The following word cloud from Crystal Smith’s The Achilles Effect blog reflects the vocabulary commonly used for toy advertisements directed toward young boys (i.e. those toys in the 6-8 year old boy’s section of the Toys ‘R Us website were classified as “boys’ toys”). While the data visualization was not meant as part of a rigorous study, it is nevertheless interesting anecdotal evidence pointing toward the ways in which gender stereotypes are shaped and/or reinforced, particularly when the word cloud is compared to toys targeted toward girls from the same age group. (Yes, I am aware that a wordle based on a word count cannot analyze a text or set of texts, but it can point toward interesting lines of inquiry.)
Should IR scholars care about advertisement to young boys? Maybe not, but maybe there is something to be concerned about if the process of gender construction leads to highly polarized (non-overlapping) ideal types. To borrow from an earlier post/Foreign Affairs article about the so-called “Lady Hawks” by Charli Carpenter, it may matter to IR scholars if social expectations about gender roles can be shown to frame policy choices. At the very least, these gender stereotypes do matter for domestic politics because they certainly influence the lens through which foreign policy decisions are often interpreted by spin doctors.
‘Maybe not’ seems an under-sell, as does the restriction of this to ‘advertising’.
Put it this way: ‘Should IR scholars care about the differing ways in which individuals are socialised into relations of power, violence and submission?’
Or, better, invert the burden of responsibility. How about: ‘Why should we take notice of an IR scholar who isn’t interested in the concrete practices of militarisation?’
Or: ‘What does it mean to be interested in war and violence without being interested in the gendered ways in which humans are empowered to and legitimised in (and disempowered to and deligitimised in) the conduct of violence?’
Thanks Pablo. Those questions are much better, I agree.