We noted, last Thursday, the kerfuffle over Colonel Lynette Arnhart’s e-mail to the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command that the Army use more “average-looking women” in its advertising. COL Arnhart made the highly politically incorrect observation that, “In general, ugly women are perceived as competent while pretty women are perceived as having used their looks to get ahead.” And, apparently, writing an e-mail like that can result in career-limiting consequences, both for the writer and the person who made it public. From Robert Stacey Stacy McCain:
‘Gender Integration’ = FAIL
Posted on | November 23, 2013 | 9 Comments
This is both hysterically funny and pathetically sad:
The Army colonel who wrote an internal email suggesting public affairs officers use photos of “average-looking women” when they need to illustrate stories about female soldiers has stepped down as the leader of an Army study on gender integration.
Army spokesman George Wright confirmed on Saturday that Col. Lynette Arnhart had agreed to step aside from the Training and Doctrine Command study she was leading.
In addition, Wright said, Col. Christian Kubik, a public affairs officer at TRADOC, was suspended for his involvement in the email chain.
“In order to protect the integrity of the ongoing work on gender integration in the Army, Col. Lynette Arnhart agreed to step down as the gender integration study director,” Wright said in a statement. “Concurrently, TRADOC suspended Col. Christian Kubik from his position as the public affairs officer pending the outcome of an investigation.”
I agree with Ann Althouse that this was a silly “scandal” — two military careers wrecked because of an internal e-mail — but the larger problem remains: MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT.
Insofar as they are different, they are not equal, because equality implies fungibility — sameness, so that one may be substituted for the other — and therefore the attempt to equalize things which are not the same is foredoomed to failure. What inevitably occurs in these kinds of social-engineering experiments is a lot of official make-believe, in which people are required to pretend that the failing policy is actually a success. Telling the truth becomes a firing offense.
The people who are ramming these policies through the Pentagon in the name of “gender integration” should be ashamed of themselves for perpetrating such a fraud. It is a dishonest and dangerous policy that is harmful to America’s national security.
I have to disagree with the esteemed Mr McCain: equality does not imply fungibility. No one would state that an infantryman and a helicopter pilot are not equals, as far as their value and contribution to the Army are concerned, but you cannot have them simply replace each other in the other’s position and not expect a fall-off in performance, because they are simply not equally trained in each other’s specialty.
Mr McCain, the proud father of a soldier in Special Forces training, was referring not to the difference between males and females as ground-pounders, but, in many military occupational specialties, males and females can easily be exchanged with no fall-off in performance; it will depend upon the MOS in question. He has a valid point when it comes to the infantry, though, as our Tough Enough! article noted, three female Marines successfully completed and were graduated from the Corp’s infantry course. That the pass rate for the female candidates was very low (three out of fifteen, or 20%, though a fourth woman may pass her tests following recovery from an injury sustained), compared with the 83% passing rate for the men, but whether or not these three Marine infantrywomen will be “fungible” with the males remains to be seen. (After all, even within a single squad, there are quality differences between the individual men in the unit.)
Phineas Fahrquar, writing on Sister Toldjah, noted that the Pyrite State has spent $600 million on its high-speed rail project, and not the first bit of actual construction work has been done.
Dejah Thoris from the film John Carter.
The Victory Girls have two posts about organized religion, The Paradox of Organized Christianity…, by Dejah Thoris, and In Defense of Organized Religion, by “Blackiswhite,” a guest poster. Of course, it’s always good to reference something by Miss Thoris, because it gives me the excuse to use the picture at the right!
From L D Jackson:
Iran’s Nuclear Program – Deal Or No Deal?
News coming out of Geneva and Washington, D.C. tells us of a major breakthrough regarding Iran’s nuclear program. According to what we are being told by the Obama administration and the Iranians, a deal has been reached to make sure Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. As can be expected, the Obama administration is touting the agreement, saying it cuts off the most likely paths Iran would take, if it wanted to acquire a nuclear weapon. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani told his nation of the agreement on national television, saying the world has recognized Iran’s nuclear rights. Israel is understandably worried about its safety. The bus I mentioned in my earlier post (linked below) on this issue is getting closer and Obama has the pedal to the metal.
Here are the rough terms of the agreement.
Fox News – Under the terms of the agreement, which concluded days of negotiations in Geneva, Iran committed to halt enrichment above a 5 percent threshold and dismantle the technical connections required to enrich uranium above that threshold.
Iran is also required to neutralize its stockpile of near 20 percent enriched uranium, and halt progress on its enrichment capacity. In return, the six world powers (the U.S., Great Britain, France, Germany, China, and Russia), have agreed to not impose any new sanctions, suspend sanctions on certain sectors of Iran’s economy, and potentially unfreeze $4.2 billion in revenue from oil sales if Iran meets other conditions.
A White House statement also said Iran’s nuclear program will be subject to “increased transparency and intrusive monitoring.”
There is one other piece of information that you need to know. The agreement is only a six-month deal. It supposedly gives Iran and the rest of the major powers in the world to come to a longer lasting agreement. Having said that, is this agreement the real deal or not? My first inclination is to say no deal. Here’s why I believe that.
And, after that, Mr Jackson tells you why he believes that!
Hube notes the racism and hypocrisy of The New York Times, which says that, Shhhh! we can’t blame the so-called “knockout” attacks on race, even though the known perpetrators have been black teens, primarily assaulting whites, even though our good friends on the left were screaming up the racial angle when it came to the George Zimmerman/ Trayvon Martin case.
Around here, we have coined the proper word for it: Democrisy.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney
The professional media are somewhat frustrated with the control-the-message-and-medium attitude of the White House; William Teach has exactly no sympathy at all for them.
Le*gal In*sur*rec*tion noted the (no so) stunning hypocrisy of The New York Times when it comes to the Democrats using the so-called “nuclear option” on judicial nominees, and Patterico added apiece about the Democrisy of Harry Read and Barack Hussein Obama on the subject: apparently they were against the nuclear option before they were for it. But, in another article, Patterico concludes that this is, in the long run, a very good thing.
Donald Douglas noted that the Littleton Green Community School is engaging in “‘Racism Blackmail’ in UK Public Schools: Required Islam Indoctrination for Grade School Children” At issue is an ‘Explore Islam’ workshop at Staffordshire University for 4th to 6th graders, and parents were told that “‘Refusal to allow your child to attend will result in a Racial Discrimination note being attached to your child’s education record, which will remain on this file throughout their school career.”
The only problem I saw with Dr Douglas’ comment was that he failed to note the terrible grammar in the school’s letter: the possessive pronoun referring to a child, the singular form which was in the sentence, is not the plural possessive “their.” Oddly enough, I had thought that the English were more fastidious about their English than we boorish Americans, and would have expected education professionals to be the most careful of all. How foolish of me.