Digital microaggressions and everyday othering: an analysis of tweets sent to women members of Parliament in the UK

Abstract

Online abuse directed at female politicians has the potential to present barriers to the political representation of women in the digital age. Previous research has produced mixed results, with some finding little difference between the extent of abuse received by male and female MPs, while others found that women and minority groups are subjected to specific kinds of abuse. While straightforward examples of abuse and discrimination are easy to identify, categorise and quantify, tweets which include more subtle microaggressions that position women and minority MPs as unqualified and unwelcome in politics deserve attention. This research therefore employs a qualitative thematic analysis of 11,543 tweets sent to UK members of Parliament. The analysis identified four themes: 1. 'overt online abuse', 2. 'everyday sexism and othering', 3. 'dismissing discrimination and victim blaming', and 4. 'claiming reverse discrimination'. We argue that these digital microaggressions serve as constant reminders of the marginalised status of female representatives, and women of colour specifically, and should be conceptualised as forms of psychological and semiotic violence that reconstitute online political spaces as a hostile environment for women and may discourage women from seeking political office or compel women representatives to leave. Digital microaggressions may therefore be as damaging to women's democratic representation as outright abuse.

Online Abuse of Politicians: Experimental Evidence on Politicians' own Perceptions

“…However, it is important to note that the operational definitions of abuse-or similar terms-applied in these studies do not in themselves tell us how politicians actually perceive such types of abuse, nor can we be sure that politicians have conceptions of abuse that are commensurable with the literature. Studies based on content analyses may regard micro-aggressions directed at women in online spaces as "a form of psychological and semiotic violence against women in politics which poses a risk to women's participation in democratic politics" (Harmer and Southern 2021), but they alone cannot tell us how politicians perceive such micro-aggressions or other types of abuse. Similarly, while content analyses may define abuse as messages "directed at a specific person with the intent to cause harm or distress" (Ward and McLoughlin 2020), they are not well suited to tell us whether the politicians receiving messages coded as such are indeed causing them harm or distress or affect them otherwise.…”

“…While some studies within the field employ the term abuse(Bjarnegård 2021), other studies focus on related terms, e.g., incivility(Rheault, Rayment, and Musulan 2019), harassment(Collignon and Rüdig 2020), and micro-aggressions(Harmer and Southern 2021).…”

Microaggressions in the general practice setting

“…The protagonist, also referred to as the 'microaggressing agent', 10 is the perpetrator of the microagression, whether deliberately or unconsciously. Their words and actions disempower targets by dismissing, degrading, demoralising or shaming, causing stress, instilling fear, or harming a target's credibility.…”

Beyond Reputation Management: An Auto-Ethnographic Examination of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Canadian Policing

“…[15], represents a perpetual process embedded in everyday acts and practices. This phenomenon is evident in seemingly subtle occurrences such as racial microaggressions [16] and ethnic jokes [17]. Notably, racial humor frequently serves as a discursive practice that can manifest exclusion in the workplace, often functioning as an "ethnic boundary marker") [18].…”