I was a big fan of the twilight zone when I was a kid. It
was so exciting to sit up all nigh and watch the re-runs. One that really stuck
out to me was; ”Beauty is in the eyes of
the beholder.” It basically depicted a girl in bandages that went through
several surgeries to get her to look better. The doctors and nurses basically
described her as being hideously ugly, only for the real twist to be revealed
that the doctors and nurses were the ugly ones and the patient was beautiful! Having
Beauty in our county is the most sought after thing other than money! Many
going as far as self mutilation, to have the perfect lips and noses. I have always
thought it was interesting that the “pigfaced”
people were considered beautiful and perfect while the beautiful woman was portrayed
as being cursed, or something that
society wanted to ostracize. Once the woman’s face could not be reconstructed
to look like a pig, she was sent away from the town with other people that
looked like her. What would our society be like if we turned away, the”
beautiful ones”? Rejected all that Hollywood
has beat into our heads, and regarded the beautiful ones as a liability!
The Pentagon has begun
to implement policies to make the armed forces better, one in particular is the
Army. Due to the many sexual assaults, a study was done and an insidious problem
was identified. “Attractive women are a distraction, a liability even,” said
Colonel Lynette Arnhart, the officer in charge of the Army’s groundbreaking
study on the impact the integration of female Soldiers into combat arms
specialties. “In general, ugly women are perceived as competent
while pretty women are perceived as having used their looks to get ahead,” she
said, per Shadowspears. This statement truly takes me back to the Twighlight zone
episode. Colonel Lynette Arnhart, basically stated that it would behoove them
to only allow average looking woman into the Army.
Based on COL Arnhart’s recommendations, the Army created a
program called “No Highly Observable Trainees, Contractors, or Habitués
in Camouflage,” known in Army jargon as the “No HOTCHiC policy.” In order to
satisfy the new “No HOTCHiC” requirements, the Pentagon recently issued
guidance that from now on, Army recruiters will have to utilize an “attractiveness
quotient” when evaluating potential female enlistees. Those who score
above a certain cutoff will be denied enlistment. Wow, how can this be
acceptable to tell a recruit that they are too attractive to fight for our country?
Understand that this ordenace is only for the women. Those female servicemembers deemed “attractive”
that are already in the force will be expected to take measures to reduce their
level of attractiveness to an appropriate level or face severe consequences, up
to and including involuntary separation or forced transfer to a different armed
service. “If a prospective recruit is a 6 or above on a scale of 1 to 10, you
thank them for their desire to serve, and hand them a Peace Corps application,”
said Sergeant First Class Ima Brumilda, the Pentagon’s spokesperson for No
HOTCHiC Compliance. I can only say that I am not quite sure how to take these recommendations.
Are we saying that, it is the women’s fault that they are facing so many sexual
assault cases. Are we implying that attractive women are inadequate and are not
an asset to the Army. We have reduced women to a binary chart, and totally
swept the issue of men committing the crimes, under the rug. What do you think
of this new initiative? Are we to expect that less of attractive women will not
be rape and will be less of a distraction? Do you think that very attractive people
are a distraction and a liability to the Army?
Check out the full report:
