Meet the US Army's 1st 4 star Female General
 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- America's first female four-star general has been nominated, the Pentagon announced Monday.


Lt. Gen. Ann E. Dunwoody was nominated to be America's first four-star female general.


President Bush nominated Lt. Gen. Ann E. Dunwoody to serve as head of the Army's supply arm.

By law women are excluded from combat jobs, the typical path to four-star rank in the military.

"This is an historic occasion for the Department of Defense and I am proud to nominate Lt. Gen. Ann Dunwoody for a fourth star," said Defense Secretary Robert Gates. "Her 33 years of service, highlighted by extraordinary leadership and devotion to duty, make her exceptionally qualified for this senior position."

The Senate must approve the nomination.

Dunwoody, a native of New York, was commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1975 after her graduation from the State University of New York in Cortland. She also holds graduate degrees in national resource strategy and logistics management.

She became the Army's top-ranking woman in 2005 when she received her third star and became deputy chief of staff for Army logistics.

"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."



http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/23/wom...ef=mpstoryview

Associating the military with female accomplishment. McCain=military Obama= anti-Hillary. This is a clever move IMO.

Wha...?

LOL That was my reaction too.

Oh, BTW, the army's first female 3 star general was Claudia Kennedy. She's a Kappa Delta. :)

Im sorry .....what the f**k does this HAVE to do with politics?

The ONLY other reason why I posted this in the first place is that I have a friend that served with her in the 10th Mtn Div, @ Fort Drum NY many moons ago.


So, please for our enlightenment (or amusement, whichever comes first) please explain how in hell you came up with that????

Nobody else thinks that this might have happened because the military wants to appear like they aren't sexist? (even though they are)
I think it may be an attempt to bring woman voters into the McCain camp following the defeat of Hillary.

Nope. Isn't it possible that she actually deserved it?
How on earth would this help McCain? He wasn't the one who nominated her. :confused:

Oh...this makes more sense than your first attempt. LOL.

The military has been doing the nonsexist (and nonracist) PR thing for years. It isn't safe to assume that this is about that, though. It also isn't safe to assume that the military has pledged allegiance to McCain's campaign. Not impossible but conspiracy theories like that are impossible to prove.

And we all know that the military culture is the way it is regardless of anything else. So opinions shouldn't change because of the existence of this female general.

Congrats to her.

Like I said...for our amusement....


The woman served for 33 years...how many administrations is that?

Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush I
Clinton
Bush II x 2

uhhhhhhh....I think she is due!!!!


You ever thought about the fact that in what you are saying is sexist to think that the military is being sexist, by promoting her?

PhiGam....can you please do us all a fave and try to coordinate your brain and shut down the mysogynistic side before you post your next statement...it may actually show the rest of us that there is a glimmer of hope that a caveman doesn't exist in that cranium of yours.....

I didn't read mysogyny in his posts. I read conspiracy theorist.

Now, if he had made a joke about how this accomplished female general doesn't suck--because her husband's mistress does--maybe.

I'll take that too...

I didn't say she wasn't deserving, but she can't be the first female in the history of the military who is deserving of a fourth star. If everyone who was deserving had gotten their fourth star then this would be a non-story. I'm not sure how you got misogyny out of my post, I stated facts.

I agree with you. :)

Umm...THAT is the point of the WHOLE story....she is the first WOMAN PERIOD..who has gotten one....but then you go off on some bullshit fishing expedition about how this is a political move trying to win supporters for McCain...Obviously not many people get one especially a woman...

Maybe you should have said what you just said without adding all the extra layers of jackassery in it....then it would make more sense...

Or maybe you thought you was trying to be funny....

Uhhh...no....


You know what...I don't have any more time to entertain your asinine comments today.


Do yourself a solid...click the link and read the entire story...


Ladies, especially those of you that are serving...thank you.

: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!

You've been doing the idiot thing this week. Let me know when you're through with this phase.

I will be sure to send you a memo straight away

I'm surprised no one has mentioned (or did I miss it?) that PhiGam's basic premise is ridiculous in and of itself, regardless of whether it is demeaning or not. To be effective, a political ploy needs to make people more likely to vote for a certain candidate. Does anyone honestly think there are women out there who will decide to vote for McCain simply because the Army decided to promote a deserving woman to 4 star General? None of the women I know are quite that fickle, nor are they quite that illogical as to surmise that A has anything to do with B. If this is a political move intended to benefit McCain, the PR person in charge of it needs to be fired asap.

You're being too literal in your definition of "political ploy" - remember that any press is good press, and there is both a specific and general connection between McCain and the military in the minds of almost everyone. A simple, small gesture to give positive light to the military during a slow news cycle (and spawn this kind of discussion) can be effective even if no one literally says "NOW I'm voting McCain!"

This is the best summary of what I was trying to say while massively hungover from an epic night.
And DS... chill.

Its a subconscious thing, people's minds naturally seek association. If they start to associate the military with things that they view as positive (female accomplishment for example) and they associate the military with a certain presidential candidate (a war hero) then they ARE more likely to vote for that certain candidate then they were before. Admittedly, it does take pretty abstract logic to grasp the concept.
Basically
If Military= good and McCain=military then McCain=good.
Its a classic logical fallacy that political experts (which the military has plenty of) know how to exploit.

And just to repeat: I am NOT demeaning her achievements. My mother and two aunts have served in the armed forces and I have a huge respect for them. I just think that the timing of this is suspect.

I didn't miss it...that is what I was trying (and obviously failed) to point out....pbear...thank you for catching that also...

PG....get a clue.

Saying the last word in an argument does not mean you won, a vast majority of the posters in this thread said that you were off base and out of line. Get over it.

I understand the concept, but I think the logical fallacy is the assumption that anyone will make such a huge leap. One could surmise that this will make people look more favorably on the military in general, but to extrapolate that out to a political candidate with no concrete connection is taking it too far. (It's not like she has any personal connection to McCain that we know of, or that he had anything to do with her promotion.) This isn't that slow of a news cycle. I also think that fewer people than you might believe automatically connect McCain with all things military, but that's a personal opinion that I do not have stats to back up. Yes, he was a war hero, but it was a long time ago and doesn't mean he has immediate ties to all current military goings-on. If we were discussing someone recently removed from military experience the logic might work better. I agree that there is a chance this is political, but just because it is political doesn't mean it has anything to do with McCain.

Since I didn't say it before, accolades to her for her achievement, I'm sure it is well deserved and I am happy for her.

a vast majority?

1 or 2 other persons who agrees with your point is a vast majority?

....besides making wacko theories you cant count?


just call it quits now while u can.


What you really should have said...instead of trying to add McCain in (square block, round hole)

Does anyone suspect that her promotion is iffy....which you did in your first post...and just left it alone....that actually could have stood on its own...but to include the rest....nah...at that point it was laughable.