CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 354Gender, Feminism, and MediaHate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionGender and Feminist Studies

‘Back to the kitchen, cunt’: speaking the unspeakable about online misogyny

Open access
Jane, Emma Alice·2014·Continuum
DOI 10.1080/10304312.2014.924479
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This article explores the signal characteristics of gendered vitriol on the Internet – a type of discourse marked by graphic threats of sexual violence, explicit ad hominem invective and unapologetic misogyny. Such ‘e-bile’ is proliferating in the cybersphere and is currently the subject of widespread international media coverage. Yet it receives little attention in scholarship. This is likely related to the fact that discourse of this type is metaphorically ‘unspeakable’, in that its hyperbolic profanity locates it well outside the norms of what is regarded as ‘civil’ discourse. My case, however, is that – despite the risk of causing offence – this discourse must not only be spoken of, but must be spoken of in its unexpurgated entirety. There is, I argue, no other way to adequately assay the nature of a communication mode whose misogynistic hostility has serious ethical and material implications, not least because it has become a lingua franca in many sectors of the cybersphere. Proceeding via unexpurgated ostension is also the best – arguably the only – way to begin mapping the blurry parameters of the discursive field of e-bile, and from there to conduct further inquiry into the ethical appraisal of putative online hostility, and the consideration of possible remedies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10304312.2014.924479

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Sexualized imagery of girls and young women is sometimes spread without consent to peers and to publicly accessible online platforms, fora, and sites.

    “Sometimes, however, the practices take more abusive forms, with imagery being spread (mostly by the boys and young men) without consent to peers and further on to more or less publicly accessible online platforms, fora, and sites - some inspired by abusive and toxic adult communities (Ging, 2017; Jane, 2014; Massanari, 2017).”

    From Sexualized, platformed female bodies in male online practices: Negotiating boundaries of masculinity, gendered positioning and intimacy (2022) · cites this paper as Jane, 2014

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jane, E. A.
Affiliations
UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Jane, Emma Alice
ORCID
Jane, Emma Alice
Venue
Continuum
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2014-06-17
Volume
28
Issue
4
Pages
558-570
ISSN
  • 1030-4312 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-3666
DOI
10.1080/10304312.2014.924479
OpenAlex
W2050601299
Cited by
354
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 71 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 1
FWCI
39.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Continuum (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Feminism, and Media
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
Keywords
online misogyny, swearing, online harassment, discourse mapping

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review