Too Pretty for Combat?

By Gerard Emershaw

Colonel Lynne Arnhart complained in an internal U.S. Army e-mail that female soldiers pictured in military press releases are too pretty, and set off a maelstrom of controversy in the mainstream media and the blogosphere. Arnhart claimed:

In general, ugly women are perceived as competent while pretty women are perceived as having used their looks to get ahead…. 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).

Giving Colonel Arnhart the benefit of the doubt, one may have imagined that the Army had illustrated an article with a photo of a supermodel. However, the article, featuring a photo of CPL Kristine Tejada, was a photo of an actual soldier providing security while on duty in Iraq. Taken at face value, Colonel Arnhart’s statement is wrongheaded. It is an empirical question whether “ugly women” are perceived as more competent than “pretty women.” Studies have shown that when women wear makeup, they are perceived as being more competent. Studies have also shown that attractive people tend to be more intelligent. It is also strange that Colonel Arnhart is employing a double standard. Are ugly men perceived as more competent? Should the Army use photos of “average looking men” to illustrate official publications?


Official Army publications can be characterized as public relations materials. Perhaps they can even be characterized as propaganda. Television commercials and other advertising tend to employ attractive men and women. This is unsurprising. Why should the Army not do the same? The Army must be doing something right. Enlisted military routinely ranks among the worst jobs in the country, and 6,750 U.S. service members have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite this, all branches of the United States armed forces have been meeting or exceeding their recruitment goals.

Colonel Arnhart’s statement also highlights what the military actually thinks about Americans in general and potential recruits in general. Who is stupid enough to believe that a “pretty woman” in the military has gotten ahead merely because of her looks? Who is stupid enough to believe that serving in the armed forces is a glamorous job? Colonel Arnhart essentially believes that Americans are either misogynists or naïve fools, and it is not a stretch to believe that this attitude is common among the military brass.

The issue of women in the United States military goes far beyond academic feminism or political correctness. There is a danger that this particular story will lead people to view it all as a superficial matter. The truth is that this issue is anything but superficial.

Sexual harassment and sexual assault are alarmingly widespread in the armed forces. Between 2011 and 2012, there were 26,000 sexual assaults committed in the armed forces. This was up from 19,000 in 2010. The victims are predominantly women. Attitudes such as that exhibited by Colonel Arnhart reinforce the notion that female service members are nothing but objects characterized completely by physical appearance. Such attitudes only serve to further endanger women in the military.

In January, the U.S. military officially lifted its ban on women serving in combat roles. While the issue of whether women should serve in combat roles will continue to be hotly debated, the nature of modern warfare likely makes it inevitable. Modern warfare is becoming more technological. However, the real question is not whether women should serve in combat roles. In fact, they already do. Over 150 female service members have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the economy still in tatters and no true recovery in sight, it is likely that more women will enlist in the armed forces. With the way that neoconservatives in the Republican Party and neo-progressives in the Democratic Party warmonger and allow the armed forces to be used unconstitutionally by imperial presidents as cannon fodder to protect corporatist and foreign interests, far more women will be needlessly endangered. Far more service members will be cruelly sacrificed regardless of gender.

The fact that the Army is concerned at all with how attractive its female members are displays how warped its priorities are. The Army should be concerned with protecting the proud and brave women who serve this nation from sexual harassment and sexual assault. The Army should also be concerned with ensuring that women and men in the armed forces are only placed in danger in defense of the nation and not in the defense of corporate or foreign interests.