of biology, emotions or  sexuality, thereby, defending the crimes committed by women.  

I argue that this should not happen. Women’s violence must be judged as men’s violence is  judged based on motives, intentions, and consequences. Only in rare biological  circumstances, such as premenstrual syndrome, postpartum depression, or severe hormonal  imbalance, should exceptions be considered. Anything else is not equality but disguised  paternalism. 

THE TRAP OF GENDERED STORYTELLING  

The “Mother” Narrative 

The “mother” narrative says that women commit violence because of maternal instincts or  failures. From Medea’s tragic killing of her children in Greek mythology1to Rudyard  Kipling’s The Female of the Species2, women’s violence is linked to their wombs, not their  wills. 

Even in modern conflicts, the same has happened. Palestinian women suicide bombers are  described as “widows of war,” and their violence is explained as grief rather than ideology. In  news reports, they are portrayed as desperate women avenging their husbands or children,  rather than political actors making choices. 

Terrorism studies this view by classifying females as “nurturing mothers” who support men,  cook meals, or smuggle supplies, rather than as full participants in violent movements.  

The “Monster” Narrative 

If the mother narrative ties violence to femininity, the monster narrative detaches women  from it entirely. Violent women are categorized pathological, insane, or inhuman whose  actions are considered beyond rational comprehension. 

For example, Boudica, the Celtic queen who started an uprising against Roman occupation in  the first century CE. Roman historians described her not as a strategist or leader but as a  savage woman with a terrifying gaze, exaggerating her brutality to make her appear  unwomanly and monstrous.3 

In the modern era, Aileen Wuornos, who killed seven men in Florida, was termed as a  “monster” by both the media and Hollywood. Even though she herself claimed that she acted  against men who raped or attempted to rape her, her violence was attributed not to self preservation or calculation but to madness. Similarly, Sanna Sillanpää, a Finnish woman who  shot several men in a gun shop, was assumed to be insane rather than judged as a rational  perpetrator of mass violence.4 

This narrative removes women from humanity itself: men who kill are criminals, but women  who kill are monsters. 

The “Whore” Narrative 

The most degrading is the “whore” narrative, which sexualizes women’s violence. In the  Bible, Jezebel was condemned not just for rebelling politically but also for being seen as  sexually immoral.5 Similarly, the Amazons in Greek mythology were shown as overly sexual  women warriors, and their violence was explained as a result of rejecting men and  motherhood.6 

In modern contexts, sexuality still dominates the framing of violent women. Bernardine  Dohrn of the Weather Underground was often described in terms of seduction rather than  ideology, with stories of her unbuttoned blouse in meetings and not showcasing her  leadership7. Serial killer Nannie Doss was framed as erotomaniac, driven to kill by an  uncontrollable need for romance8. Meanwhile, Celeste Beard’s involvement in her husband’s  murder was narrated through her lesbian relationship with Tracey Tarlton, as if her sexuality  itself explained her criminality. 

What unites these examples is the refusal to take women at face value. When men commit  violence, society asks: what were their motives? When women do, society asks: what was  wrong with their womanhood? 

WHY THIS MUST CHANGE 

The narratives created by the society about women criminals have serious consequences. 

1. They take away women’s agency. By blaming women’s violence on love, grief,  hormones, or sex, society treats them like children. This denies that women can make  their own choices, even when they plan carefully or act with clear political motives. 

2. They undermine justice. A man who kills is a murderer; a woman who kills becomes  a case study in failed femininity. This double standard means that justice is not equal,  but gendered. 

3. They distort history and politics. Women have played major roles in wars,  revolutions, and terrorist movements from the LTTE in Sri Lanka to Chechen “Black  Widows.” Yet their actions are remembered as emotional outbursts, not political  strategies. This weakens our understanding of conflict and misrepresents reality. 

4. They reinforce patriarchy. By insisting that women are either nurturing mothers,  irrational monsters, or sexual deviants, society maintains control over female identity.  Women cannot simply be criminals, terrorists, or soldiers; they must be judged as  women first and humans second. 

A CALL FOR EQUALITY IN CRIME AND PUNISHMENT  

Equality is not achieved by defending women or by demonizing them differently. Equality is  achieved by holding women accountable in the same way men are held accountable. 

That does not mean ignoring biology. Just as the law recognizes intoxication, trauma, or  mental illness as mitigating factors, it should also recognize that PMS or postpartum  depression may influence behaviour in rare cases. But these should be exceptional  considerations, not explanations for all female violence. 

True justice demands that: 

∙ A woman who plants a bomb is a terrorist; not a grieving widow. 

∙ A woman who murders for profit is a murderer; not a monster. 

∙ A woman who leads a militant movement is a political actor; not a pawn or  seductress. 

By naming crimes for what they are, rather than filtering them through gender, we move  closer to a justice system that is truly blind. To reach such a justice, the scholars, journalists,  and courts must start to ask the same questions to women that they ask to men i.e. What  motivated her? What ideology or personal gain drove her? What choices did she make, and  how should she be held accountable?

CONCLUSION  

It is time to move beyond the categorizations of “mothers, monsters, and whores.” Women’s  violence is not a mysterious aberration, nor is it an extension of biology or sexuality. It is  violence, as human and as rational or irrational as men’s. Justice demands that we see it that  way. 

As Aristotle once said: “The law is reason, free from passion.” Let us honour that principle and judge women’s violence not as a distortion of womanhood, but simply as crime.

¹ Cait Caffrey, Medea (mythology) EBSCO Research Starters (EBSCO 2022) 

² Rudyard Kipling, Rudyard Kipling’s Verse: Inclusive Edition, 1885–1918 (Hodder & Stoughton, London  1919).

³ Caitlin C Gillespie, ‘How a Widowed Queen Became a Rebellious Woman–Warrior’ Aeon Essays (2025)

⁴ Wikipedia contributors, ‘Sanna Sillanpää’ Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

⁵The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version, 1 Kings 16:31–33; 2 Kings 9:22, 30–37 .

⁶Adrienne Mayor, The Amazons: Lives and Legends of Warrior Women across the Ancient World (Princeton University Press 2014)

⁷Wikipedia contributors, ‘Bernardine Dohrn’ Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

⁸Wikipedia contributors, ‘Nannie Doss’ Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia