One of the biggest problems with cancel culture in general is its uneven application.

I don't think it's true that men never get canceled for sexual abuse/assault/etc. save for when it's an immense ongoing problem with dozens or hundreds of targets, like with Weinstein or Nassar. Consider Al Franken or Johnny Depp.

But there's a very big gap between "it sometimes happens" and "this is an effective way to stop and punish bad behavior".

Cancel culture is simply a type of mob justice. Civilized societies tend to avoid relying upon mobs for anything important because their attention is fickle, they make mistakes, and have inconsistent reach. For instance, if your supporters don't care whether you commit sexual violence, you can't be canceled--which is exactly backwards, as these people are likely to be the most dangerous.

While it would be great if cancel culture would change to take violence, especially sexual violence, against women more seriously, I don't think this will ever work satisfactorily--not even close. Because it's popularity-based, those who cultivate a publicly indifferent and abusive persona are immune (everyone who matters to them already doesn't care); the super-popular are immune (too many will give them the benefit of the doubt); and the inconspicuous are immune (nobody will pay enough attention to them for there to be public outrage).

Things that might work better include a culture of safety and respect (which works preventatively--by the time you're canceling someone, it's too late), or a reworking of procedures for handling criminal cases so they're both more effective and less taxing for the victim.