A strategist working with the Army's PR message regarding women in combat has given a recommendation saying that the women that should be in the ads should be 'ugly.'
Col. Lynnette Arnhart, who has been in the military since 1989, wrote in a leaked email: "In general, ugly women are perceived as competent while pretty women are perceived as having used their looks to get ahead." She adds that a woman with mud on her face "sends a much different message-one of women willing to do the dirty work necessary in order to get the job done."
Originally intended for two recipients, one of whom was Col. Christian Kubik, chief of publis affairs, passed it on to other rpublis affair officers in the division.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Army has released a twitter status in regards to Arnhart's opinions, saying that it was not the entire Army's position on the matter.
Nathan Heflick PhD, research associate at the University of Kent's School of Psychology has commented that Arnhart's decision is more about the "reality of culural phenomenon" as much as strategizing. "There is a growing body of empirical research that indicates that focusing on women's physical appearance has a negative impact in how women are perceived. This includes the reduced belief that [pretty] women are intelligent, kind, moral, and, on a more basic level, have thoughts, feelings, and intentions."
He then asks the question: "Why aren't they concerned that 'ugly' men are used? The reason probably has to do with women's physical appearance, on a broad cultural level, being more important in people's mind(s) than men's physical appearance," he adds.
Are these women ugly? (But when it comes to public service, does it ever matter what you look like?)
