Huffington Post article...agree?

Back in the late 60's this attitude might, just might have been acceptable from a male member of a military service, but seriously today?  I think we have come a long way from worrying about how a Soldier or Sailor looks (female or male) and focus more on what the person accomplishes.  Recruiting has always used good looking members to attract new recruits, as advertising everywhere normally does. If you are selling a product, put on your best game face (pun intended).  

I think this whole thing is totally ridiculous ..

That story reads like a Duffelblog article.

There are a couple of things about it that make it seem a little warped to me.

First, HuffPo, which is generally a left leaning outlet, sourced Politico, which has been accused of being a right leaning outlet.

Next, the person who supposedly made the statements was Col. Lynette Arnhart. One one hand, I could see a female who's trying to draw a female demographic, thinking like that. On the other hand, a female might see a statement like that harmful to whatever cause they're trying to promote.

Lastly, the individual making statements at the end was a D-Rep from Cali. Those are statements that BOTH sides of the aisle might want to sink their teeth into to use against their opponents, but I didn't see any remarks from anyone but the D-Rep from Cali.

I could be reading too far into it too. I think that maybe HuffPo was had by Duffelblog. Maybe we ought to add this to that thread.

I'm still amazed that
HuffPo is considered a valid news source. I lumped them into tabloid and
propaganda status years ago.

Incredibly stupid article but since Huffington goes with the wind,  it does not surprise me.

I guess this is the evidence that supports the claims made by the shampoo commerical from your other post.... Would this fall into the "showoff" category?

Whereas the entire Big Army Recruiting strategy takes a step back and shows simple photos of Soldiers engaged in their various duties both in training environments and deployed, the strategy described in this article nests rather nicely into the over-arching recruiting campaign. I for one don't have an issue or find the COL's recommendations either sexist or objectionable. If we are going to convince the American public (and more than a few of our own) that women can hold their own in CA MOSs, why is it we are always seeing images of the attractive, perfectly-manicured female Soldiers, and not the average female, with the sweat-streaked face and muddy boots at the end of a successful run through the obstacle course? I believe it is a sub-concious impulse, an action that is occurring without any active intent, so, there is no need to point fingers or throw anyone under the bus; it's just the way we've been conditioned to think and market our Army. But if we start showing the reality on the ground a little bit more, I think we can go along way towards expanding the comfort level with the idea of capable female Soldiers in this demanding combat roles.