Polarization and incivility in digital debates on women’s rights in Spain. Not just a matter of machismo

References

• Abramowitz, A. I. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Abrisketa, O. G., & Abrisketa, M. G. (2020). “It’s okay, sister, your wolf-pack is here”: Sisterhood as public feminism in Spain. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 45(4), 931–953.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acale Sánchez, M., & Faraldo Cabana, P. (2018). La Manada: Un antes y un después en la regulación de los delitos sexuales en España. Tirant Lo Blanch (pp. 1–332).
   Google Scholar
• Banet-Weiser, S., & Miltner, K. M. (2015). # MasculinitySoFragile: Culture, structure, and networked misogyny. Feminist Media Studies, 16(1), 171–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barak, A. (2005). Sexual harassment on the internet. Social Science Computer Review, 23(1), 77–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2013). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, W. L., Segerberg, A., & Knüpfer, C. B. (2018). The democratic interface: Technology, political organization, and diverging patterns of electoral representation. Information, Communication & Society, 21(11), 1655–1680.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borondo, J., Morales, A. J., Losada, J. C., & Benito, R. M. (2012). Characterizing and modeling an electoral campaign in the context of Twitter: 2011 Spanish presidential election as a case study. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 22(2), 023138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2017). Is the internet causing political polarization? Evidence from demographics. Cambridge MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
   Google Scholar
• Bratich, J., & Banet-Weiser, S. (2019). From pick-up artists to incels: Con (fidence) games, networked misogyny, and the failure of neoliberalism. International Journal of Communication, 13, 25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caldarelli, G., Chessa, A., Pammolli, F., Pompa, G., Puliga, M., Riccaboni, M., & Riotta, G. (2014). A multi-level geographical study of Italian political elections from Twitter data. PloS ONE, 9(5), e95809.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cárdenas, J. P., Vidal, G., Urbina, C., Olivares, G., Rodrigo, P., & Fuentes, M. (2018). Social crises: Signatures of complexity in a fast-growing economy. Complexity, 2018(2018), 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Castells, M. (2009). Communication and power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Citron, D. K. (2009). Cyber civil rights. BUL Review, 89, 61.
   Google Scholar
• Conroy, M. (2018). Strength, stamina, and sexism in the 2016 presidential race. Politics & Gender, 14(1), 116–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duggan, M., & Smith, A. (2014). Social media update 2013. Pew Research Centre. http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/12/30/social-media-update-2013/
   Google Scholar
• Fincher, L. H. (2016). Leftover women: The resurgece of gender inequality in China. London: ZED Books.
   Google Scholar
• Franks, M. A. (2012). Sexual harassment 2.0. Maryland Law Review, 71(3), 655–704.
   Google Scholar
• Gentzkow, M. (2016). Polarization in 2016. Toulouse Network for Information Technology Whitepaper.
   Google Scholar
• Gervais, B. T. (2015). Incivility online: Affective and behavioral reactions to uncivil political posts in a web-based experiment. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 12(2), 167–185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, R., & Ward, S. (2009). Parties in the digital age, a review article. Representation, 45(1), 87–100.
   Google Scholar
• Ging, D. (2017). Alphas, betas, and incels: Theorizing the masculinities of the manosphere. Men and Masculinities, 22(4), 638–657.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gould, R. V., & Fernandez, R. M. (1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89–126.
   Google Scholar
• Haidt, J., & Hetherington, M. J. (2012, September 17). Look how far we’ve come apart. The New York Times.
   Google Scholar
• Hasso, F. S., & Salime, Z. (2016). Freedom without permission: Bodies and space in the Arab revolutions. Duke: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Herbst, S. (2010). Rude democracy: Civility and incivility in American politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, D. (2000). ‘Welcome to the rape camp’: Sexual exploitation and the internet in Cambodia. The Journal of Sexual Aggression, 6(1/2), 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Jane, E. (2012). ‘Your a ugly, whorish, slut’: Understanding E-bile. Feminist Media Studies, 14(4), 531–546.
   Google Scholar
• Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. Freedom and Control in Modern Society, 18(1), 18–66.
   Google Scholar
• Leadbeater, C. (2008). We-think. London: Profile Books.
   Google Scholar
• Lelkes, Y. (2016). Mass polarization: Manifestations and MEASUREMENTS. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 392–410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levey, T. G. (2018). Sexual harassment online: Shaming and silencing women in the digital age. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Lutz, C., Hoffmann, C. P., & Meckel, M. (2014). Beyond just politics: A systematic literature review of online participation. First Monday, 19(7), 1–36.
   Google Scholar
• Mackinnon, C. (1989). Towards a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marr, B. (2018, May 21). how much data do we create every day? The mind-blowing stats everyone should read. Forbes. Retrieved July 10, 2018, from www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2018/05/21/how-much-data-do-we-create-every-day-the-mind-blowing-stats-everyone-should-read/
   Google Scholar
• Martin-Gutierrez, S., Losada, J. C., & Benito, R. M. (2018). Recurrent patterns of user behavior in different electoral campaigns: A Twitter analysis of the Spanish general elections of 2015 and 2016. Complexity, 2018, 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Meeks, L. (2017). Getting personal: Effects of Twitter personalization on candidate evaluations. Politics & Gender, 13(1), 1–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Megarry, J. (2014, November). Online incivility or sexual harassment? Conceptualising women’s experiences in the digital age. Women’s Studies International Forum, 47, 46–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media and Society, 6(2), 259–283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pepin-Neff, C., & Wynter, T. (2019). The Costs of Pride: Survey Results from LGBTQI Activists in the United States, United Kingdom, South Africa, and Australia. Politics & Gender, 16(2), 498-524. doi:10.1017/S1743923X19000205
   Google Scholar
• Pettman, J. J. (1996). Worlding women: A feminist international politics. St Leonards: Allen and Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Robles, J. M., & Córdoba, A. (2019). Digital political participation, social networks and big data: Disintermediation in the Era of Web 2.0. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Robles, J. M., Velez, D., De Marco, S., Rodríguez, T. J., & Gómez, D. (2018). Affective homogeneity in the Spanish general election debate. A comparative analysis of social networks political agents. Information, Communication & Society, 23:2, 216-233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowe, I. (2015). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication Y Society, 18(2), 121–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sartori, G. (2005). Parties and party systems: A framework for analysis. Colchester: ECPR press.
   Google Scholar
• Schradie, J. (2011). The digital production gap: The digital divide and Web 2.0 collide. Poetics, 39(2), 145–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spender, D. (1995). Nattering on the Net: Women, power and cyberspace. North Geelong: Spinifex Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Haperen, S., Nicholls, W., & Uitermark, J. (2018). Building protest online: Engagement with the digitally networked# not1more protest campaign on Twitter. Social Movement Studies, 17(4), 408–423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar