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 writings have focused on issues of gender and safety. The analyzed article, dated 1987, was published by the University of Chicago Press. The purpose of the article could be considered both an analysis and a kind of criticism of the “technostrategic language” used in nuclear strategic analysis. The author begins by highlighting how technostrategic language is full of euphemisms, making it very abstract. He points out that the vocabulary used is full of phallic images that compare male power to nuclear power, glorifying male strength, therefore it can be considered a sexist vocabulary. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Attention is also drawn to “patriarchal images” as there are words used to highlight the power and wisdom of those who work in the weapons and nuclear analysis field. Added to this is the idea of ​​male birth, aimed at replacing the creative power of women; a sort of oxymoron, since it associates the term "birth", which represents life, with nuclear weapons, which represents destruction. It can therefore be stated and confirmed that nuclear technostrategic language is masculinist. It is also highlighted how domestic images such as “marry” or “take away” are used “to tame the wild and uncontrollable forces of nuclear destruction,” images that are metaphors whose purpose is to humanize nuclear weapons. The author believes, after learning the language, “talking about nuclear weapons is fun; (…) the words are bold, sexy, snappy”. Further stating that “part of the allure was the thrill of being able to manipulate an arcane language, the power to enter the secret realm.” Learning this language can influence your daily way of thinking and expressing yourself. In fact, he 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 discovered that I could talk for days about nuclear weapons without once thinking about the people who would be incinerated by them." Having said this, it can be said that unlike her first debut, she thinks like a defense intellectual, making the text appear rather controversial: she seems to change her position regarding the nuclear technostrategic language, in opposition to the impression she gave of being a feminist advocacy intellectual. She clearly admits that she lacks the sense of humanity she apparently had before learning this language, becoming just like the men she "blamed" for their way of speaking. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper now from our expert writers. Get a Custom Essay Guns are the main protagonists, making human lives meaningless and becoming “merely collateral damage.” To fuel this absence of humanity, defense intellectuals use an abstruse vocabulary (justified as “limited nuclear war is an abstract conceptual system”) that allows them to eclipse the terrible nuclear reality. Even if the author writes about her personal experience, in a very precise, descriptive and sometimes inconsistent way, a substantial bibliography is used to support the hypothesis, giving further credibility to what she states.