Oh My.
The following is an excerpt from the July 1943 issue of Transportation Magazine. This was written for male supervisors of women in the work force during World War II.
Eleven Tips for Getting More Efficiency out of Women Employees: There’s no longer any question whether transit companies should hire women for jobs formerly held by men. The draft and manpower shortage has settled that point. The important things now are to select the most efficient working women available and how to use them to best advantage.
Here area eleven helpful tips on the subject from Western Properties;
Pick young married women. They usually have more of a sense of responsibility than their unmarried sisters, they’re less likely to be flirtatious, they need the work or they wouldn’t be doing it, they still have the pep and interest to work hard and to deal with the public efficiently.
When you have to use older women, try to get ones who have worked outside the home at some time in their lives. Older women who have never contacted the public have a hard time adjusting themselves and are inclined to be cantankerous and fussy. It’s always well to impress upon older women the importance of friendliness and courtesy.
General experience indicates that “husky” girls — those who are just a little on the heavy side — are more even tempered and efficient than their underweight sisters.
Retain a physician to give each woman you hire a special physical examination — one covering female conditions. This step not only protects the property against possibilities of lawsuit, but reveals whether the employee-to-be has any female weaknesses which would make her mentally or physically unfit for the job.
Stress at the outset the importance of time, the fact that a minute or two lost her and there makes serious inroads on schedules. Until this point is gotten across, service is likely to be slowed up.
Give the female employee a definite day-long schedule of duties so that they’ll keep busy without bothering management for instructions every few minutes. Numerous properties say that women make excellent workers when they have their jobs cut out for them, but that they lack initiative in finding work themselves.
Whenever possible, let the inside employee change from one job to another at some during the day. Women are inclined to be less nervous and happier with change.
Give every girl an adequate number of rest periods during the day. You have to make some allowances for feminine psychology. A girl has more confidence and is more efficient if she can keep her hair tidied, apply fresh lipstick and wash her hands several times a day.
Be tactful when issuing instructions or in making criticisms. Women are often sensitive; they can’t shrug off harsh words the way men do. Never ridicule a woman — it breaks her spirit and cuts off her efficiency.
Be reasonably considerate about using strong language around women. Even though a girl’s husband may swear vociferously, she’ll grow to dislike a place of business where she hears too much of this.
Get enough size variety in operator’s uniforms so that each girl can have a proper fit. This point can’t be stressed too much in keeping women happy.
What is up with #4?
11 comments
ruthie
I believe this was created because men were to ignorant to deal with women back then, and they didn’t know much about the opposite sex.
Willow
Re: #8
They might have been concerned embarrassing folks with the reality that some women flow A LOT and may need 4 or 5 trips to the can in a regular work day.
gretchen
Good points. And yes, if you look at these rules as gender-neutral, some do apply to both sexes. #8 still cracks me up, tho. Lipstick does not give me confidence. ;)
Ed
Thanks. I agree, they had to have women in the workforce through necessitity and with very little time to adjust to the new situation that had never happened before. The writer probably has only dealt with older women who he would describe as “cantankerous”, perhaps his mother in law? (wonder why we don’t use that word much now-a-days).
My mother, who was born on a farm had told me many years ago that “husky” women were once viewed as more desireable as they could do quite a bit of labour around the farm, and thin or “underweight” girls that couldn’t toss a wagon full of bales of hay for example, were not as desireable. Perhaps this was the point the writer was trying to get at.
Anyway, best of luck with your site.
Regards,
Ed
Kel1
You know, Ed, I think you have a point. This article is far, FAR better than the one Gretchen posted regarding how women in the 50’s should put aside every single one of their own personal needs for their husband’s arrival home. :D (Not that I have anything against housewives, because I am one! :) )
I agree with you on the points you mentioned. However, I would take issue on one point–they were easing women into the workforce out of NECESSITY, not out of a desire to HAVE women in the workforce. And I think that stands out in this article (such as referring to certain older women as cantankerous. I mean, really! As if older men can’t get cantankerous?). No doubt the notes about “husky” and “underweight” women made a difference in the way their employers viewed them, and that is unfair and unfortunate–dare I say it? Almost discriminatory??
I guess it is the wording that does bother me most…as if women are somehow this strange species which needs to be whipped into shape (yet also given opportunity to tidy their hair and apply fresh lipstick *rolls eyes here*). As I said, it was 1943 and I am glad I wasn’t living then. ;)
Ed
I understand and accept your point regarding the propaganda etc. The meaning of words can also change over time. For example in 1948 I believe “gay” only had one meaning and it meant happy. Today it rarely refers to someone of a happy demeanor, rather it refers to someone of a homosexual orientation.
Obviously the “guide” was written by a male, who by definition can only view women from a male perspective (and one of post war 1948), that does not mean he was a chauvinist, merely misinformed or uneducated as to the abilitys that women bring to the workplace.
Many of the points are not really gender specific, that is to say if the word men was interchanged with women it would still be a reasonable point and valid today.
IE # 7 change of job at some time during the day – depending on the industry, this is still valid today. “A change is as good as a rest” as the saying used to go.
#8 – Appropriate rest periods are a key ingredient to maintaining proper concentration levels while at work, if it wasn’t we wouldn’t have them today.
#11- Proper Sized uniforms – this is just common sense, depending on the industry. For example in a factory setting loose clothing could get caught in machinery – so it is really irrelevant if the worker is male or female, and thus still valid.
#10 Personally, I don’t appreciate foul language at work (from men or women) so, in my opinon his point is valid, but I would take it further to say foul language is unacceptable in the workplace. But in 1948, the social norms were probably quite different.
I believe the writer made an honest attempt to give direction to other men, in a way that the other men (the intended readers of the guide) could understand what he was trying to say. Perhaps these other men had even less of the ability and understanding of women than the writer or had absolutley no clue at all the best way to operate with women in the workforce.
So this company did what it could to try to ease women into the workforce, they should be congratulated for trying to do something good, rather than chastised for using words that can be construde as insulting.
Kel1
Ed, I understand that this was during a time of war. And if you’ve read my very first post (the one above your first post) you’ll see that I said I likely could not have lived in 1943 because of the treatment of women in the workforce during that time.
And to say that it’s unfair to “judge something that was written 60 years ago” is an absurd statement. Think of the historical documents (our Constitution, to name just one) that we look to many times for the views we have now. I am quite sure that I would judge Nazi propaganda today (though it was written over 60 years ago) and deem it to be insulting and inaccurate in its portrayal of Jews and other non-Aryans.
This document, to me, proves how women were looked upon in that day and age, at least by the author of that particular article–as incompetent! The very assumption that a woman (whose husband was at war, as you’ve said) would somehow NOT be motivated to work hard for her employer to provide for her family who remained at home–that IS insulting to womankind. I don’t think it’s wrong of me to look back and say “Hey, obviously these people got it very wrong!”
I’m curious to know which of those you feel are “still valid today” as you say.
Ed
Perhaps it is insulting now in the 21st century, but since I wasn’t around in 1948 in my opinion it’s unfair to judge something that was written 60 years ago. Perhaps then it was not so insulting. Many of the things we say today in 60 years time be considered insulting. So I guess what im trying to say is dont get lost in the wording, look at the big picture. In 1948 many of these womens husbands, fathers or son’s had been away risking their lives to protect their country. Many of these women now “had” to work because their men were not ever returning, or retunred in a condition that left them unable to work. I think that in times like those we tend to worry less about small things even if they were insulting, because there are bigger concerns of the day that are much more important.
WW II Dead (Civillian and Military)= 72 Million
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
Kel1
I guess I just don’t see how saying married women are better workers than single, or that older women are often “cantankerous and fussy” is very productive for anyone in the workforce. OR that “husky” girls are more even-tempered. I mean, come on. I don’t really see how one can “get past the verbage.” The entire premises in these statements, at least, is insulting.
Ed
Get Past the verbage people, a lot of them are still valid today. Remember in 1943 it was very very rare for women to be in the workforce, so it was a forward thinking company that tried to make it as easy as possible for women to enter the working world.