Posts by Anniston

The public loves a hero. Equally, it loves a villain. Honestly, probably even more so. Nothing brings us together as a society than finding someone to hate – particularly when it is a woman deemed “too much”—too loud, too bold, too unapologetic, too rude, too… imperfect.

In recent years, we’ve witnessed the emergence of high-profile cases where women have come forward with allegations of sexual harassment or assault, only to be met with doubt, skepticism, and even smear campaigns designed to discredit them.

One of the most recent cases is that of Blake Lively and her recent allegations against actor-director Justin Baldoni. Her allegations have once again brought this troubling dynamic into stark focus.

Lively accused Baldoni of sexual harassment, and almost immediately, the PR team of Baldoni responded —not to the gravity of her accusations but with a campaign to discredit her. The PR team used by Baldoni was reportedly also involved in similar efforts in other high-profile cases. And even now, we are watching a back-and-forth of accusations occur. Currently, with Lively’s accusations made public, we are witnessing another narrative shift accusing her of being vindictive.

Regardless of which version of truth you are currently choosing to believe, one thing remains constant: it is so easy for us to immediately victim blame. It is so easy for us to immediately turn to nitpicking past interactions and highlighting facets of a person we do not like when they have expressed that they’ve experienced abuse.

Especially when that abuse is at the hands of a beloved, attractive, or generally respected figure.

We want a witch to burn.  

Women undeniably face the brunt of this. From Lively, to Angelina Jolie, to Amber Heard, to Meghan Markle (I bring up these women for a specific reason, bear with me), smear campaigns have become the weapon of choice for silencing women.

These cases, including Lively’s, underscore how society weaponizes misogyny and victim-blaming to protect powerful men or systems, leaving women to fight not only their abusers but also a public eager to vilify them.

Lively and Baldoni:  Background on the Backlash

The alleged harassment of Lively took place during the production of an ambitious project directed by Justin Baldoni. The film, touted as a groundbreaking exploration of complex gender dynamics, drew early praise for its vision but quickly became a lightning rod for criticism due to the nature of the topic: domestic violence.

Critics and audiences alike pointed out glaring issues in the film’s depiction of women, arguing that it leaned heavily on outdated tropes and failed to deliver on its promise of nuance (although, this is largely in part due to the fact that the film is an adaptation of a book that held these same tropes and problems, but that’s an issue for another blog post).

On set, insiders claim tensions ran high, with Lively and Baldoni clashing on the direction of the film and growing concerns spread about behavior. It was during this period that Lively later reported experiencing inappropriate advances and unprofessional conduct from Baldoni. These allegations, paired with her vocal criticisms of the film’s direction, set the stage for what would become a relentless campaign to tarnish her credibility. Something to note: Lively did not publicly disclose these complaints until after the smear campaign against her was underway.

The Smear Campaign Begins

When Lively’s allegations were brought forth, Baldoni’s PR team reportedly sprang into action, employing tactics perfected in other high-profile cases involving Angelina Jolie, Amber Heard, and Meghan Markle. Instead of addressing the allegations, the focus shifted to discrediting Lively. It’s reported that the same PR team that was involved with Baldoni was also involved with orchestrating smear campaigns against the women mentioned above.  

The campaign began subtly, with whispers in the media labeling Lively as “difficult to work with” and “unprofessional.” Anonymous sources painted her as a diva who clashed with the director and disrupted production. Soon, fabricated stories began to surface—claims that Lively had acted erratically on set and had strained relationships with her co-stars. Then, former interviewers came out of the woodworks to showcase just how “rude” Lively acted during interviews and other public events.

And while this was happening, Lively and Baldoni were doing press tours for their movie. Lively and her team have expressed that she was instructed to focus on empowerment, steering clear of the topic of abuse that occurs during the movie – something she received heavy criticism for.

Baldoni, on the other hand, dove hard into the aspects of abuse that were highlighted during the movie. Baldoni had also seated himself as a champion of women’s rights with his podcast discussing “toxic masculinity” – further making Lively’s claims all the harder to believe.

Now, as this back and forth ensues, we are seeing stories that claim Lively was using the harassment allegations as a way to deflect criticism of her own behavior.

Drawing Parallels: Angelina Jolie, Meghan Markle, and Amber Heard

Angelina Jolie’s experience offers a chilling parallel. During her tumultuous divorce from Brad Pitt, Jolie alleged domestic abuse. Instead of being met with empathy, Jolie became the target of a PR campaign portraying her as a manipulative, alienating figure. The focus shifted from Pitt’s alleged abuse to Jolie’s parenting, mental health, and alleged vindictiveness.

Despite her decades-long career as an acclaimed actress and humanitarian, Jolie’s credibility was eroded in the court of public opinion. The same tactics used against Lively—doubt, discrediting, and character assassination—were wielded to deflect attention from serious allegations.

While Meghan Markle’s case doesn’t involve an intimate partner, it highlights another facet of this pattern: institutional abuse. Markle, the first woman of color to marry into the British royal family, faced relentless media attacks fueled by leaks from palace insiders. When Markle publicly discussed the racism and mistreatment she endured, the narrative quickly shifted.

Markle was framed as a diva, a troublemaker, and a manipulator who disrupted the harmony of the royal family. This smear campaign, (again, in part engineered by the same PR firm Baldoni has reportedly hired), reflects a broader societal reluctance to confront abuse—whether by individuals or institutions.

And now, most notably, Amber Heard. No discussion of public smear campaigns would be complete without examining Heard’s case. When Heard accused Johnny Depp of domestic violence and sexual abuse, she became the target of an aggressive and highly effective PR effort to discredit her. The campaign painted Heard as a liar and abuser, despite evidence to the contrary, and turned the public against her. She is still called a liar, even though a prior trial in the UK ruled that Heard’s claims were “substantially true” – but this trial was not the one that was heavily televised. Imagine that. Depp literally wrote that he was going to “burn and rape her corpse” yet we still largely villainize her instead of him.

Heard’s experience set a dangerous precedent, demonstrating how powerful men can manipulate public opinion to protect their reputations. This blueprint has since been replicated, from Jolie to Markle and now, allegedly, Lively.

A Pattern of Protecting Power

The throughline in all these cases is clear: powerful men (or institutions) protect themselves by discrediting women who challenge them. Whether it’s Baldoni, Pitt, or the British monarchy, the strategy is the same:

1. Control the Narrative: Redirect public attention from the allegations to the accuser’s perceived flaws.
2. Exploit Misogyny: Play into sexist tropes of women as “crazy,” “manipulative,” or “vindictive.”
3. Weaponize Public Opinion: Use social media, tabloids, and strategic leaks to paint the woman as the villain.

These tactics rely on society’s ingrained misogyny. Women are scrutinized more harshly than men, and their credibility is often questioned, especially when they accuse powerful individuals or systems of wrongdoing.

Why Society Loves a “Witch”

At the heart of these smear campaigns is a cultural obsession with having a scapegoat. Historically, women have often filled this role, whether in literal witch hunts or modern smear campaigns. Society is quick to label women who speak out as “difficult” or “crazy” because it’s easier to vilify a woman than confront the wrongdoing of a beloved figure or institution.

This dynamic was evident with Jolie, who was castigated for protecting her children; with Markle, who was vilified for calling out racism; and with Heard, who was demonized for speaking out against abuse. Now, it appears to be Lively’s turn to be cast as the “witch” society loves to burn.

The Cost of Misogyny and Victim-Blaming

The consequences of these smear campaigns are devastating, not just for the women involved but for society as a whole. By discrediting women who come forward, we create a culture where survivors are afraid to speak out, knowing they may be met with backlash instead of support.

This pattern also reinforces the idea that only “perfect” victims—those who are universally likable or who fit a narrow mold of what society deems acceptable—deserve to be believed. This is a dangerous precedent, as it marginalizes the voices of survivors who don’t fit this mold and emboldens abusers to act without fear of accountability.

When we victim blame, we send a message to abusers. It shows that as long as they target people society deems “unlikable” or “flawed,” they can escape accountability. It creates a dangerous precedent, one that protects abusers while leaving survivors to bear the weight of skepticism and blame.

We must reject this double standard. Believing survivors doesn’t mean blindly accepting every claim without evidence; it means not allowing biases about personality or perfection to cloud our judgment. It means recognizing that survivors are human—imperfect, sometimes difficult, but no less deserving of justice and support.

Believing Victims, Even When It’s Hard

Abuse is about power and control, not about how “nice” someone is. Truly, all the women mentioned in this blog post could be bratty, snotty, snobbish women. But that doesn’t mean that they should become victims of abuse.

I know I have said this a lot in this blog post, but we must start by dismantling the notion that only perfect people are worth believing.

Everyone deserves safety, justice, and a chance to be heard. Anything less perpetuates the cycle of silence and harm, even when the accusations are uncomfortable, or the accuser doesn’t fit the idealized image of a victim.

Angelina Jolie, Amber Heard, Meghan Markle, and now Blake Lively—all have faced backlash not because their claims lacked merit, but because society is more comfortable silencing women than addressing systemic abuse and misogyny.

It’s time to shift the narrative. Instead of asking why women come forward, we should be asking why society is so quick to discredit them. Only by confronting this bias can we create a culture where survivors are supported, believed, and empowered to speak out without fear of retribution.

Until then, cases like Lively’s will continue to serve as stark reminders of how far we have to go in dismantling the systems that enable abuse—and the smear campaigns that follow. Consider this: if these women who have access to money and PR teams have experienced this kind of abuse, imagine what a woman without those privileges has to go through just to be believed. 

If you need any additional information, have a question, or a concern, feel free to reach out to Options at our 24-hour toll-free helpline 800-794-4624. You can also reach an advocate via text by texting HOPE to 847411 or click 24-Hour Chat with Options.

Written by Anniston Weber

This grant project is supported by the State General Fund for Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, sub-grant number 24-SGF-07, as administered by the Kansas Governor’s Grants Program. The opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Kansas Governor.