The most ironic fact about the whole Michelle Manhart episode is that the former US Air Force sergeant who posed for `Playboy' might have got away with it if some of the shots had not depicted her in USAF uniform, holding weapons and wearing dog tags.
Manhart, a 30-year-old mother of two, was not discharged from the Air Force but she was removed from active duty and demoted. The decision, in effect, reduced her to Air National Guard status, a move which according to BBC, prompted her resignation, she says. The resignation, it seems, is still pending.
Just to refresh your memory, she appeared in this month's edition of `Playboy' in a range of poses, some in uniform and striking a military pose, others while nude. Manhart was a member of the Iowa Air National Guard before going on extended active duty with the USAF. News of her `Playboy' assignment was leaked long before the magazine's release and in January, she was suspended from duties while an official investigation into the incident was carried out.At the time the USAF released a cautiously-worded but firm statement saying that her actions did not ``meet the high standards we expect of our airmen''.
As an employee of the USAF - and by definition of the US Government as well - Manhart faced an uphill battle to retain her rank. Had she got away with censure, it would have opened the floodgates for similar situations.
Let me present you with a theoretical situation. If you were the CEO of a company and one of your employees posed for `Playboy' while wearing company uniform and holding company equipment, how would you react?
Or let me put it this way. If Michelle Manhart applied to your company for a job, would you hire her?
Either way, I just hope Manhart - whose name has now figured in every major media bulletin around the world - has assured her own future. I'm tippping that Hollywood could come knocking on her door for the film rights. And if she has a good agent, she might even land the role of playing herself on the big screen.
If you have an opinion on the subject, leave me a comment on this post.
Either way, I just hope Manhart - whose name has now figured in every major media bulletin around the world - has assured her own future. I'm tippping that Hollywood could come knocking on her door for the film rights. And if she has a good agent, she might even land the role of playing herself on the big screen.
If you have an opinion on the subject, leave me a comment on this post.
16 comments:
they should make her a nato general
I can understand why they did it. They have an image and want to maintain it. Maybe they should have moved her to recruiting. ;)
Hi Bill,
You never know. It could happen!
David
Hi Leon,
For sure, I can understand the rationale behind the decision to demote her. She could still become the (unofficial) recruiting poster person.
David
Hi.
Do you perhaps have a link to the story?
Thanks
Craig
http://realitycheckbounce.blogspot.com
Yes I would hire her directly into my marketing department. The USAF are idiots for kicking this woman out. Did you notice she is on active duty and is a single mother of 2? I know for a fact the USAF pays welfare wages to it's airmen. So I applaud her for doing whatever she needed to do to provide for her kids. And yes, she is hot as hell. I know my drill instructors never looked like that. Put her on a recruiting poster!!!
Hi Craig,
Yes, the BBC version can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6364585.stm while it's interesting to note that she even gets a Wikipedia mention now, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Manhart
Cheers
David
Hi Azpete,
Yes, she's certainly put the USAF in the spotlight.
Cheers
David
Well, we get into thorny issues here - does a person's private life have to be monitored or censored, is this discriminatory, all the usual 'p.c' stuff... We could go back to Bill Clinton and how he was treated or cite gay rights, you name it.
I think it's how a society views itself and how individual entities view themselves.
I would personally prefer discreet and private behavior, on the part of the individual (but also on the part of the media!). There is private behavior which can get leaked and made public domain (and this is where I feel the media has some responsibility - how much is too much, as in graphic photos of Anna Nicole recently - when do we approach fine lines of decorum). And then there's public behavior which naturally becomes public domain! (The media still has the opportunity to play down a story, i.e. use some delicacy - there are young readers out there and a whole society to be influenced.)
But public behavior reflects on all, so individuals and entities may not wish to be impacted negatively and accordingly make a hardnosed decision, as in the case of the USAF! Private behavior, on the other hand, that is conducted discreetly, is in many ways a private matter, unless it contravenes the law, brings harm to others. In such cases, by all means, LEAK the info to the press and all and sundry, but, please, as a separate yet related issue, we so need discreet publishing of such information.
Carol
Would I hire her??? If I learned of private indiscretions I would like to trust her to clean up her act, in the case of public indiscretion I would have to make a decision, whether she was wearing corporate regalia or not! There would be those who would make it their business to find out what her professional identity was, and, to some extent, one is 'owned' by one's organization - most organizations have policies to the extent that employees are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that does not put their employer in a negative light (my words!). Of course, this could be argued in court, because of the devilish details!
Hi Carol,
You're right about discreet and private behaviour. But I guess the media simply couldn't ignore a story with as many issues as this one.
The other inescapable fact is that someone who poses for Playboy has started the ball rolling by courting the media in the first place.
That said, I wish her well. We do not have the right to stand in judgement, but we certainly have the right to wish her a happy and fulfilling life.
And re: your thoughts about hiring her. You're absolutely accurate when you emphasise the fact that most organisations have certain clauses built into employment contracts that make it clear how they expect employees to conform to certain norms.
Cheers
David
Here's the gospel according to the UCMJ:
"Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court." (emphasis is mine)
1. As a 'trainer' at her Air Force base she would have been more than aware of the clause.
2. As Chairperson and CEO of Playboy enterprises, and a female, Christie Hefner too, would have been aware of what the possible outcome would be.
3. Posing in uniform will be what eventually gets her, not posing nude for Playboy. The fact she got paid for it will obviously not help her cause.
4. But if they penalise her too harshly then they'd have to start thinking seriously about whether the guys who posed in uniform for the Marine Calendar might also have overstepped UCMJ bounds!
Personally, I've other things to worry about. So I'll go worry elsewhere!
Nice perspective, Fletch (El Tel)
As a former military man, you would understand the nuances of the story.
Thanks for those quotes. And yes, like you I also believe the shots that really got her into strife were the ones that featured her IN UNIFORM.
Having done that, there was no way to avoid the controversy.
Nice point about the male counterparts, too.
Cheers
David
And I certainly wasn't attempting to criticize anyone in particular, Dave, just highlighting a related issue about which I have strong sentiments - but it was a red herring! Sorry.
She definitely invited press coverage, but I feel that we have societal responsibility, and most keenly remember and note the coverage of another show girl, viz. Anna Nicole.
Carol
On another note, the 'image of the day' looks strikingly familiar and strikingly gorgeous and I am wondering if her father has a 12-bore at the ready!!
No need to apologise, Carol,
When I said ``we don;t have the right to criticise her'' I just meant us in a generic sense, not you.
I would never snipe at anyone. But you've known that all along. Sniping is not my style. I don't do it face-to-face and I wouldn't do it in print either.
What image of the day? Am I being slow-witted here? Please prompt me ...
Cheers
David
Well surely if she wanted to pose for playboy she should have been more responsible and not used the uniform and other equipments related to the defence department.
Hi Ceeps,
You're absolutely right on that score.
David
Post a Comment