The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bitch, slut, skank, cunt: patterned resistance to women’s visibility in digital publics
Abstract
Resistance to women’s public voice and visibility via street harassment and workplace sexual harassment have long constrained women’s use of and comfort in physical public spaces; this gender-based resistance now extends into digital arenas. Women face extreme hostility in the form of digital sexism in discussion rooms, comment sections, gaming communities, and on social media platforms. Reflecting on two years of in-depth interviews with women who have been on the receiving end of gender-based digital abuse (n = 38), conversations with industry professionals working in content moderation and digital safety, the extant literature, and news stories about digital attacks against women, I offer a lens to think through the prominent patterns in digital sexism, showing (1) that aggressors draw upon three overlapping strategies – intimidating, shaming, and discrediting – to limit women’s impact in digital publics, (2) the way femininity and femaleness are used to undermine women’s contributions, and (3) men call attention to women’s physicality as a way to pull gender – and the male advantage that comes with it – to the fore in digital exchanges. Finally, I argue that when digital sexism succeeds in pressing women out of digital spaces, constrains the topics they address publicly, or limits the ways they address them, we must consider the democratic costs of gender-based harassment, in addition to the personal ones.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy
Fraser, N. (1990) · Social Text · doi:10.2307/466240 · Cited by 5,147
BONILLA, Y., & ROSA, J. (2015) · American Ethnologist · doi:10.1111/amet.12112 · Cited by 1,116 · cited 1×
“Such spaces have proven to be valuable sources of solidarity for those from disadvantaged groups (e.g., Bonilla & Rosa, 2015; Keller, 2012; Rapp, Button, Fleury-Steiner, & Fleury-Steiner, 2010).”
BackgroundBates, S. (2017) · Feminist Criminology · doi:10.1177/1557085116654565 · Cited by 414 · cited 1×
“Digital sexism has cost victims their jobs, forced them to move, jeopardized their mental health, placed them at risk of physical violence, and caused irreparable social damage (Barak, 2005; Bates, 2017; Citron, 2014).”
BackgroundEmbodied Harms: Gender, Shame, and Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence
Henry, N., & Powell, A. (2015) · Violence Against Women · doi:10.1177/1077801215576581 · Cited by 270
Cited by
Internet, social media and online hate speech. Systematic review
Castaño-Pulgarín, S. A., Suárez-Betancur, N., Vega, L. M. T., & López, H. M. H. (2021) · Aggression and Violent Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.avb.2021.101608 · Cited by 395
Online Harassment and Its Implications for the Journalist–Audience Relationship
Lewis, S. C., Zamith, R., & Coddington, M. (2020) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2020.1811743 · Cited by 234
Contemporary Social Movements in a Hybrid Media Environment
Caren, N., Andrews, K. T., & Lu, T. (2020) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054627 · Cited by 108
Laffier, J., & Rehman, A. (2023) · Journal of Digital Life and Learning · doi:10.51357/jdll.v3i1.218 · Cited by 44
Claesson, A. (2023) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2022.2110509 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Sobieraj, S.
- Venue
- Information, Communication & Society
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-07-13
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1700-1714
- ISSN
- 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
- 1468-4462
- OpenAlex
- W2735809892
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 31.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bitch, slut, skank, cunt: patterned resistance to women’s visibility in digital publics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/1369118x.2017.1348535
- The paper
- Sobieraj, S. (2018). Bitch, slut, skank, cunt: patterned resistance to women’s visibility in digital publics. Information, Communication & Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2017.1348535
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.