In Defence of the 'Problematic' Woman: Who Gets Forgiven and Who Doesn't?

Society loves a redemption arc, so long as the protagonist is a man. Women, especially those who defy traditional expectations, are often granted no such luxury. They are not allowed to be complicated, self-destructive, or even merely unlikeable without being cast out permanently. Meanwhile, their male counterparts are repeatedly given the opportunity to apologise, reinvent themselves, and return to the spotlight, often with their legacies intact. The question is not whether people should or should not be held accountable for their actions, but why some are afforded the space to grow and change while others are forever defined by their worst moments.

The Gendered Nature of ‘Problematic’

The term ‘problematic’ itself is unevenly applied. A man who exhibits reckless or harmful behaviour is often framed as a tortured genius, a flawed but brilliant artist, or a victim of his own demons. Women, however, are rarely afforded the same nuance. Instead, they are treated as moral failures, their personal struggles weaponised against them and their reputations made irredeemable.

This disparity can be explained through Erving Goffman’s theory of stigma, which argues that individuals who do not conform to social expectations are often labelled as ‘deviant’ and subsequently marginalised. In the case of public figures, the way stigma is applied is deeply gendered. Women who do not adhere to prescribed notions of femininity, such as being agreeable, nurturing, or composed, are perceived as disruptive and are more harshly judged for their behaviour than men who act in similar ways.

Courtney Love is a textbook example. A prolific musician in her own right, Love’s talent and influence are often overshadowed by her perceived ‘messiness’, her drug use, her defiance, her refusal to be demure. While her late husband, Kurt Cobain, is mythologised as a tragic icon, Love has been vilified for decades. Her grief, addiction, and survival have been mocked, while Cobain’s pain has been romanticised. To this day, she is blamed for his death, even by those who know little about the circumstances surrounding it, with conspiracy theories continuing to circulate. This is indicative of the Madonna-whore dichotomy, a framework within feminist theory which argues that women are often forced into one of two categories, the pure, virtuous woman or the immoral, fallen woman. Love, by refusing to conform to societal expectations of quiet suffering, was firmly placed in the latter category, making redemption near impossible.

Similarly, Lindsay Lohan and Robert Downey Jr. both had public battles with addiction. Downey Jr., after multiple arrests and rehab stints, was given a second chance and is now one of the highest-paid actors in Hollywood. Lohan, however, became a tabloid punchline, her talent disregarded in favour of endless headlines about her downfall. The difference? Charismatic men are seen as worthy of redemption, whereas troubled women are discarded.

Who Gets Forgiven?

This pattern is evident across industries. Johnny Depp’s legal battle with Amber Heard showcased how the public is willing to embrace a male celebrity’s comeback while permanently vilifying a woman. Regardless of the complexities of their case, Depp was able to return to film and regain public favour. Heard, in contrast, became the most hated woman in Hollywood, her career and reputation destroyed. I personally knew a man who owned a T-shirt mocking her, a testament to how deep the vitriol against her ran, often from people who had little understanding of the complexities of the case.

The public’s selective forgiveness can be explained through Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic violence, which refers to the ways in which social hierarchies are maintained through cultural norms. Women who step outside acceptable forms of femininity, whether through aggression, public outbursts, or simply refusing to apologise, are subjected to disproportionate punishment. Meanwhile, men who behave similarly often retain social and professional capital due to the normalisation of male volatility as an artistic or personal trait.

A notable example of this phenomenon is the case of Jordyn Woods and the Kardashian family. Woods was exiled from celebrity circles following accusations that she had been involved with Tristan Thompson, the partner of Khloé Kardashian. Despite Woods being a young woman navigating an industry infamous for its exploitative nature, she was publicly condemned and cast out. The Kardashians, who have built their brand on manipulating public narratives, framed Woods as the sole party responsible, whereas Thompson, the man in the equation, faced significantly fewer long-term consequences. This highlights the intersection of race and gender in public cancellations, as black women like Woods often experience harsher scrutiny than their white counterparts.

Women’s missteps are also scrutinised through a moral lens that men rarely face. Kanye West, despite repeated offensive and harmful statements, has retained a dedicated fanbase and been allowed multiple comebacks. Meanwhile, someone like Azealia Banks, whose talent is undeniable but whose online outbursts are held against her indefinitely, has been all but erased from mainstream spaces. This reflects Judith Butler’s theory of gender performativity, which posits that gender is not an innate quality but is instead performed according to social norms. When women fail to perform ‘acceptable’ femininity, they face harsher consequences than men who violate social norms in similar ways.

The Political Sphere: Women in UK Politics and Public Scrutiny

This double standard extends beyond the entertainment industry into politics. Women in positions of power are often subjected to intense scrutiny for behaviour that their male counterparts engage in without consequence. In UK politics, figures such as Diane Abbott and Angela Rayner have faced disproportionate backlash compared to their male colleagues.

Diane Abbott, the first Black woman elected to Parliament, has been vilified for decades, receiving more abuse than any other MP, as studies have shown. Her mistakes or missteps are used to justify extreme criticism, whereas white male politicians are afforded far more leniency. Similarly, Angela Rayner, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, has been attacked for everything from her working-class background to the way she dresses, with a level of personal scrutiny that male politicians rarely experience.

Meanwhile, Boris Johnson, a man who has been caught lying to the public, accused of corruption, and overseen numerous scandals,was not only forgiven but continued to be supported by large sections of the media and political establishment. His “charming” persona and ability to spin controversy into humour shielded him from lasting damage in a way that would be unthinkable for a woman in his position. This is emblematic of how charisma and privilege grant men second chances, while women in similar positions face lasting reputational damage for far less.

The Patriarchal Roots of ‘Cancellation’

Patriarchy shapes what women get cancelled for, and more importantly, what they do not get forgiven for. Women are punished more harshly when they fail to conform to idealised notions of femininity. They are expected to be likeable, self-sacrificing, and emotionally regulated. When they fall short, they are deemed ‘difficult’ or ‘unstable’. Meanwhile, men who are aggressive, egotistical, or self-destructive are excused as ‘complicated’ or ‘passionate’ about their craft.

A woman who speaks out of turn, refuses to apologise, or leans into her own messiness is seen as a threat to the social order. Women like Madonna, Britney Spears, and Amy Winehouse have all been consumed by a media machine that profits off their struggles while punishing them for it. Their personal battles with addiction, mental health, and public breakdowns became spectacles, but rather than being offered grace, they were mocked and torn down.

The Role of the Media and Social Perception

Tabloid culture and social media play a major role in who is forgiven and who is not. The press has long framed women’s struggles as personal failures while positioning men’s struggles as unfortunate circumstances. Britney Spears was vilified for shaving her head during a mental health crisis, while men like Charlie Sheen, who openly boasted about destructive behaviour, were given more leniency. Even in the age of social justice, ‘cancel culture’ tends to be more punitive towards women, who are disproportionately expected to atone for their actions indefinitely.

The way society consumes ‘messy women’ is telling. Women who struggle in public, whether it be through addiction, outspokenness, or simply being deemed unlikeable, are often used as entertainment. There is a fascination with watching them fall, but little interest in seeing them rise again. Meanwhile, men’s comebacks are treated as inspirational.

Reclaiming the Right to be Messy

Women should be allowed to be complicated, flawed, and even wrong without being erased. There is a difference between holding someone accountable for harm and refusing to allow them the space to change. The constant demand for women to be palatable, likeable, and apologetic upholds a double standard that lets men off the hook while keeping women permanently in the ‘problematic’ category.

Ultimately, defending ‘problematic’ women is not about excusing harm, but about recognising the uneven playing field. If redemption is possible, it should be possible for everyone, not just for the men we find charismatic enough to forgive.