Recently, a COL at TRAC-Fort Leavenworth, stepped down after an e-mail was leaked about her opinion on good looking females in PR photos.

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Nov 2013 01:26:15 -0500

Do you agree with her assertion that good looking females are seen as less 'competent' than 'average' or 'ugly' females?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 28 at 2013 11:35 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:35:22 -0500

It's a shame because she spoke her mind and there is a perception if an attractive woman is in a position she "must" have got there because of her looks.

Her email was a valid concern in the world of public perception. I think she wants females to do well in combat arms, she wants them to do well on their own merits and she doesn't want any juvenile thoughts or opinions to contradict that.

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made Nov 28 at 2013 11:52 AM

Cpl Ray Fernandez — Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:52:31 -0500

I think it was the best decision possible for her to step down. Regardless of the validity of her thoughts and feelings, she poisoned the effectiveness of the PR plan. Also if we reversed the idea and had men being used in advertising, the better looking, fitter, stronger men would be used to promote military service. I personally think she was wrong on her view and if they really wanted to sell the idea of the tough strong woman, there wasn't a need to create an image for women, as the last decade plus of women in the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan could have provided us with real world examples of women demonstrating their ability to fight.

On top of all that, I think creating an idea that average/less attractive women serve in the military would harm the effort to recruit women in general. If the perception is that there are average looking/ugly women are the only ones serving, who would want to join to be perceived as plain or less attractive? We don't use average looking/ugly guys in our recruiting commercials. We use fit good looking men who look good to draw people in. It's classic sales and marketing, you want to make people feel like buying your product in this case military service will make you look and feel great and it will change your life. Look at beer commercials, you don't see fat nasty looking people attracting nasty looking women, nope every commercial turns into a good time with great looking people even if the reality rarely if ever matches that image.

Response by CPT Daniel Walk, M.B.A. made Nov 28 at 2013 2:56 PM

CPT Daniel Walk, M.B.A. — Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:56:01 -0500

Personally, I am highly disappointed in the leadership for not doing more to support her. It's also very sad that the groups that turned on her the quickest are the more feminist groups. The COL was trying to advocate for women and those that should support her threw her under the bus without really paying attention to what she had to say.

She chose some phrases that did not convey her message very well, I agree. Her message was right on, though. The Army is spending too much effort in putting women in makeup and a uniform. They are not trying to sell the Army. They are trying to sell a politically motivated message.

The more appropriate comment for her to use would have indicated that instead of dolled up, photogenic actresses, the Army needs to show the women who are doing and not posing.

I do not agree with competence being tied to physical attractivness. The services have worked very hard to create promotion systems that, at a certain point, decrease the potential for bias. A CDR/1SG may advocate for the promotion of a SPC / SGT because he/she is physically attractive. However, that individual must still have the points. Semi and centralized boards consider a wide variety of criteria. I do agree there is room for the bias, but it has been minimized by "the system".

Response by LtCol Dann Chesnut made Dec 1 at 2013 12:21 PM

LtCol Dann Chesnut — Sun, 01 Dec 2013 12:21:34 -0500

One of the stupidest things I have heard lately. In this era of political correctness, we are allowing the PC to control our actions and even our thoughts. I don't know the Colonel that made the comment, but it appears to me that the comment was made in earnest and for the purpose of properly promoting the program. If the comment had been made 20+ years ago, it would have been no problem.