This article presents research findings exploring discursive qualities of political talk on migration and Islam in a female-dominated parenting forum. Approaching the concept of ‘third spaces’ from a feminist perspective, it aims at revealing whether the primarily non-political online forum serves as a sheltered environment for women who are marginalized in online political discussions in other spaces. The results of our content analysis show that despite a very high level of incivility in the parenting forum, women create a space in which they protect themselves from harmful personal attacks and humiliation and that the participating male minority seems to respect this approach.
BodeL (2017) Closing the gap: Gender parity in political engagement on social media. Information, Communication & Society20(4): 587–603.
2.
BrundidgeJRiceRE (2008) Political engagement online: Do the information rich get richer and the like-minded more similar? In: ChadwickAHowardPN (eds) Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics. London: Routledge, pp. 144–156.
3.
CarpentierN (2011) Media and Participation: A Site of Ideological-Democratic Struggle. Bristol; Chicago, IL: Intellect.
4.
CasteltrioneI (2015) The Internet, social networking web sites and political participation research: Assumptions and contradictory evidence. First Monday20(3). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i3.5462.
5.
CofféHBolzendahlC (2010) Same game, different rules? Gender differences in political participation. Sex Roles62: 318–333.
DahlbergL (2011) Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four ‘positions’. New Media & Society13(6): 855–872.
8.
DahlgrenP (2005) The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication22(2): 147–162.
9.
DavisA (2010) New media and fat democracy: The paradox of online participation. New Media & Society12(5): 745–761.
10.
Van DijkJAGM (2005) The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
11.
FentonNBarassiV (2011) Alternative media and social networking sites: The politics of individuation and political participation. The Communication Review14(3): 179–196.
12.
FrizAGehlRW (2016) Pinning the feminine user: Gender scripts in pinterest’s sign-up interface. Media, Culture & Society38(5): 686–703.
13.
GibsonRCantijochM (2013) Conceptualizing and measuring participation in the age of the Internet: Is online political engagement really different to offline?The Journal of Politics75: 701–716.
14.
Gil de ZúñigaHPuig-I-AbrilERojasH (2009) Weblogs, traditional sources online and political participation: An assessment of how the Internet is changing the political environment. New Media & Society11(4): 553–574.
15.
GrahamTDanielJWrightS (2016) ‘We need to get together and make ourselves heard’: Everyday online spaces as incubators of political action. Information, Communication & Society19(10): 1373–1389.
16.
HabermasJ (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: MIT Press.
17.
HoltKShehataAStrömbäckJet al. (2013) Age and the effects of news media attention and social media use on political interest and participation: Do social media function as leveller?European Journal of Communication28: 19–34.
18.
JacksonDScullionRMolesworthM (2013) ‘Ooh, politics. You’re brave’. Politics in everyday talk: An analysis of three ‘non-political’ online spaces. In: ScullionRGerodimosRJacksonDet al (eds) The Media, Political Participation and Empowerment. London: Routledge, pp. 205–219.
19.
JaneEA (2014) Your a ugly, whorish, slut. Feminist Media Studies14(4): 531–546.
20.
JoinerRStewartCBeaneyCet al. (2014) Publically different, privately the same: Gender differences and similarities in response to Facebook status updates. Computers in Human Behavior39: 165–169.
21.
JuncoR (2013) Inequalities in Facebook Use. Computers in Human Behavior29(6): 2328–2336.
KarlsenRSteen-JohnsenKWollebaekDet al. (2017) Echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics in online debates. European Journal of Communication32(3): 257–273.
24.
KenskiKCoeKRainsSA (2017) Perceptions of uncivil discourse online: An examination of types and predictors. Communication Research. Epub ahead of print 3 April. DOI: 10.1177/0093650217699933.
LarssonAOMoeH (2012) Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign. New Media & Society14(5): 729–747.
29.
LillekerDGJacksonNA (2010) Towards a more participatory style of election campaigning: The impact of web 2.0 on the UK 2010 general election. Policy & Internet2(3): 67–96.
30.
LutzCHoffmannCPMeckelM (2014) Beyond just politics: A systematic literature review of online participation. First Monday19(7): 1–36.
31.
NorrisP (2001) Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
NorrisPLovenduskiJCampbellR (2004) Gender and political participation. Electoral Commission. Available at: www.electoralcommission.org.uk (accessed 11 March 2014).
33.
PapacharissiZ (2004) Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society6(2): 259–283.
34.
PollettaFChenPCB (2013) Gender and public talk: Accounting for women’s variable participation in the public sphere. Sociological Theory31(4): 291–317.
35.
RobertsLDParksMR (1999) The social geography of gender-switching in virtual environments on the Internet. Information, Communication & Society2(4): 521–540.
36.
RuizCDomingoDMicóJLet al. (2011) Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics16(4): 463–487.
37.
StrandbergK (2013) A social media revolution or just a case of history repeating itself? The use of social media in the 2011 Finnish parliamentary elections. New Media & Society15(8): 1329–1347.
TeorellJTorcalMMonteroJR (2007) Political Participation Mapping the Terrain. In: van DethJWMonteroJRWestholmA (eds) Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge, pp. 334–357.
40.
VerbaSNieNH (1972) Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
41.
VochocováL (2018) Witty divas, nice mothers and tough girls in a sexist world: Experiences and strategies of female influencers in online political debates. Media, Culture & Society40(4): 535–550.
42.
VochocováLVáclavŠMazákJ (2016) Good girls don’t comment on politics? Gendered character of online political participation in the Czech Republic. Information, Communication & Society19(10): 1321–1339.
43.
WojcieszakMEMutzDC (2009) Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement?Journal of Communication59(1): 40–56.
44.
WrightS (2012) From ‘third place’ to ‘third space’: Everyday political talk in non-political online spaces. Javnost: The Public19(3): 5–20.
45.
WrightSGrahamTJacksonD (2017) Third space and everyday online political talk: Deliberation, polarisation, avoidance. In: The 67th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA, 25–29 May.
