Carol CohnDr. Carol Cohn is a professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston and founding director of the Consortium on Gender, Security, and Human Rights; leader in the academic community addressing gender issues in global politics, armed conflict and security. Her research and writing has focused on issues of gender and security. The article analyzed, dated 1987, was published by the University of Chicago Press. The purpose of the article can be seen as both an analysis and a kind of critique of the “technostrategic language” used in nuclear strategic analysis. The author begins by emphasizing the extent to which technostrategic language is full of euphemisms, making it very abstract. He points out that the vocabulary used is full of phallic images that compare the power of men to nuclear power, exalting masculine strength, so it can be considered sexist vocabulary. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay Attention is also drawn to “patriarchal imagery” as certain words are used to highlight the power and wisdom of those who work in the field of nuclear weapons and analysis. field. Added to this is the idea of ​​male birth, aiming to replace the creative power of women; a sort of oxymoron, since it associates the term “birth”, representing life, with nuclear weapons, representing destruction. It is therefore possible to affirm and confirm that nuclear technostrategic language is masculinist. It also highlights the way in which national images such as "marrying" or "dating" are used "to tame the wild and uncontrollable forces of nuclear destruction", images which are metaphors whose aim is to humanize the nuclear weapons. The author considers, after learning the language, “that talking about nuclear weapons is fun; (…) the words are racy, sexy, lively.” Further stating that "part of the appeal was the thrill of being able to manipulate an obscure language, the power to enter the secret realm." Learning this language can influence the daily way of thinking and self-expression. Indeed, she states that “this language does not allow us to ask certain questions or express certain values ​​(…) I could not keep human life as a point of reference. I found that I could talk about nuclear weapons for days without once thinking about the people who would be incinerated by them. Having stated this, we can say that unlike the very first beginning, she thinks like a defense intellectual, which makes the text quite controversial: she seems to change her position on nuclear technostrategic language, in opposition to the impression that She was a feminist defense intellectual. She clearly admits that she lacks the sense of humanity that she apparently had before learning this language, thus becoming like the men she "blamed" because of the way they spoke. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.Get a Custom EssayWeapons are the main protagonist, depriving human lives of meaning and becoming “merely collateral damage”. To fuel this absence of humanity, abstruse vocabulary (justified as “limited nuclear war is an abstract conceptual system”) which allows the terrible nuclear reality to be eclipsed is used by defense intellectuals. Even though the author writes about his personal experience, which is very specific, descriptive and sometimes..