"We’re proud to empower women in leadership and technology": Neoliberal feminism in arms manufacturers’ social media content

By: Natalie Jester (she/her/hers)

What comes to mind when you think of the arms trade? Do you picture bombs or bullets? Or perhaps money is where your thoughts lead you? One answer you probably would not expect to give is “women’s empowerment” or “feminism.”

In my recent IFJP article, I argue that gendered representations are a central component of public communications by arms manufacturers. I examine social media content by three of the largest arms manufacturers (by revenue) to see how, if at all, women were represented. Whilst making a significant proportion of revenue (85%+) from the sale of arms and related technologies, the companies examined very rarely discuss arms within their tweets. This is perhaps not surprising. Instead, they focus on science and technology, broadly understood; I therefore use Alison Howell’s more expansive concept of martial politics (relating to things that are “of war” rather than “war” itself) to explore how work on robots, space, or the environment might be important in constructing the arms trade. Social media is important in this case because it is recognised to be a public space, and many people can (and do) follow arms manufacturers. Lockheed Martin, for example, has 528,000 followers on Twitter, 580,000 on Instagram, and 803,000 on Facebook.

Bullet shell casings, tinted pink.
Licensed under Creative Commons by Jay Springett

So, how is the relationship between women and arms manufacturers represented within this space? Firstly, women are normalised and named as women within this space. At its most basic level this entails the inclusion of women-presenting staff as “simply members of the team” through the use of images omitting references to their sex. In this context, women are labelled experts, “able to answer questions,” or positioned as holding authority, challenging the idea of science as a space of white scientific masculinity. Other representations do name women as women, through the use of female pronouns or the use of common women’s names. According to Lockheed Martin, only around 25% of its whole workforce is female, so the invocation of women in this space is an important means of portraying the company as progressive.

Secondly, the companies are portrayed as empowering and inspiring women. One way in which this occurs is through proclamations (‘We support … efforts to promote #STEM education and workforce training that empowers women around the world to reach their full potential’; ‘Inspiring future leaders … ‘). The companies also discuss a range of initiatives they are undertaking or participating in, which aim to empower women, including grants, internships and scholarships. An emphasis upon empowerment elides the structures that marginalise women across the world, from racism, to sexism, to capitalism. Such discourse is common within white neoliberal feminism, despite the fact that it is not possible to “empower” yourself out of oppression resulting from these structures.

Finally, I identify a discourse that individualises women’s success. Abstract representations of “women’s success” emphasise those at the top of their companies (‘#DYK [did you know] women-owned businesses are growing faster than US businesses overall?’). More common, however, is a focus on individual women’s success, with female Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson being most prominent. Other women are celebrated in this space, especially those winning at the Black Enterprise Awards, which again highlights the importance of race. The portrayal of Black women’s success within these companies positions them as beacons of neoliberal multicultural feminism, where they are taken as “proof” that the companies are progressive.

In this article, I argue that we need to reflect on what do representations like this “do” and how they might impact the arms trade. I argue that, with a friendly face, it is harder to critique the arms trade. One example that makes this especially clear is the positioning of these companies as champions of girls’ education and – therefore – empowerment. Military access to youth spaces is contentious, facing protest and disquiet, for example in schools. In contrast, the aforementioned companies portray themselves as working hard to give girls the skills they need to succeed in their future workplace. As one girl puts it, following an event with Raytheon, ‘Today I learned that, although competition is everywhere, you shouldn’t let it discourage you, but rather it should empower you because perseverance is what will help you reach your goal.’ When arms manufacturers are able to position themselves as supporting girls to make a better future for themselves – among other things – then it offers something of a shield against the criticism they receive for their products. The space created by this ambivalence, I argue, is one of the things that helps “make possible” the continuation of the arms trade as relevant companies are then able to claim that they are a force for good in the world.

Read the full article here: Making martial politics palatable: constructing neoliberal feminist subjects in arms manufacturers’ social media feeds

Each blog post gives the views of the individual author(s) based on their published IFJP article. All posts published on ifjpglobal.org remain the intellectual property and copyright of the author or authors.

Natalie Jester is a lecturer at the University of Gloucestershire, UK. Her work focuses on representations of security in digital spaces, asking how these might facilitate militarised violence, broadly speaking. Within this, she is interested in gender, state identity, and secrecy/transparency. Her research interests are reflected in her teaching, which covers a range of modules related to international issues and identity.

Blog