We’ve all heard it. It’s a punchline in sitcoms, a casual complaint over beers, a “cool” response in a talking stage when asked about a previous relationship, a hashtag on TikTok: “My crazy ex-girlfriend.” The phrase rolls off the tongue so easily, a shorthand for a relationship that went sour. We’re conditioned to picture a woman who is obsessive, irrational, maybe a little “unhinged.” But what if the woman was never “crazy”? What if the man is employing the oldest, most insidious trick in the abuser’s handbook to escape accountability for his bad behaviour?
In the 21st century, we’re seeing a pattern emerge with terrifying clarity, one that stretches globally. When a powerful man is accused of abuse, a predictable script unfolds. He doesn’t address the accusation. He doesn’t deny the specifics. Instead, he attacks the accuser’s mind. He paints her as mentally unstable, on drugs, or simply “crazy”—a calculated move designed to invalidate her experience and silence her voice.
Ned Nwoko and Regina Daniels
Consider the recent allegations surrounding Nigerian senator Ned Nwoko. When his wife, actress Regina Daniels, accused him of physical violence, his public response was a masterclass in deflection. He didn’t focus on whether he hit her. Instead, he claimed she was on drugs. Then released a video of stuff the she allegedly damaged. The message is clear and chilling: her reality is not to be trusted because her mind is compromised. She isn’t a victim, she’s only a hysteric.
This script isn’t exclusive to romantic partners. When Nollywood star Annie Idibia called out her husband, the musician 2Face Idibia, for his alleged infidelity, it was his brother, Charles, who jumped in to defend him. But he didn’t defend him by denying the cheating. He attacked Annie. “Your juju and drugs are finally catching up with you,” he wrote on Instagram, framing her pain as a symptom of her own instability.
Hysteria 2.0: Same Script, Different Century
This tactic is a direct descendant of the 19th-century “hysteria” diagnosis—a catch-all term used by male doctors to dismiss any female emotion or complaint that made them uncomfortable, from anxiety and trauma to sexual desire. It was a medical-sounding excuse to lock women up, discredit them, and maintain control. Today, “she’s crazy,” “she’s on drugs,” or “she’s unstable” are simply the modern, colloquial updates to that same oppressive diagnosis.
The strategy is brutally effective because it preys on societal biases that are already deeply ingrained. Women have historically been painted as the more “emotional” and “irrational” sex. An accusation of mental instability taps into that stereotype, providing a convenient hook for public doubt. It shifts the entire conversation. We stop asking, “What did he do?” and start asking, “What’s wrong with her?”
We saw this play out on a global stage with Donald Trump. When writer E. Jean Carroll accused him of sexual assault, he not only denied it then launched a full-scale assault on her credibility, repeatedly calling her a “crazy liar” and a “whack job.” His legal team framed her accusations as a politically motivated hoax. By framing her as insane, he attempted to make her testimony inadmissible in the court of public opinion, long before it reached a court of law.
The Fatal Consequence of Being Labelled The Crazy Woman
The consequences of this narrative can be fatal. The tragic case of Gabby Petito is a gut-wrenching reminder of the stakes. Just hours before she was murdered by her fiancé, Brian Laundrie, police bodycam footage showed a distressed Petito and a calm Laundrie. He successfully convinced the officers that she was the emotionally unstable one. The police believed his story. They saw a hysterical woman and a man trying to manage her. They left them to go on their way, and soon after, Petito was dead.
Her story is a terrifying illustration of how the “crazy woman” narrative doesn’t just protect abusers, but enables them. It provides them with the cover they need to continue their abuse, sometimes until it’s too late.
So, what do we do? We start by recognizing the script for what it is: a desperate, cowardly act of deflection. The next time you see a man accused of violence immediately pivot to questioning his accuser’s sanity, see it as a red flag the size of a billboard. He is so incapable of defending his actions that his only recourse is to attack her mind.
We must collectively shift our default response. Instead of allowing the conversation to be derailed by questions of her stability—as we have seen in Regina’s case— we must hold the conversation to be derailed by questions of her stability, we must hold the accused accountable for the accusation itself. The question isn’t “Is she stable?” The question is, and always must be, “Did you do it?”
This isn’t only about famous people. This insidious tactic trickles down into our daily lives, our friend groups, our DMs, and our own relationships. Think about it. How many times have you seen a friend’s legitimate anger at being mistreated dismissed as her being “too emotional”? How many times have you heard a man describe his ex-partner’s valid reactions to his poor behavior—cheating, lying, neglect—as her “going crazy”?
He stays out all night without a word, and her panicked texts are “psycho”. He constantly breaks promises, and her tears are “manipulative.” He disrespects her in front of his friends, and her decision to call him out is “a dramatic scene.” Her reaction to his action is reframed as the problem, while the action itself is conveniently forgotten.
This is how the poison spreads. It makes us second-guess our own perceptions. It forces us to perform a constant, exhausting calculus before we speak up: Will I be heard, or will I be labeled? Will expressing my hurt make me seem unstable? Is it better to just stay silent?
That silence is exactly what the abuser wants. It’s the goal.
So, how do we fight back? How do we dismantle a weapon that has been sharpened over centuries?
Practical Ways To Dismantle This Tactic
1. Name It to Tame It.
The first step is to recognize the tactic for what it is. When you hear a man pivot from defending his actions to attacking a woman’s sanity, call it out. In your group chat, in the comments section, to your friends. Say, “He’s not addressing the accusation, he’s just trying to make her look crazy.” Or more simply: “That’s gaslighting.” Giving the behavior a name strips it of its power and exposes the strategy for everyone to see.
2. Refuse the ‘Crazy’ Bait. Stay on Topic.
The “she’s unstable” narrative is a deliberate distraction. Don’t fall for it. When someone tries to shift the focus, steer it back.
“Okay, but what about the cheating allegations?”
“Her mental health isn’t the issue here. The issue is whether he hit her.”
“I’m not interested in his diagnosis of her. I’m interested in his answer to her accusation.”
By refusing to engage with the smear campaign, you keep the spotlight exactly where it belongs: on the accused and their behavior.
3. Radically Believe Women.
We aren’t asking you to blindly accept every word someone says. We are saying that by believing women first, you’re correcting a historical imbalance. Society is already primed to disbelieve women, especially when they speak out against powerful men. Choosing to start from a place of belief is a radical act. It means giving her testimony the weight and respect it deserves, understanding that the cost of speaking out is often immense, and recognizing that the “crazy” card is the first one a guilty man will play.
4. Check Your Own Language.
It’s time to retire the “crazy ex-girlfriend” trope from our own vocabularies. Let’s stop using casual ableist language to describe women who are likely just reacting to pain. Instead of “crazy,” let’s use more accurate words. Was she angry? Hurt? Betrayed? Traumatized? Using precise language honors her experience instead of dismissing it.
In Conclusion
The narrative that a woman’s mind is a liability is one of the oldest and most effective tools of the patriarchy. It has been used to silence activists, discredit victims, and keep women behind for generations. But we are the generation that can see the pattern. We have the language, the platforms, and the solidarity to call it out. Our minds are not weapons to be used against us. Our emotions are not evidence of our insanity, if anything they are evidence of our humanity. So, let them call us unstable. Let them call us unhinged. Let them call us crazy.
We know the truth. And we’re not shutting up.
