:confused:

Go take a shot of muscle relaxer or something.

Different take on it....woo hoo, DS!

Wait - you're rambling here in your apparent outrage, but are you really trying to imply that PhiGam was somehow "demeaning" the accomplishments of this woman by implying that her superiors (whom she presumably has no control over) might be waiting to promote her until it is politically expedient for them to do so?

Because that doesn't seem demeaning in the slightest. I think you're getting steamed for really no reason - and certainly the assertion (while unlikely, in my mind) is far from asinine, isn't it?

I wasn't implying PhiGam's intention...I said it...go back and read what he initially posted...he implied that her promotion was political. And by that implication itself, he demeans what she was awarded especially in absence of evidence to support his 'theory'.

Go back....read...read carefully...it's really not that hard to see.

And I will also request that you do the same thing...don't just read the initial post, please read the entire story.


Women will be proud of this accomplishment and one man should not take away from it.

No. No he doesn't.

Stop this - this isn't an argument, it's pretty much ad hominem, and it's message board trash (you'd never tell that to me in a face-to-face discussion, because it doesn't make sense - well guess what, it doesn't here either). Explain why it's demeaning. Assume I'm smart here, and that I disagree.

No man did.

It's OK to be skeptical - it's not mutually exclusive to think that the woman is both highly qualified, and that the "powers that be" utilized her qualification for political gain. One does not invalidate the other.

1. I was never trying to make this an argument but if you are going to post something like "her promotion is a way to get women to vote for McCain" especially since it was so obviously pointed out that he had nothing to do with it...then he has to prove it.

2. I wouldn't say it to you face to face? You don't think?? Ok...hehehe.....hint: Clark Kent isn't my offscreen name....

3. Assume you are smart....well let's also assume that she is smart, that she has worked her ass off moving up the ranks for 33 years. Making her a 4 star general, I think is not just a gimmie.....

While you are busy beefing with me, if you did as I asked, you may have caught this at the end of the article:

"I am very honored but also very humbled today with this announcement," said Dunwoody. "I grew up in a family that didn't know what glass ceilings were. This nomination only reaffirms what I have known to be true about the military throughout my career ... that the doors continue to open for men and women in uniform."

The Army Materiel Command handles all material readiness for the Army. During her career, Dunwoody has been assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division, 10th Mountain Division and the Defense Logistics Agency. She served with the 82nd Airborne in Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

She has been awarded the Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, Master Parachutist Badge and the Army Staff Identification Badge.

The first woman to become a general officer in the U.S. armed services was Brig. Gen. Anna Mae Hays, chief of the Army Nurse Corps, who achieved the rank in 1970 and retired the following year.

Elizabeth Hoisington, the director of the Women's Army Corps, was promoted to brigadier general immediately after Hays. She also retired the following year.

Maj. Gen. Jeanne M. Holm, the first director of Women in the Air Force, was the first woman to wear two stars, attaining the rank in 1973 and retiring two years later. In 1996, Marine Lt. Gen. Carol A. Mutter became the first woman to wear three stars. Mutter retired in 1999.

Currently, there are 57 active-duty women serving as generals or admirals, five of whom are lieutenant generals or vice admirals, the Navy's three-star rank, according to the Pentagon.



With all that she has accomplished and with so few women ever attaining the rank of General, me personally feels that it's a slap in the face to just simply assume that her appointment (again without evidence to prove it) was simply a political move.

It's not a "provable" assertion - it's simply a theory or concept. In general, though, I agree with your point, but here I don't think it's super necessary.

I'm not saying you'd be afraid to say it to my face, but rather that arguments of the sort don't make any sense there, and shouldn't here.

Like I said, I'm sure this is true - it doesn't automatically exclude the possibility of political shenanigans.

What if she was well qualified after 30 years, but there was no political expedience? Why weren't other qualified women put into this spot? We can't answer these questions, but it's an interesting concept, and not "inane" as you asserted.

OK - that's fine if you feel that way, but I think your outrage is misplaced (also, I'm not 'beefing' but rather disagreeing - this isn't personal), since no one said "it's only because she's a woman!" or "it's only because they needed a woman for political reasons!" (both of which would be a legitimate 'slap in the face'), but rather that the timing may be beneficial to one candidate, which naturally lead to speculation and skepticism about the timing, not the candidate.

1. I am not 'outraged' as you so finely put it...you take that I use my words as a hammer and not a scalpel and confuse it with outrage or anger... figure this... I shoot straight from the hip...with certain ones of you here I don't have time to waste being 'nice', I say what I have to say and roll on...I would have thought after one year...you would have figured that out.


2. Of course it's not super necessary and this could have died awhile ago if folks didn't keep jumping in trying to add on...I simply think it's a whacked out theory and unless someone can show otherwise...leave it be.

3. Sense? mmmmkay.....

4. Why weren't other qualified women.... siiiiiiiiigh....I think therein lies the whole point of the thread and something that we shouldn't dissect so dayumed much unless we have the inner working pf upper level military CoC at our disposal. WE DON'T KNOW. What we DO know is from the article, she was highly qualified and thus that is why she was nominated and approved. Now, here is the rub....were there men that were considered from the promotion that she competed with? Were there minority candidates? (Rhetorical....) Who else among her peers were also considered this promotion that she got it instead of them?


5. So, let's come to this, since this is obviously what some of you feel needs to be discussed...why (and what are the) would it benefit any candidate that she be promoted now as opposed to any other time?

Trust me, I have it figured out - sometimes your "from the hip" approach is clear to you, but not really to anyone else, so I'm asking for clarification. It's not a dick move, I just don't get where you're coming from sometimes.

So you're basically saying that the Occam's Razor approach would be to trust the motives and etc. of the higher-ups?

Because generally, you're quite skeptical, especially of government or when it comes to society's treatment of protected classes (such as women in the workforce), so I'm just making sure I'm clear here.

You may disagree with the utility of the mechanism, but it seems straightforward - McCain is closely aligned with (his own) military service and the military in general. Indeed, even his campaign logo uses a "military-style" star, so this alignment is recognized and embraced.

Positive, progressive press for the military - again, an institution with which McCain is closely aligned in the minds of many - may just serve as an indication of "progress" in the minds of some voters, which would be quite useful when competing for swing voters against a candidate whose entire platform is based on "change." This is especially true because McCain is markedly older than Obama, and may be associated with a less-progressive Republican party.

Will it work? I have no idea. Does it seem possible that the reasons for waiting until a slow point in the election cycle to appoint a new General may utilize such thinking? Sure, why not?

Doublespeak.

You were implying that PhiGam was reducing this woman's accomplishments to a political ploy. That isn't what PhiGam was doing. He was saying that this woman is deserving but she isn't the first deserving woman although she is the first to be given this opportunity. He was questioning the timing. He explained that to you but you still got on your soapbox.

Soapboxes are cool sometimes but be able to recognize and admit when you're on a random soapbox.

I disagree.

Congrats?

You can't make PhiGam mean what you interpreted his posts to mean.

You're looking for an embedded or subconscious meaning where you can't prove there is one. That's perfect for a soapbox but horrible for real discourse.

Pobody is Nerfect....

I still disagree with him nonetheless.

Who cares?

Disagree based on what he said. Not based on what you want him to have said.

I did!