Carol Cohn

In her 1987 article, "Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,"[7] Cohn discussed the language and imagery used in defense professionals discourse with a concentrated focus on the sexual subtext used and the extensive use of abstract language and euphemisms.[8] Terms such as "collateral damage" replacing "loss of life" and "RV's" in place of "nuclear bombs" are argued to demonstrate the abstract language used by defense intellectuals. Cohn argues that sexualized language including terms such as vertical "erector launchers", "thrust to weight ratios", "soft lay downs", "deep penetration", and "orgasmic whumps" are common place in nuclear weaponry and strategy conversations. Cohn links the domesticated and humanized language and imagery as a way for defense professionals to distance themselves from the reality and anxiety of war. Additionally, the 'technostrategic' language that is used is a way to restrict debate solely to defense intellectuals and professionals who are versed in the language. It is argued that this effectively dismisses and silences voices from outside the military and nuclear sphere. Cohn suggests that the reference point of the language revolves around the weapons themselves, thus, because the language is designed to talk about weapons there is no way that concerns of human life or society can be legitimately expressed. If it is not part of the language these values or concerns are effectively dismissed or deemed illegitimate. This piece demonstrates how important language is and how it can be gendered. It brings up questions about language relating to whom it allows communications with and what it allows one to think as well as say.

In "Wars, Wimps, and Women: Talking Gender and Thinking War", Cohn focuses her essay concerning the language of defense intellectuals on a concept she describes as “gendered discourse”: a set of intertwined words, images, and associations that form the basis of how we perceive ourselves as men and women. One aspect of gendered discourse that Cohn gives particular attention to is the dichotomies within language that have a manifest relationship to the dichotomy of masculinity and femininity. In dichotomies such as “logic to intuition” and “abstraction to particularity” not only is the first half of the dichotomy associated with masculinity but is also perceived as the superior quality of the two in terms of both power and status.[9] According to Cohn, one detrimental side effect of this gendered discourse is that the only way anyone can be perceived as legitimate in the world of defense intellectuals is to “talk like a man” and exhibit the more valued traits on the masculine side of characteristic dichotomies, a practice that stymies dialogue[10] and limits the influence of valuable perspectives on national security issues of dire importance.[11] As Cohn traces this deficiency in diverse perspectives back to the gendered discourse that preemptively deters any perspective perceived as feminine, the solution, Cohn argues, is not simply to bring more women into the war room but to encourage both men and women to reexamine the ideas and values that have hitherto been silenced.[12]