This mixed-method investigation examines the nature, prevalence, and correlates of mansplaining in modern workplaces. In Study 1, we scrape Twitter and conduct a thematic analysis of 2,312 tweets. These findings ground a comprehensive definition of mansplaining and propose six items for measurement. In Study 2, we quantitatively investigate mansplaining experiences at work (n = 499), finding that almost every participant had experienced mansplaining in the previous year. Expected gender differences emerged among mansplaining perpetrators and targets, yet men were not the only perpetrators, nor were women the only targets. Confirmatory factor analysis results support the possibility that mansplaining is a second factor of incivility. Further, mansplaining predicted significant variance in outcomes such as job satisfaction and turnover intentions above and beyond incivility. This research underscores that mansplaining is more than a social media phenomenon. Rather, it is a form of gendered mistreatment with implications for scholars and practitioners alike.

Elite partisan polarization has been found to have several potentially problematic effects on citizens, such as creating political distrust and different types of polarization among partisans. However, it remains unclear whether these effects are caused by the parties moving apart in terms of issue positions (issue polarization) or by the rise of disrespectful rhetoric (incivility). In the literature, these two dimensions of elite polarization often appear to affect citizens in similar ways, but typical research designs have not been well suited to disentangling their effects. To determine their unique effects, four studies have been conducted using original designs and a mix of experimental and observational data. The results show that issue polarization and incivility have clearly distinct effects. A more uncivil tone lowers political trust, but increasing issue polarization does not. Conversely, only issue polarization creates attitude polarization among partisans. Both aspects of elite polarization create affective polarization.

Civil disobedience is a conscientious, unlawful, and broadly nonviolent form of protest, which most political philosophers and many non-philosophers are inclined to treat as potentially defensible in democratic societies. In recent years, philosophers have become more receptive to long-standing complaints from activists that civil disobedience is an unduly restrictive framework for considering the ethics of dissent. Candice Delmas and Jason Brennan have written important books that illustrate and strengthen this trend, both defending forms of “uncivil” resistance that go beyond the narrow confines of civil disobedience. Their books offer contrasting but complementary philosophical defences of incivility as a tactic of resistance, but it is nonetheless a mistake to conclude that the rich tradition associated with civil disobedience no longer has any relevance for resistance in national, transnational, and global contexts.