In a leaked memo, Col. Lynette Arnhart, who has served in our nation’s military for 34 years, wrote, “In general, ugly women are perceived as competent while pretty women are perceived as having used their looks to get ahead.”
I say, In general pretty women are easier to look at, but if the girl behind the ak-47 is ugly enough to make a freight train take a dirt road, but can save my ass from the Iraqis, I’m ok with that!
The Colonel went on to say that the Army generally uses photos of attractive women in ads or publicity shots. And added, “Such photos undermine the rest of the message (and may even make people ask if breaking a nail is considered hazardous duty).”
Col. Arnhart would rather have a photo of a woman with a mud-streaked face, which, according to her, “sends a much different message—one of women willing to do the dirty work necessary in order to get the job done.”
Which begs the question, “Do less attractive women work harder because they have to, or because pretty women won’t do the work?”
Well, that makes about as much sense as what the esteemed Colonel said!
This is the group that is trying to achieve gender integration in the armed forces.
This is the group that want to send women into combat – only the unattractive ones it seems.
This is the group that is supposed to be building the greatest army in the world.
What the heck is going on?
Ugly, Average, Pretty, or Gorgeous, any woman willing to serve should be allowed to do so. And any woman willing to serve should be judged on the merits of her service not the content of her make UP bag!
This is where our tax payer money is being spent…scouring the countryside for plain Janes?
This is a bunch of crap!