Who has it harder in the public eye: men or women?
Whenever people ask me whether men or women have it worse under the spotlight, I always hesitate. The truth is, both do. But the way they are attacked is very different, and that matters a lot if you work in crisis PR.
Women who ask me are often shocked to hear me say, God forbid, that men actually can have it tough. I am not one of these people who are on board with the current trend of casually hating men. I find that absurd and, frankly, quite weird. From my experience, men often face more severe, high-stakes allegations, while women suffer from a constant drip-feed of criticism that targets different aspects of their lives. Both experiences are damaging, just in very different ways.
I have spoken to publications such as Stylist about this, and I have seen it first-hand with my own clients. Women are disproportionately hit with character attacks: “she’s not as she seems,” “she’s difficult,” “she’s calculated,” “she’s playing the victim.” Meanwhile, many of my male reach-outs are men who believe they have been falsely accused of something serious, often allegations that could end careers and lives overnight. I’m usually shown very good evidence to prove their innocence too.
The public eye is not neutral. Men and women are judged through very different lenses.
Women: character assassination as the default
Women in the public eye rarely get accused of one-off actions. They get framed as if their entire character is wrong.
In my Stylist interview, I explained how the takedown of high-profile women follows formulas: “She’s not authentic,” “she’s too difficult,” “she’s manipulative,” or “she’s playing the victim.” These narratives are often planted by unverifiable sources, a “runner” from a past TV show, an “insider” on her team, or a supposed childhood friend. Once they land, they are almost impossible to shake off.
Research backs this up. A UK poll found 73% of Gen Z had witnessed misogynistic content online, with nearly half encountering it weekly. Women are also significantly more fearful of being targeted by harassment or defamation, and the psychological toll is higher.
Tone is another trap. When I am working with female clients, I have to be far more careful about how their statements come across. Too assertive and they are “cold” or “hostile.” Too soft and they are “weak” or “ineffective.” There is no equivalent burden on men.
Men: fewer attacks, but higher-stakes ones
On the other side, men in the public eye are more likely to face accusations of serious misconduct, many of which they claim are false. In my experience, a large number of male clients who come to me are dealing with exactly this.
False accusations are difficult to quantify, but studies suggest men are more likely to face them in certain areas, particularly around sexual misconduct. Even if those allegations are disproven, the reputational damage can be irreversible. Unlike women, whose reputations are slowly eroded by repeated small attacks, men can face sudden, catastrophic fallout.
It is also important to acknowledge something uncomfortable. There are women out there who weaponise the fact that they know an audience is immediately going to believe the woman and vilify the man, regardless of evidence. They use the presumption of belief as a blunt instrument, expecting that their claim will be accepted word-for-word before the accused ever speaks.
Motivations vary. Some do it for revenge after a relationship breakdown. Others for money, knowing a public figure might pay to make the story go away. And then there are those who do it for clout in the age of social media, where attention can be monetised. They can even create GoFundMe pages or crowdfund campaigns, turning a fabricated story into financial gain. Whatever the reason, the fallout is devastating, not only to any individual man wrongly accused, but to genuine victims whose credibility is undermined when the narrative is weaponised.
And here is the harshest truth: even if a man proves his innocence, even if the accuser later admits the claim was false, or the case is dropped for lack of evidence, the stain does not fully disappear. Networks hesitate to hire him, brands pull away from sponsorships, and commercial opportunities dry up. Once someone has been linked to a sexual misconduct allegation, it creates a permanent split in public opinion - roughly half will continue to believe it, regardless of facts. For brands, the reputational risk is too high. It only takes a handful of comments online asking “why would you work with him?” for a campaign or partnership to look toxic. That reputational damage lingers long after innocence is proven.
What the numbers say
Most research puts false or unfounded rape reports in the 2% to 10% range of reported cases.
In one sample of 136 reports over ten years, 5.9% were considered likely false.
A study of Los Angeles police data estimated 4.5% were false after investigation.
In the UK, Ministry of Justice figures cluster around 3-4% for false or unfounded reports.
But here is the nuance: “unfounded” does not always mean “deliberate fabrication.” Many cases are dropped because of evidentiary gaps, recantations, or procedural issues, not because someone consciously invented the allegation. And because sexual violence is massively underreported, the real number of victims is much higher than any dataset captures.
That said, these figures only reflect cases that enter the criminal system. What I see in crisis PR is the other side of the coin: accusations and threats that never go near the police. It is a modern attack, often used behind the scenes to intimidate, control or destroy reputations. In some situations, I have seen people threaten to “go public” with fabricated claims unless they get money, attention, or compliance. Those incidents never show up in official statistics, but they are increasingly common in the world of public figures.
So while proven false reports are relatively rare in a criminal sense, the weaponisation of accusation as a reputational tactic is far more widespread. Social media amplifies that power. A single tweet, TikTok or anonymous email can cement a guilty verdict in the court of public opinion long before facts catch up.
The double standard in numbers
Representation: Globally, only around 24% of people seen or heard in the news are women. When they are covered, they are far more likely to be discussed in terms of appearance, authenticity, or emotion.
Criticism: Films with majority-female casts receive 149% more hostile sexist language in reviews compared to male-dominated films.
Self-promotion: Women are 28% less likely to promote their own work online than men, in part because of anticipated backlash.
Online abuse: Amnesty International found that women receive disproportionately high levels of online harassment, from body-shaming to stalking, compared to men.
Who really has it harder?
It is the wrong question. Men and women are simply attacked along different fault lines.
For women, the erosion is constant, formulaic, and personal. Every smile, tone, outfit, and sentence is weaponised.
For men, the danger is less frequent but far more explosive. One accusation can obliterate a career overnight, true or not.
Both are damaging, both are deeply unfair, and both require different strategies.
What PR can actually do
For women, the priority is anticipating narrative framing. The first attack may not be factual at all, but rhetorical. For men, it is about transparency, procedures, and evidence. Showing clearly and quickly why an allegation does not stand.
And for both, it is about resilience. The online space is unforgiving, but with the right messaging, safety planning, and narrative management, it is possible to withstand even the ugliest pile-ons.
The industry loves to tear women down and excuse men. That is what I told Stylist, and it is what I have seen time and again. But in reality, both face different battles in the public eye. Neither is easier, just different.
And that is why crisis PR is never one-size-fits-all. The strategies have to be tailored not just to the individual, but to the biases and expectations they will inevitably face.