Tweeting hate and tweeting love: The COVID-19 pandemic and gender biases in citizen’s responses to US governors and health officials.

How might traditional gender roles impact voters’ online responses to women and men politicians, and the incidences of online political violence? To date, there is little consensus regarding differences in how men and women politicians are treated online. The COVID-19 pandemic represents a unique opportunity to examine gender differences in online treatment within the context of a specific policy field commonly associated with gender roles. As public health policies are often regarded as a “feminine area of expertise”, the gendered nature of the crisis could impact public responses to men versus women politicians. We therefore ask if there were qualitative and quantitative differences in responses to men and women governors and health officials during the Covid-19 pandemic. Using a collection of approximately 3,000 tweets collected in the United States during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, we analyze variation in the frequency and content through which citizens engaged with men and women governors and health officials on Twitter during the first lockdown. We characterize responses as either statements of support or attack, which could differ in terms of response to policy or character, and in the presence or absence of gendered tropes. Our initial findings suggest that, contrary to expectations, women officials did not receive more abuse for taking strict measures, nor did they receive more praise for protecting public health.