When women struggle, we see a crisis. When men struggle, we see a threat.
A MENtal Strength series article—click here for the articles home page
Lindsay Clancy killed her three children.
In the aftermath, public attention focused heavily on her postpartum psychosis, psychiatric treatment, medication history, and whether severe mental illness accounted for what happened. That focus makes sense. When a catastrophe of this scale occurs, it is natural to look for psychological explanations.
But there is another person in this story whose suffering deserves our attention.
Patrick Clancy lost all three of his children.
By any standard, that is a life-destroying loss. Yet there has been very little empathy expressed for him online. The online discourse surrounding Patrick mostly consists of scrutiny: Did he fail to notice Lindsay's deterioration? Was he wrong to leave her alone? Should he have done more?
We don't know everything that happened inside the Clancy marriage, and I am not arguing that Patrick was a perfect husband. But we do know that he was aware of Lindsay's suicidal and intrusive thoughts, supported her through psychiatric treatment, and testified about her deteriorating mental health. He has since publicly forgiven her.
That doesn't prove he did everything right. But it does make the claim that he simply “failed her” difficult to justify.
More importantly, it illustrates something I see as a broader problem: we have difficulty empathizing with men.
When women suffer, we are often inclined to ask, “What happened to her?”
When men suffer, we are more likely to ask, “What did he do wrong?”
Even a close family member of mine remarked that Patrick Clancy got off “scot-free.” While this was upsetting to hear, I can forgive her for saying it. I can forgive her for existing in a society that does not appreciate the suffering of men (while at the same time complaining that men don’t open up about their feelings).
The Forensic Context
This distinction isn't unique to the Clancy case.
Research in criminal justice has repeatedly examined what is sometimes called the chivalry or paternalism effect—the finding that female defendants can receive more lenient treatment, although the effect varies substantially depending on the offense and circumstances.
Forensic psychiatry has raised a related concern: gender stereotypes can influence how violence is interpreted. Women's violence may be more readily understood through mental illness, vulnerability, or victimization, while men's violence is more readily interpreted through dangerousness and culpability.
This doesn't prove that women simply receive more empathy than men. Human behavior and criminal justice are far too complicated for such a simple conclusion. But it should make us willing to examine the possibility that gender influences whose suffering we instinctively try to understand.
Consider Andrea Yates. She drowned her five children in 2001. Her first conviction was eventually overturned, and she was later found not guilty by reason of insanity. Her case became an important reference point for public and clinical awareness of postpartum psychosis and severe postpartum mental illness.
The Clancy case has continued that conversation.
Now consider Timothy Jones. Jones killed his five children, and defense psychiatrists testified about serious mental illness, including schizophrenia, hallucinations, and delusions. Yet his case became primarily a story about a father who murdered his children and ultimately received a death sentence.
These cases are not identical. Their legal circumstances and psychiatric evidence were different, so they cannot be treated as controlled experiments.
But the cultural contrast is worth noticing.
When a woman commits horrific violence, we seem particularly willing to ask what happened to her. When a man does, we more readily ask what is wrong with him.
The Problem Starts Long Before a Crime
This matters because men frequently express psychological distress differently.
Depression can look like irritability or agitation.
Anxiety can look like overwork, rigidity, or control.
Trauma can look like withdrawal, emotional numbness, or anger.
These behaviors can hurt other people. They can require accountability. But they can also be expressions of suffering.
If we see only the behavior, we may respond appropriately to the immediate problem while completely missing the person underneath it.
That is one reason men can go untreated for psychological problems for years.
There is an uncomfortable irony here. We often criticize men for being emotionally closed off. We tell them to communicate. We encourage them to become vulnerable, emotionally literate, and willing to talk about what they feel.
I agree with all of that.
But we cannot demand vulnerability from men while responding to their vulnerability primarily with judgment. If a man finally admits that he is frightened, ashamed, depressed, traumatized, or overwhelmed, the appropriate response isn't to remove accountability for his behavior.
It is to make room for both accountability and empathy.
Gender Equality Has to Go Both Ways
Patrick Clancy was a victim of an unimaginable tragedy. He should not have to establish that he was a perfect husband or a perfect protector before we allow ourselves to recognize his suffering.
Extending greater empathy to men does not require taking empathy away from women.
Women experiencing postpartum psychosis deserve compassion, treatment, and understanding. Men experiencing PTSD, depression, psychosis, addiction, shame, or profound grief deserve those things too.
Gender equality cannot only mean equal wages, equal rights, equal opportunities, and protection from discrimination for women.
It also requires us to examine the ways our culture fails men.
That includes taking responsibility for the ways we expect men to be strong while criticizing them for not being emotionally expressive. It means recognizing that telling men to “open up” is not enough. We also have to create a culture in which there is something worthwhile waiting for them when they do.
Real gender equality isn't about giving one sex more compassion and the other more accountability. It is about extending both to everyone.
And sometimes, before we looking into what a man may have done wrong, we should be willing to ask the same question we readily ask about women:
What happened to him?
Michael Giles LCSW is a psychotherapist who specializes in helping men overcoming anxiety, heal from trauma, and repair their relationships.
Click here to schedule a consultation.
Click here to order his book, Relationship Repair for Men: Counterintuitive behaviors that restore love to struggling relationships.
