Cited by 52Gender, Feminism, and MediaGender Studies in LanguageGender and Feminist Studies

Neologising misogyny: Urban Dictionary’s folksonomies of sexual abuse

Open access
Ging, Debbie, Lynn, Theodore, Rosati, Pierangelo·2020·New Media & Society

Abstract

Web 2.0 has facilitated a particularly toxic brand of digital men’s rights activism, collectively known as the Manosphere. This amorphous network of online publics is noted for its virulent anti-feminism, extreme misogyny and synergies with the alt-right. Early manifestations of this phenomenon were confined largely to 4/Chan, Reddit and numerous alt-right forums. More recently, however, this rhetoric has become increasingly evident in Urban Dictionary. This article presents the findings of a machine-learning and manual analysis of Urban Dictionary’s entries relating to sex and gender, to assess the extent to which the Manosphere’s discourses of extreme misogyny and anti-feminism are working their way into everyday vernacular contexts. It also considers the sociolinguistic and gender-political implications of algorithmic and linguistic capitalism, concluding that Urban Dictionary is less a dictionary than it is a platform of folksonomies, which may exert a disproportionate and toxic influence on online discourses related to gender and sexuality.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1461444819870306

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?

  • The over-lexicalisation of female promiscuity, hypergamy and the 'halo effect' have provenance and are well-documented sexist societal tropes.

    “For example, the over-lexicalisation of female promiscuity (Russell, 2018), hypergamy (women seeking partners of higher financial means and/or status) and the 'halo effect' have provenance and are well-documented sexist societal tropes (Ging et al., 2020; Sugiura, 2021).”

    From Mainstreaming the Blackpill: Understanding the Incel Community on TikTok (2023) · cites this paper as Ging et al., 2020

  • This process is accelerated by the technological affordances of new media, allowing for the rapid amplification and dissemination of certain words and concepts through echo-chambers.

    “As highlighted by Ging et al. (2020) and Massanari (2017), this process is accelerated by the technological affordances of new media, allowing for the rapid amplification and dissemination of certain words and concepts through echo-chambers.”

    From Mainstreaming the Blackpill: Understanding the Incel Community on TikTok (2023) · cites this paper as Ging et al. (2020)

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 29 · Cited by 52

Authors
Ging, D., Lynn, T., & Rosati, P.
Affiliations
  • Dublin City University (IE)
  • Dublin City University, Ireland
Corresponding author
Ging, Debbie
Venue
New Media & Society
Published
2019-08-30
Volume
22
Issue
5
Pages
838-856
ISSN
  • 1461-4448 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7315
OpenAlex
W2970179791
Cited by
52
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
8.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New Media & Society (publishedVersion)
  • Dublin City University Open Access Institutional Repository (Dublin City University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Feminism, and Media
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Studies in Language
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
Keywords
Urban Dictionary, manosphere, misogyny, anti-feminism, social tagging, internet slang, Web 2.0, alt-right, 4chan, algorithmic capitalism

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