Even though the guys who presented on Gender Roles in Marriage seemingly neglected to consider other races, social classes, and sexual orientations in their studies, I don't think they were as neglecting as some of my classmates perceived. In fact, I think they did a great job presenting valuable information that obviously generated a lot of (heated) class discussions and got me thinking.
The presentation included almost all graphs and other statistic visuals, which was indeed necessary for us to understand the main points of their topic, but I was and always have been very easily deterred, bored, and often overwhelmed by tons of graphs and charts. Anyway, I was able to keep myself together enough to enjoy the presentation and learn a few things about my fellow classmates. The guys' survey was an awesome idea! It was interesting to learn how the guys promoted their survey (email, arch, facebook), and even though some of the data was skewed as a result of vague or confusing questioning, it was cool to see how the majority of Juniata students perceive gender roles in marriages.
I thought it was important when Celia pointed out that surveys generally measure peoples' attitudes (not actual behaviors!) about certain things, and this survey probably was no exception.
As far as my own input on gender roles in marriage, my parents did not fulfill "traditional" or "egalitarian" gender roles. Until my parents split up when I was a senior in high school, my dad cooked dinner most of the time, except if my mom declared it a "gumbo" or "etouffe" night, in which case it was as important to attend as Christmas or New Year's dinner (it seemed and still seems like my dad's main purpose for living was to cook HUGE Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners...) My dad always got us cereal for breakfast on school days and brought it into my sister and I while we watched Scooby Doo on the couch; he made "BB" most every Saturday or Sunday, which stands for "Big Breakfast" and was either pancakes/waffles, bacon/sausage, dippy/scrambled eggs (I don't know how my sister and I managed to escape childhood obesity...) My friends always thought it was funny that my dad cooked the meals because whenever I spent the night at their houses, their moms made the meals.
Come to think of it, I guess we had some traditional family roles, too: my mom did most of the house cleaning, but was and is always very dramatic about it. My sister and I would help her out most of the time and fight over who got to clean what/where. Sometimes I would pretend to have forgotten the right way to sweep the kitchen floor because I knew my mom would grab the broom to demonstrate and end up doing the job for me...I also remember calling dibs on cleaning the bathrooms because after I scrubbed everything with chemicals I could believably fake a pretty serious headache. That's so off-topic and just revealing to everyone what a manipulative little brat I was...anyway:
My dad gardened, mowed, etc., and sometimes washed the dishes (which took him hours because he's obsessed with saving energy/water). I can remember raking leaves until I had blisters and weeding my dad's garden and digging up potatoes one summer. I also remember the day that my dad taught us how to wash dishes and clothes the summer between third and fourth grades...ugh. As my sister and I grew up, we took on more of the house cleaning and yard responsibilities, especially because my mom worked very time-consuming jobs and my dad commutes from Huntingdon to Indiana, PA as a Biology professor at IUP.
I think that most healthy families (with either heterosexual or homosexual parents) figure out which roles work best for them (within reason), and just kind of...settle. And then it either works out or it doesn't, right? Because we all have different experiences as a result of how our families settle, it seems kind of unfair for one person to judge the way another person's works.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Sex Ed.
The Sex Ed. presentation last Tuesday was quite entertaining! I loved the old, black-and-white video the girls used to begin the class discussion. It was hysterical to see how menstruation and girls' adolescence was viewed so many years ago (the 1950s?). While I think some people, even back then, would have rolled their eyes at the corny-ness of the film, I do think that some of the issues covered were indeed popularly believed back then, like that a period is "a curse," (some of us may still think so today) and that you can't do any strenuous activity or swim while menstruating. I think it's obvious that we've come a long way since then as far as debunking period myths and developing the products women use for their periods...I honestly don't know what I would do if I weren't allowed to swim/run around (or square dance!!!) when I had my period, or if pads ("sanitary napkins") were still as big as tissue boxes and had to be worn with an elastic belt!
As far as today's schools' sex education programs are concerned, I think there's a lot of room for improvement. I was shocked to find out that it was Clinton, and not Bush, who started the federal funding for abstinence-only education (instead of sex education)...I'm glad Obama did away with that; the number of teenage moms today kind of shows that an abstinence-only approach wasn't really working for everyone. Also, the girls discussed the fact that those teens who pledge abstinence are more likely to contract STDs because using a condom is admitting to the act of having sex. Also, some teens who pledge abstinence are sexually active in other ways, including having oral sex (high risk for STDs) and anal sex (STDs and still a possibility of pregnancy if no protection is used). It all seems pretty messed up to me! I think that sexual curiosity is only natural for teenagers, and that the more it is forbidden (like anything else forbidden to a teenager), the more teens are going to want to and find ways to do it. Generating awareness about STDs and pregnancy and teaching teens how to prevent both is what really needs to happen.
The movie Juno MTV shows like 16 and Pregnant and Teen Mom seem to be popularizing teenage pregnancy and motherhood; a number of the teenage girls who were on the first seasons of 16 and Pregnant are now being glorified on popular magazine covers and in commercials, as if to tell other teen girls "hey...if you get pregnant and get on an Mtv show, you'll have it made!" While I think it's good that some of the episodes show viewers the hardships of (often single) teenage motherhood, many girls who watch the shows are still horribly uneducated and unaware of the consequences of teenage pregnancy and motherhood. Did shows like these drive the Massachusetts high school girls to form their "pregnancy pact?" or was it the other way around?
Here's the link to the Times' article about the teens at Gloucester High School and their "Pregnancy Pact": Pregnancy Boom at Gloucester High
It was interesting to hear other people's experiences with their high school's sex education classes (or lack thereof). I can't believe the lies that some religious schools tell their students in an attempt to increase abstinence; it's all just scare tactics. Like I said before, what schools really need to do is educate about STDs and pregnancy and the ways students can go about preventing them. Any way you slice it, our country's schools need to figure some things out about sex ed.!
As far as today's schools' sex education programs are concerned, I think there's a lot of room for improvement. I was shocked to find out that it was Clinton, and not Bush, who started the federal funding for abstinence-only education (instead of sex education)...I'm glad Obama did away with that; the number of teenage moms today kind of shows that an abstinence-only approach wasn't really working for everyone. Also, the girls discussed the fact that those teens who pledge abstinence are more likely to contract STDs because using a condom is admitting to the act of having sex. Also, some teens who pledge abstinence are sexually active in other ways, including having oral sex (high risk for STDs) and anal sex (STDs and still a possibility of pregnancy if no protection is used). It all seems pretty messed up to me! I think that sexual curiosity is only natural for teenagers, and that the more it is forbidden (like anything else forbidden to a teenager), the more teens are going to want to and find ways to do it. Generating awareness about STDs and pregnancy and teaching teens how to prevent both is what really needs to happen.
The movie Juno MTV shows like 16 and Pregnant and Teen Mom seem to be popularizing teenage pregnancy and motherhood; a number of the teenage girls who were on the first seasons of 16 and Pregnant are now being glorified on popular magazine covers and in commercials, as if to tell other teen girls "hey...if you get pregnant and get on an Mtv show, you'll have it made!" While I think it's good that some of the episodes show viewers the hardships of (often single) teenage motherhood, many girls who watch the shows are still horribly uneducated and unaware of the consequences of teenage pregnancy and motherhood. Did shows like these drive the Massachusetts high school girls to form their "pregnancy pact?" or was it the other way around?
Here's the link to the Times' article about the teens at Gloucester High School and their "Pregnancy Pact": Pregnancy Boom at Gloucester High
It was interesting to hear other people's experiences with their high school's sex education classes (or lack thereof). I can't believe the lies that some religious schools tell their students in an attempt to increase abstinence; it's all just scare tactics. Like I said before, what schools really need to do is educate about STDs and pregnancy and the ways students can go about preventing them. Any way you slice it, our country's schools need to figure some things out about sex ed.!
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Women & War
Surprisingly enough, I had never actually considered everything that women have to deal with during wartime, particularly rape used exclusively as a weapon or power tactic. I thought last Thursday's presenters did a great job narrowing down their broad topic into U.S. women soldiers, women suicide bombers, and women who were raped during war. My small group talked about the NPR article concerning U.S. women soldiers as victims of sexual assault by their fellow male soldiers (so absurd!).
To begin, it seems most tragic to me that our country's military has such a weak program to aid women who've been or are continually being sexually assaulted by their fellow (male) soldiers who're of higher rank. It's so unfair that female soldiers must deal on a daily basis with threats of enemy attacks as well as threats of sexual attacks by their own comrades...no wonder these poor women suffer from PTSD upon returning home!
Something that I thought of during my group's discussion on this topic: If U.S. soldiers are assaulting their fellow U.S. soldiers, are some also assaulting foreign female civilians? If this is the case (doesn't seem too impossible), wouldn't it increase the rate of sexually transmitted diseases among Americans? It seems so backwards...some men (stereotypically macho men who are...(big surprise)...in the military) have this belief that rape and sexual assault stems from males' biological/evolutionary need to pass on their genes. Personally, I think that's a ton of bullshit.
It seems like the U.S. Military is doing a little bit about the problem, but I feel like they'll have to do more if they expect a real change. Women soldiers are still afraid to go around the chain of command to report a sexual assault because they are, more often than not, demoted in rank while their offenders get a mere slap on the wrist on their way to prey on another female comrade. Strong-willed men in leadership roles who respect women (some MUST be out there...) need to stand up and set an example for everyone else. They need to raise awareness, because the stuff that's happening is bound to eventually end pretty badly.
To begin, it seems most tragic to me that our country's military has such a weak program to aid women who've been or are continually being sexually assaulted by their fellow (male) soldiers who're of higher rank. It's so unfair that female soldiers must deal on a daily basis with threats of enemy attacks as well as threats of sexual attacks by their own comrades...no wonder these poor women suffer from PTSD upon returning home!
Something that I thought of during my group's discussion on this topic: If U.S. soldiers are assaulting their fellow U.S. soldiers, are some also assaulting foreign female civilians? If this is the case (doesn't seem too impossible), wouldn't it increase the rate of sexually transmitted diseases among Americans? It seems so backwards...some men (stereotypically macho men who are...(big surprise)...in the military) have this belief that rape and sexual assault stems from males' biological/evolutionary need to pass on their genes. Personally, I think that's a ton of bullshit.
It seems like the U.S. Military is doing a little bit about the problem, but I feel like they'll have to do more if they expect a real change. Women soldiers are still afraid to go around the chain of command to report a sexual assault because they are, more often than not, demoted in rank while their offenders get a mere slap on the wrist on their way to prey on another female comrade. Strong-willed men in leadership roles who respect women (some MUST be out there...) need to stand up and set an example for everyone else. They need to raise awareness, because the stuff that's happening is bound to eventually end pretty badly.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The Terrors of Trafficking
First off, good job to everyone who presented on Tuesday...really creative, informative, and well put together! I have a heightened sense of respect for all of you because I don't think there's any way I'd be able to handle reading/watching the articles/videos that you described. The video played at the presentation admittedly brought tears to my eyes...it really scares me to think of what humans are capable of doing to one another. It was truly devastating for me to consider the atrocities, and I walked away from the presentation wishing there were something I could do to instantly and completely rid the world of this unspeakably inhumane and disgusting phenomenon.
I was absolutely shocked by some of the statistics presented, like that the human trafficking industry makes more money annually than Nike, Google, etc. (what the hell is wrong with our world?!) The fact that children as young as FIVE(!?) make up 50% of the trafficking population is completely horrifying, but the fact that 70% of those trafficked are women didn't come as a surprise. It's very frightening to think that many children and women are tricked into this terrible industry by people promising them a better life. I feel spoiled and stupid for having all that I do when there are things like this going on in the world. I'm getting worked up about it again...ugh.
As a side note, I do think that we tend to speak jokingly or insincerely about human sex trafficking to mask the horrifying reality of what's actually happening...(it kind of relates to the article about "nuclear language," right?) In class, we played a game as part of the presentation, but I think that was a bit insensitive. If there were a sexual assault victim among us (not impossible), I think making a game of things would be very disturbing. I know that wasn't the group's intention...just something to consider.
Overall, the presentation was super successful because it heightened my awareness of human sex trafficking and instantly made me want to do something to help. I plan to read more about it as soon as I can to find out how I can make a difference.
I was absolutely shocked by some of the statistics presented, like that the human trafficking industry makes more money annually than Nike, Google, etc. (what the hell is wrong with our world?!) The fact that children as young as FIVE(!?) make up 50% of the trafficking population is completely horrifying, but the fact that 70% of those trafficked are women didn't come as a surprise. It's very frightening to think that many children and women are tricked into this terrible industry by people promising them a better life. I feel spoiled and stupid for having all that I do when there are things like this going on in the world. I'm getting worked up about it again...ugh.
As a side note, I do think that we tend to speak jokingly or insincerely about human sex trafficking to mask the horrifying reality of what's actually happening...(it kind of relates to the article about "nuclear language," right?) In class, we played a game as part of the presentation, but I think that was a bit insensitive. If there were a sexual assault victim among us (not impossible), I think making a game of things would be very disturbing. I know that wasn't the group's intention...just something to consider.
Overall, the presentation was super successful because it heightened my awareness of human sex trafficking and instantly made me want to do something to help. I plan to read more about it as soon as I can to find out how I can make a difference.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Toys-R-Us
Last weekend, I went with my boyfriend to Standing Stone Coffee Company to get some coffee and do some homework. It was packed, so we ended up sitting down at the bar until a table opened up. I began reading a book, but was soon distracted by the Toys-R-Us "2010 Great Big Christmas Book" that Nick was flipping through (I rarely go a day now without seeing/hearing/thinking of something that relates to what we've discussed in class...it's annoying sometimes).
Anyway, the "book" was SO sexist! I don't know why I was surprised, but it just seemed so outrageous. Every single photo in the catalog was gender-specific. Young boys were dressed in blue jeans or khakis and wore striped polo shirts, and modeled "masculine" toys, like tool sets, hotwheels tracks, nerf balls and guns, etc. Girls were dressed in obnoxious amounts of pink, or wore skirts and ribbons in their hair, and were shown playing with distinctly "feminine" toys, such as easy bake ovens, dolls, kitchen sets, etc.
The young boys and girls were rarely shown modeling the same toy; when they were, however, it was still extremely sexist and gender-ized. See:
In this picture, the boy is grilling (because that's our society's masculine way of cooking...and, come to think of it, is rather off-limits to women) and the girls are far removed from the grill. One (in a short skirt) is leaning against the refrigerator, as if waiting for her pie to bake, while the other girl (with bows in her hair) is washing dishes.
In this advertisement, the girl (in pink), is cooking/preparing food for the boy (in jeans), who sits out of the kitchen eating.
I remember being a little girl and looking through the Christmas catalogs, circling the toys I wanted (admittedly, the girly ones). My little brother, Max (he's 7), was recently looking through a Halloween costume catalog and really wanted to be a Egyptian princess because the girls' costumes were so much prettier than the boys. He said he would never ever be an Egyptian princess because everyone would make fun of him.
Genderizing begins at such a young age!
Anyway, the "book" was SO sexist! I don't know why I was surprised, but it just seemed so outrageous. Every single photo in the catalog was gender-specific. Young boys were dressed in blue jeans or khakis and wore striped polo shirts, and modeled "masculine" toys, like tool sets, hotwheels tracks, nerf balls and guns, etc. Girls were dressed in obnoxious amounts of pink, or wore skirts and ribbons in their hair, and were shown playing with distinctly "feminine" toys, such as easy bake ovens, dolls, kitchen sets, etc.
The young boys and girls were rarely shown modeling the same toy; when they were, however, it was still extremely sexist and gender-ized. See:
In this picture, the boy is grilling (because that's our society's masculine way of cooking...and, come to think of it, is rather off-limits to women) and the girls are far removed from the grill. One (in a short skirt) is leaning against the refrigerator, as if waiting for her pie to bake, while the other girl (with bows in her hair) is washing dishes.
In this advertisement, the girl (in pink), is cooking/preparing food for the boy (in jeans), who sits out of the kitchen eating.
I remember being a little girl and looking through the Christmas catalogs, circling the toys I wanted (admittedly, the girly ones). My little brother, Max (he's 7), was recently looking through a Halloween costume catalog and really wanted to be a Egyptian princess because the girls' costumes were so much prettier than the boys. He said he would never ever be an Egyptian princess because everyone would make fun of him.
Genderizing begins at such a young age!
Security [si-kyoor-i-tee] noun: ...uh...ummm?
At some point last week we discussed security. As we got in small groups, I felt like an idiot. The only thing I could come up with at first was "safety." I really had to take a deep breath, close my eyes, and ask myself "what is security?" After a while, we started throwing out more synonyms, phrases, and criteria necessary for generating a feeling of security. We basically came up with: to be secure, one must not feel or be vulnerable, which necessarily means that he/she must have a sense of protection. Hilary mentioned that real security means you feel protected and secure no matter what (in war AND in peace), and I mentioned that it's really all about trust. A major part of security is depending on others to make you feel safe, so without trust, security is almost impossible. Also, security means completely different things depending on whether an individual, group, country, etc. is being discussed.
One idea that stuck with me after class was how differently men and women construct security for themselves. I think that men depend on physical objects; guns, knives, big muscles, a strong punch, etc. create a sense of safety. For women, I think it's a lot about who we're around...in a word, people. I feel much safer going somewhere unknown with someone I know (I suppose safer still if that person I know happens to be a secure-feeling male). I unfortunately fit the stereotype about women and weaponry; I don't really know how to use a gun/knife or how to physically fight. I'm hoping some kind of super-human strength would take the wheel if I ever find myself unsecured and in a life-or-death situation.
Growing up as an identical twin, I always felt secure in the most foreign circumstances because Sophie was always right beside me. We could (and still can) sense each others' comfort in a new situation and use one another as a crutch, especially in social circumstances. As the newcomers to our 6th grade class, we used each other as armor in the battle to find the "right" group of friends, and continued to do so well after 6th grade. As we grew up and went to different colleges, it was (and still is) much harder for me to feel secure as a person around new things and people (using "secure" in more of a "confidence" way). Most people learn to make friends at a very young age, but I didn't really learn how to do it by myself until I was 19...I think I'm finally getting the hang of it.
Anyway, security also has to do with how secure those around you feel, or at least pretend to feel. When I'm on an airplane, for example, I feel pretty secure as long as the flight attendants look calm. If we hit turbulence or if anything else slightly unexpected/scary happens, I immediately look for the flight attendants and begin reading their emotions as best as I can. Thank goodness they've always been calm (are they trained to be this way? Is my entire system useless?!). If the flight attendants ever started freaking out, my feeling of security would undoubtedly disappear. I hope this is normal.
I keep rambling.
Our small group devoted much of our discussion time to talking about how we think about defining security. Ultimately, we decided that power is a huge advantage. I kept thinking about how those with power (the government, decision/policy makers, dominant groups, the wealthy, etc.) are supposed to make everyone else feel protected...but they don't! I have less and less faith in our country's government, and I feel like I couldn't really ever trust anyone with tons of money. I think I feel pretty secure most of the time (as far as my safety is concerned), but I do get anxious pretty easily. I guess I have a hard time trusting people.
After last week...I think my feeling of security is kind of an illusion most of the time, and I'm ok with that.
One idea that stuck with me after class was how differently men and women construct security for themselves. I think that men depend on physical objects; guns, knives, big muscles, a strong punch, etc. create a sense of safety. For women, I think it's a lot about who we're around...in a word, people. I feel much safer going somewhere unknown with someone I know (I suppose safer still if that person I know happens to be a secure-feeling male). I unfortunately fit the stereotype about women and weaponry; I don't really know how to use a gun/knife or how to physically fight. I'm hoping some kind of super-human strength would take the wheel if I ever find myself unsecured and in a life-or-death situation.
Growing up as an identical twin, I always felt secure in the most foreign circumstances because Sophie was always right beside me. We could (and still can) sense each others' comfort in a new situation and use one another as a crutch, especially in social circumstances. As the newcomers to our 6th grade class, we used each other as armor in the battle to find the "right" group of friends, and continued to do so well after 6th grade. As we grew up and went to different colleges, it was (and still is) much harder for me to feel secure as a person around new things and people (using "secure" in more of a "confidence" way). Most people learn to make friends at a very young age, but I didn't really learn how to do it by myself until I was 19...I think I'm finally getting the hang of it.
Anyway, security also has to do with how secure those around you feel, or at least pretend to feel. When I'm on an airplane, for example, I feel pretty secure as long as the flight attendants look calm. If we hit turbulence or if anything else slightly unexpected/scary happens, I immediately look for the flight attendants and begin reading their emotions as best as I can. Thank goodness they've always been calm (are they trained to be this way? Is my entire system useless?!). If the flight attendants ever started freaking out, my feeling of security would undoubtedly disappear. I hope this is normal.
I keep rambling.
Our small group devoted much of our discussion time to talking about how we think about defining security. Ultimately, we decided that power is a huge advantage. I kept thinking about how those with power (the government, decision/policy makers, dominant groups, the wealthy, etc.) are supposed to make everyone else feel protected...but they don't! I have less and less faith in our country's government, and I feel like I couldn't really ever trust anyone with tons of money. I think I feel pretty secure most of the time (as far as my safety is concerned), but I do get anxious pretty easily. I guess I have a hard time trusting people.
After last week...I think my feeling of security is kind of an illusion most of the time, and I'm ok with that.
"Patting" the bomb
I absolutely love reading about and studying linguistics; since taking Sociolinguistics last year, I can't stop analyzing peoples' language and how differently we all communicate with one another. I think I freak people out sometimes because I tend to blatantly watch, listen to, and analyze their interactions (a goal of mine is to develop a more inconspicuous method...)
Anyway, this background info explains why I was instantly intrigued by the title of Carol Cohn's article about "Nuclear Language." I thought it was a very interesting article, but must admit that I was a little bit disappointed because it was all about nuclear science and bombs and things (which goes a bit over my head). At any rate, there were a few laugh-out-loud moments for me...especially the cartoon of the man "patting" the bomb like a pet made me laugh.The sexual imagery involved in nuclear science was outrageous to consider, but I thought it was taken a little bit too far...I couldn't make the parallel between nuclear science and sex in some of her examples.
I give Carol Cohn a hell of a lot of credit for immersing herself in the male-dominated filed of nuclear developments/defense. It was very interesting to read about how she primarily thought "how can they think that way" (regarding the male scientists' jargon that distances them from the death and destruction they produce and research), but within weeks of being exposed to the jargon necessarily picked it up and began to think in an identical way to her male counterparts.
To think about the strength of language is a bit scary...Cohn illustrates how easy it was for her to adopt the language and thus distance herself from the seriousness of the field. The language used by nuclear scientists and researches helps distance the workers from the reality of destruction and death associated with nuclear bombs, which removes the heaviness of what they're actually researching/producing. Some of the vocabulary worth mentioning includes:
Cohn explains, "no matter how firm my commitment to staying aware of the bloody reality behind the words, over and over I found that I could not keep human lives as my reference point" (Cohn, 1987). Cohn says that no matter how educated she was or how much insight she provided, her co-workers treated her as if she were uneducated/ignorant if she failed to speak to them in their "Nuclear Language." Cohn and her colleagues were able to work in such a field and talk about nuclear weapons day after day (and maintain their sanity) solely because the language/jargon skewed their perception of the reality of nuclear weaponry. That's so powerful!
A sentence toward the end generated a "?!" thought: "The aggressor ends up worse off than the aggressed because he has fewer weapons left; any other factors, such as what happened where the weapons landed, are irrelevant to the calculus of gain and loss" (Cohn, 1987). That sentence made me shake my head and think "WHAT?!" Ok, so you've all removed yourselves SO far from the reality of what your weapons do to people just like you that you can't even consider human death (er..."collateral damage") as something significant in calculating the wins/losses of war??
Speechless!
Anyway, this background info explains why I was instantly intrigued by the title of Carol Cohn's article about "Nuclear Language." I thought it was a very interesting article, but must admit that I was a little bit disappointed because it was all about nuclear science and bombs and things (which goes a bit over my head). At any rate, there were a few laugh-out-loud moments for me...especially the cartoon of the man "patting" the bomb like a pet made me laugh.The sexual imagery involved in nuclear science was outrageous to consider, but I thought it was taken a little bit too far...I couldn't make the parallel between nuclear science and sex in some of her examples.
I give Carol Cohn a hell of a lot of credit for immersing herself in the male-dominated filed of nuclear developments/defense. It was very interesting to read about how she primarily thought "how can they think that way" (regarding the male scientists' jargon that distances them from the death and destruction they produce and research), but within weeks of being exposed to the jargon necessarily picked it up and began to think in an identical way to her male counterparts.
To think about the strength of language is a bit scary...Cohn illustrates how easy it was for her to adopt the language and thus distance herself from the seriousness of the field. The language used by nuclear scientists and researches helps distance the workers from the reality of destruction and death associated with nuclear bombs, which removes the heaviness of what they're actually researching/producing. Some of the vocabulary worth mentioning includes:
- "countervalue attacks" means incinerating cities
- "collateral damage" means number of dead humans
- a "bus" "delivers" the bombs to the target instead of them being "dropped" on the target.
- Nuclear missiles are based in "silos," and when they're ready to be launched, the weapons are in the "Christmas tree farm."
Cohn explains, "no matter how firm my commitment to staying aware of the bloody reality behind the words, over and over I found that I could not keep human lives as my reference point" (Cohn, 1987). Cohn says that no matter how educated she was or how much insight she provided, her co-workers treated her as if she were uneducated/ignorant if she failed to speak to them in their "Nuclear Language." Cohn and her colleagues were able to work in such a field and talk about nuclear weapons day after day (and maintain their sanity) solely because the language/jargon skewed their perception of the reality of nuclear weaponry. That's so powerful!
A sentence toward the end generated a "?!" thought: "The aggressor ends up worse off than the aggressed because he has fewer weapons left; any other factors, such as what happened where the weapons landed, are irrelevant to the calculus of gain and loss" (Cohn, 1987). That sentence made me shake my head and think "WHAT?!" Ok, so you've all removed yourselves SO far from the reality of what your weapons do to people just like you that you can't even consider human death (er..."collateral damage") as something significant in calculating the wins/losses of war??
Speechless!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)