Army PAO; only ugly women need apply
Several dozen of you sent us this link about Army Public Affairs Officer Colonel Lynette Arnhar’s leaked missive to guide PAOs on their selection of women for photographic publicity;
“In general, ugly women are perceived as competent while pretty women are perceived as having used their looks to get ahead,” wrote Col. Lynette Arnhart, who is leading a team of analysts studying how best to integrate women into combat roles that have previously been closed off to them. She sent her message to give guidance to Army spokesmen and spokeswomen about how they should tell the press and public about the Army’s integration of women.
“There is a general tendency to select nice looking women when we select a photo to go with an article (where the article does not reference a specific person). It might behoove us to select more average looking women for our comms strategy. For example, the attached article shows a pretty woman, wearing make-up while on deployed duty. Such photos undermine the rest of the message (and may even make people ask if breaking a nail is considered hazardous duty),” Arnhart said.
I can imagine the outrage if a man had said this, we’d be looking at another article about yet another O-6 being fired. The New York Post says the woman in the picture above is Lynette Arnhart. But, most of the women I know who have served in the last few years have been too attractive for Colonel Arnhart’s taste, I’m guessing. Mostly, I’m disappointed that a female soldier is perpetuating the myth that attractive women aren’t competent. I also think that none of TAH’s women need apply for modeling jobs with the Army.
Category: Big Army
Jonn, I think you misread this PA’s point and what she was meaning. I agree with her assessment that rightly or not, when people see attractive women in positions such as this they wonder if her looks had anything to do with it. I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that in the majority of cases the looks did not.
This comment in the Post article is pretty much spot on:
“She could certainly use her own photo…”
I also believe people are seriously missing the point of what the PAO was saying. Her e-mail was in regard to a photo of a female soldier that someone in TRADOC had photo shopped to give her a more feminine and model like appearance.
If we are to seriously view all Soldiers as being the same/equal whatever or however you want to say it… We need to eliminate the glamor shots both male and female that TRADOC and Recruiting Command love to use. Start showing soldiers as they truly appear not some glamorized images. The more the “image” is accentuated, the more attention is given to looks rather than the Soldier.
I think all images of Soldiers used in Recruiting or in any Official Publications should be of soldiers up to their eyeballs in mud, snow, swamp, and covered in Camo… show them really doing their jobs, show them sacrificing their comfort and their bodies. Enough with the GQ Glamour Shots.
Her wording was not the greatest, but the reasoning behind it was on target. We spend millions of dollars every year telling soldiers not to sexualize their fellow soldiers, and in ever publication the Army puts out they glamorize good looking soldiers and accentuate their looks above what their actual jobs are.
Jeez. If the Army is trying to sell the infantry to women, then the Army should use the best looking women it can find. Madison Avenue found out long ago that the ‘average’ looking woman doesn’t sell with the American female consumer. Woman like to think, I guess, that they, too, will be drop-dead gorgeous if they buy this soap, hair product, and drive this car and wear these clothes. It’s a subliminal thing and there is no denying it. And it cuts both ways. Did you ever see a recruiting commercial with a male who looks like Barney Fife? Hell no. So, in the immortal, paraphrased words of John Riggins, ‘Lighten up, colonel baby.’
rb325th: what do you think virtually the entire point of the Army’s weight control program is?
The stated reason – improving health – is IMO maybe 5% of reality. The main reason is that the Pentagon “wants soldiers who look like flat-bellied steely-eyed killers” (to use an old and now highly politically-incorrect phrase).
I personally don’t give a rat’s azz what a soldier looks like or how much they weigh. What I care about is whether they can do the job they’re assigned to do – under combat or garrison conditions.
If they can, fine. If not, fix the condition or seek employment elsewhere.
Okay, here is the thing. All the services manage their “message”. Since, the beginning of time. Every hear the one about why there are 12 Soldiers in and Army Infantry Squad but 13 in a Marine Infantry squad? The 13th guy is Public Affairs.
I will not assign political motivations here. I am trying to decide if this is a big deal or if we are so backwards that there is truth here and we really need to be spoon-fed this issue to make it more palatable.
Advertising execs know exactly what “look” to use depending upon what they are trying to sell. Nothing new here.
It’s just a fact of life that more attractive women must work harder to prove their capabilities beyond looking good. Lots of physical attributes affect one’s path to success. Like height.
PC or not, there are realities at play here well beyond what any of us might want.
I am so tired of spin. I agree the world would have collapsed if a guy said it, but frankly I agree that guys would have said that shit about breaking a nail, too. But that’s the way of it and nothing’s gonna change it. Spin won’t change it. Being the best at what you do MIGHT change it, in about 100 years.
Now that I think about it, there are commercials that feature ‘average’ looking women. Unfortunately, they are ads for irregularity and itching.
Yes, but it’s true — the more attractive you are, the more likely you are to get hired in the civilian world, but the less likely you are to be taken seriously and get promoted.
That’s a simple fact, not a statistic from a survey.
@ Hondo, that is the type of thing that has to change!
The Colonel, despite her blunt language was correct in stating it is wrong, and yup we should show the average soldier more, and show them in the depths of their job.
“Soldier do not look at that soldier as an object…” meanwhile TRADOC doctors up the soldiers photo to give a more model like appearance, to make her look more appealing… The hypocricy there is so big that most just cannot even see it anymore.
I do not think it will ever change though. It is so engrained in our Soceity, our culture, our norms…
rb325th
If she would have just said it the way you did we would all be agreeing with her. I too think her point is valid but man, she sure could say it better…it just makes most people miss her point entirely…
#1 and 3 make good points, but IMHO there’s also the point that an “unattractive” female would be given more “street cred” from her majority male colleagues than a gorgeous one would. Particularly in future situations involving male infantry units.
Prettier girls create drama in units. Boys will always be boys, especially young ones 19 or so, filled with hormones. Guys acting like fools trying to show off and impress the girl, petty jealousies and fights, etc.
Old Tanker: in the lady’s defense, the comment appears to have been in an e-mail giving internal guidance and/or her opinion to other PAOs, not in a public speech or press release. In such situations, speaking plainly is often desirable to avoid misunderstandings. I doubt she expected that internal e-mail to end up in an Army Times or Politico article. (The Army Times has a similar article as well.)
Maybe she should have expected that, given her position. That’s a different argument, though.
Sounds to me like maybe someone with an axe to grind or an agenda to push leaked an internal e-mail not meant for publication. I could be wrong.
Ugly/pretty is problematic….
If she wrote,
“In general professional looking women appear competent while those made up to look like runway models are perceived to have acquired their position based on their looks.”
then I suspect there would be less of an issue.
Ugly is a very subjective term, we all know it for ourselves when we see it. But there are a lot of ugly women who are happily married for decades, so clearly someone found them interesting and attractive enough to enjoy living with them….one person’s troglodyte is another person’s prince or princess charming…
While on the topic of sex sells however, it’s been extremely amusing watching commercials during football games over the last few years(I don’t watch much football so perhaps there are other commercials I am missing)….apparently the demographic for football is guys who get so drunk on beer they can’t get a boner, thus the commercials are geared to cover those products…sex sells the beer, and the boner pills…apparently beer is so good for these guys they don’t see the hot waitress bringing the bottle to them, they only worry about the bottle not making it safely…..
Or for the limp d1cks, apparently when you’ve reached the age of getting things done getting a hard on is no longer an option…one more reason to wish for an early death I gather…after all if a good looking, fit, middle aged cowboy with a couple of horses and a nice truck can’t get a hard on there’s trouble afoot.
rb325th: agreed. I’m not (and never will be) in a position to make that happen, unfortunately. And given what I’ve seen of intra- and inter-service politics for at least the past 30 years, I’m kinda doubtful it ever will change.
It’s sad, but I’m afraid it’s reality. The only time we seem to care more about function than appearance is when someone is actually shooting at us. And even then, you’d be surprised at the petty political BS you see at some wartime combat-zone HQs.
How did I just know that when I saw a picture of the good Colonel that she was going to be uglier than the south end of a north bound baboon?
Yes. Use the glamour shots.
Only, not something idiotic like Vogue magazine. (A business suit without a shirt? A business suit with ragged edges and zippers? Really??) If they need help, they can go over to The Jawa Report and find pictures of female Israeli soldiers (sans the boobie shots, of course).
I think the real message is more like “Sex sells the product. Plain Jane gets the job done.”
So dress down for the photo ops and dress up for the regimental ball. That shouldn’t be so hard.
OH, yeah, Jacobite: that judgemental remark of yours about the good colonel’s looks: why was that the very first thing you offered?
“My girl’s a PAO, she looks like she took a TKO, and I’d buy her anything, to keep her in style.”
I thought the Army’s job was to kill people. Now they are trying to ugly down?
Men become distinguished looking as they age; women just get old. The bloom comes off the rose, and nothing can change that. The Colonel has allowed her resentment of her lost youthful looks to get in the way of her professionalism.
“L.T., we need a few action photos of females doing PT. Get two. No volunteers. We need ’em plug ugly. Got it?”
“L.T.!”
“Yes sir?”
“Are those two privates crying?”
“Yes sir.”
“Why are those privates crying, lieutenant?”
“Because their sergeant just recommended them to Colonel Arnhar to be featured on a recruiting poster.”
There’s hot, then there’s deployment hot.
You know what, I say we should forget physical appearances. Take the best soldier in the demographic you are trying to represent and use them. If it is female combat veterans, then find the one with the top PT score, promotion points, and MOS competency score and use them. All you need to do is make sure they fit 670-1 in terms of makeup and jewelry.
That way, whether they look like a Victoria’s Secret model or Jojo the dog-faced boy, they are the best soldier in their job.
Hondo,
Internal or not, an O-6 should know better…never put anything in an email you would be embarrassed by if it made the news…
Why Ex-PH2?
Because it’s a direct illustration of exactly how public perception works.
And because I’ve worked with a ton of ‘plain’ people who are militantly ‘anti-attractive’, that is they feel a degree of frustration (more often inadequacy whether warranted or not) in the presence of people who society at large would consider more attractive than themselves. The good Colonel’s missive reeks of jealousy, plain and simple, so yes, as soon as I read it I had a pretty good idea of what she was going to look like.
I’m no looker myself, but I don’t find it neccessary to find fault with attractive people, nor do I find fault with exploiting traits in others if those traits are a proven benefit to an advertising campaign. The time to quit exploiting good looking people is when their good looks are no longer beneficial to the cause, and the market will decide that, not some Colonel with an agenda.
@21 It’s better to have rough looking ugly killers, not surfer boys and girls with big toothy smiles and faces of models…it doesn’t fit the perception that good looking people are inherently good people….
I mean if good looking men and women are in reality steely eyed killers, that is very disarming for the general public…..or as I refer to them, the dumb4sses that are growing ever more populous in our society…
Thanks, Jacobite. I just wanted an honest answer.
You’re quite right about public perception.
We judge the usefulness of people based on how they look without ever knowing anything about what they do or how well they do it. I don’t think that will ever stop.
I want SOLDIERS to be STRONG and GOOD LOOKING … YES!
So when they are looking at the enemy in the moment before they kill thy enemy … thy enemy sees the best the US has to offer.
But to put it in a memo … that is ridiculous!
No doubt another “what not to write in an email” where all plausible deniability is removed from the equation.
Kind of like Rebecca Martinson’s email sent to her sorority sisters and reenacted so ably by Michael “General Zod” Shannon here:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/4ad20b4edf/michael-shannon-reads-the-insane-sorority-letter
COL Arnhart is no doubt professionally embarrassed by the attention this has brought her by name (and it was a dick move by whoever leaked it even if she gave them reason to do it), but I do agree with the sentiment that says we should not be altering images to enhance female soldier appearance or going out of our way to ID attractive soldiers to be the “face” of our pubs and products. Pictures are pictures and as long as the individual represents what they are doing well enough, how they look or putting them in makeup should not be a deliberate effort.
However, I’d be completely full of it if I said a soldier’s appearance doesn’t factor into the equation at all. When my brigade produced our “video magazine” in Baghdad to highlight our broadcast products and stories, we used soldiers who were interested in a reclas to 46-series to host those programs as some basic OJT to help prepare them and break up the monotony of having my 46R host the same segments he did the voiceovers for.
We tended to use a certain capable and attractive female mechanic more often than a few of the other male infantry and truck driver types who were also in the mix to change their MOS. I’d be lying if I said her appearance did not come up in our planning/layout meetings when determining who we would offer the opportunities to. And our YouTube results spoke to that…the segments she introduced had 3-5 times more views than the ones that the guys did.
It is what it is, I guess.
I’d wager there are tons of psychological and anthropological studies that will confirm that virtually all societies and cultures attribute more positive traits to attractive humans rather than those with less pleasing features. The human mind seems to select for symmetry one of the basics of physical attractiveness. One of the most common traits of the homely is unbalanced or lopsided head and facial features. Is it fair? Of course not but that’s the way it is.
And those perceived attractive by their fellows tend to migrate into leadership positions. Think about it: how many ugly corporate CEO’s or top political office holders do you see who are homely? While I’ve seen plenty of homely E-9’s, in the officer corps, most who attain stars are physically attractive people. Yes, I know you can cite exceptions, because exceptional skills are the one thing that trumps looks in selecting for leadership, but I’m referring to the general trend. Even in sports, where skills should determine everything, this selection process is at work. Ever notice how so many quarterbacks are better looking than their teammates? Of course part of the reason for this phenomenon in sports is that the media tend to give more ink and film to the pretty boys. Think Bradley of the Pats. Again, there are exceptions like Peyton Manning where the skills are simply so exceptional as to outweigh any other considerations. But when one possesses both physical attractiveness and leadership skills, you can bet they’ll get the nod.
If humans didn’t select for beauty, we wouldn’t have all these airhead people in the entertainment and media business and we just might have more competent political leaders. Ask any political consultant if he’s eager to sign on to the campaign of an ugly candidate. Unfortunately, this is just the way it is.
All that being said, I’m guessing the colonel’s own rather plain physiognomy has a lot to do with her opinions.
@32 is old Poe. OFD struck again and I failed to sign in before hitting send.
Another thought occurred to me after posting @32. That is, consider this example of the obverse of my premise: a very high percentage of criminals and people in prisons tend to have unattractive faces. Is that purely coincidence or again that human selection process at work? Does an attractive criminal defendant have a better chance with a jury than an ugly one? I’ll bet they do and that there are studies supporting this.
Well, Poetrooper, the parallell is ‘Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid’. The real Butch and Sundance — Robert Parker (Butch) and Harry Longabaugh (Sundance) — were not, frankly, particularly attractive.
When the movie was made in 1965, no effort was made to find actors who looked like the real Butch and Sundance. Instead, Newman (Butch) and Redford (Sundance) were the principle actors.
If doubles for the real outlaws had been found and used, do you think that movie would have been as popular as it was?
My guess is it would have been ignored.
I can imagine the Duffel Blog headline now: “Army PAO: Infantry Women should ‘Look like Phyillis Diller, March like Frankenstein.'” 😀
Actually, PT, there are LOTS of studies out there which prove exactly what you are saying. Height is another determining factor, often even more important than “good looks” both in the criminal justice system and in corporate promotion/general measures of success.
That height thing is so important that when folks are asked to describe persons who they would define as “successful,” however they might define it, height is almost always ascribed to that individual. All things being equal, historically the taller and/or more attractive person gets the job, the promotion, or pay raise.
Most studies in the past have shown that folks describe successful people fairly realistically in terms of attractiveness, but pretty much universally say that successful people are tall.
Yeah, Poetrooper – I guess this guy never should have been wearing stars.
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=32999
Seriously, I do agree with you. And it’s a damn shame we humans give so much attention to “show” and so little to “go”.
Edited to add: same is true of your comment, OWB. And the same example applies. (smile)
@38 Hondo-You’re right that I should have included exceptional courage as another trait that can serve to overcome the unimposing physical appearance disadvantage. But then, exceptional courage such as Roosevelt’s (I read your piece)is so rare as to be a statistical anomaly, which is why so few MoH’s are awarded and those who earn them are so revered. One of the most worldwide famous American war heroes was short in stature like Roosevelt but had such baby-faced good looks as to make him a movie star: Audie Murphy.
And OWB, you are correct as well. I should have remembered that height selection factor from my anthropology studies but OFD/CRS struck once again. In most primitive cultures, imposing physical stature combined with martial skills and judicially-applied aggressiveness have always been prized leadership qualities.
Ah yes, that infamous CRS affliction. I think I have it as well – I used to be able to recall what it stands for, but can’t any more . . . . (smile)
Okay, well, since appearance is SO important in everything, here’s something in regard to those four young women who passed the Marine Corps’ infantry course.
Remember, the photo is a selfie, not done by a third party.
http://gawker.com/the-first-four-women-to-pass-marine-infantry-training-t-1468141089
They look pretty normal – and happy – to me.
But you who judge women on first looks will forget that this is a bad angle photo and gag over it.
What? They all look reasonably attractive to me. Are you saying they’re not? Saying ‘normal and happy’ isn’t the same as saying attractive.
I kept my comment about their appearance as neutral as possible. “Happy and normal” is neutral.
@41. Holy Hannah! Was there a dentist in each of their families? They wouldn’t be recommended for an Arnhar recruiting poster. Not one of them would qualify for the colonel–who, by the way, would certainly qualify.
Studies show that the most discriminated segment of our society is ugly people. Let the “social engineering” continue and oercome this obstacle! Hell, that is what the armed forces is all about! Never mind the missions. Kumbaya…and while you are at it…put money in thbody bag companies if we are really challenfoe. More recipes for disaster. No more
Task Force Smiths….we have a more pressing problem with the socialists socializing our military with social engineering.
Ex-PH2: based on photos I’ve seen of Parker and Longabaugh, Newman and Redford actually do resemble them a bit. In this photo, Longabaugh is on the far left, and Parker is on the far right.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Wildbunchlarge.jpg
I wouldn’t exactly call either God’s gift to women, but based on their photos neither is what I’d call ugly.
I’d actually put Parker and Longabaugh in the same looks catagory at Redford and Newman, rugged and distinguished, I wouldn’t say any was actually more attractive than the other. Which probably illustrates the different ways people see attractiveness.
One person’s ‘pretty’ is often another person’s ‘not so much’.
I would not consider either Butch or Sundance to be UNattractive. They have all the ‘manly’ looks women look for, but neither of them is ‘hollywood’ pretty.
Redford was almost too pretty for that film. He was told to grow the famous mustache for that film, and for his role as Jeremiah ‘Liver-eatin’ Johnson, he grew a full beard. Newman was never what I would call pretty. That owuld be the infamous and well-known Capt. James T. Kirk.
The issue for movies is how well the actors/actresses come across in the camera’s lens, which is why there are screen tests.
The real Butch and Sundance weren’t modern-day ugly, either. That would be closer to Charles Bronson. The thing is, really pretty men are frequently (dare I say it?) g-y. My gaydar goes on high level beeping these days.
Besides, real women look at a guy’s butt first, then his face after that. Some women like chunky men, too. We are a peculiar group, you know. Never ever think you don’t measure up (whatever that is).