![\"arnhart.jpg\"](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/11\/Lynette-Arnhart.jpg\")
<\/a><\/center><\/p>\nSeveral dozen of you sent us this link<\/a> about Army Public Affairs Officer Colonel Lynette Arnhar’s leaked missive to guide PAOs on their selection of women for photographic publicity;<\/p>\n \u201cIn general, ugly women are perceived as competent while pretty women are perceived as having used their looks to get ahead,\u201d 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\u2019s integration of women.<\/p>\n \u201cThere 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),\u201d Arnhart said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"