We covered this a couple of years ago, but a reader sent it in and it's just too good not to bring to light, especially when we have the original.
This gem is from the July 1943 issue of Transportation Magazine, written for male supervisors of women during World War II. These were "helpful tips" on supervising women at work (emphasis mine):
1. 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.2. 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 adapting themselves and are inclined to be cantankerous and fussy. It's always well to impress upon older women the importance of friendliness and courtesy.
3. 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.
4. 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 the 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.
Is it just me or does this sound like an episode of the Crocodile Hunter? Except in this case they're, you know, not animals. Sigh.
The rest of this madness is after the jump, my fave being, "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." Just give me a tube of lipstick and I'll be ready to take on the world!
5. Stress at the outset the importance of time the fact that a minute or two lost here and there makes serious inroads on schedules. Until this point is gotten across, service is likely to be slowed up.
6. Give the female employee a definite day-long schedule of duties so that they'll keep busy without bothering the 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.
7. Whenever possible, let the inside employee change from one job to another at some time during the day. Women are inclined to be less nervous and happier with change.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Be reasonably considerate about using strong language around women. Even though a girl's husband or father may swear vociferously, she'll grow to dislike a place of business where she hears too much of this.
11. 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."
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Vintage Sexism: 1943 Guide to Hiring Women .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16100
Am I the only one that read #1 as: "Pick young married women. They usually have more of a sense of responsibility than their unmarried SPINSTERS...?" I mean, they might as well have written it that way.
Way to lump every woman into a cultural stereotype right there.
*slow clap*
Way to lump every woman into a cultural stereotype right there.
*slow clap*
OH this is GOLD! I'm genuinely curious as to the "female weaknesses" the physician might find...I'm guessing they're referring to something specific? Hysteria, PMS, menopause? Does anyone know? At any rate, as a woman "just a little on the heavy side" I think I'm gonna reclaim the word "husky".
Probably snakes in the womb, or witchcraft.
Probably snakes in the womb, or witchcraft.
Number 10! Don't swear because my delicate ears made of butterflies and rainbows and tiny baby bunnies can't handle it and I might just have to quit.
Oh my.
that being said, people shouldn't swear in their workplace period.
Why not? I work in a law firm and trust me the curse words fly fast and loose here. I see no problem with it. In fact, I've never worked anywhere where there's absolutely no cursing in the workplace. The only time I see a problem is if someone is offended by swearing and has asked others to respect that and still the swearing occurs. But otherwise I don't see the harm.
100% agree! I mean, cursing isn't appropriate for my job at the childcare centre (unless we're in the staff room :P) but at my bookstore job it's more than acceptable! We're all adults, we can handle it ;)
I love that they say that a woman's husband or father might swear, as though she has never interacted with any other man in her life. Because those are the only two that matter, right? Every other man just wants to fuck her without paying and should be avoided at all costs!
Brought to you by the same people that brought you phrenology:
Burns: Who could forget such a monstrous visage? She has the sloping brow and cranial bumpage of the career criminal.
Smithers: Uh, Sir? Phrenology was dismissed as quackery 160 years ago.
Burns: Of course you'd say that... you have the brainpan of a stagecoach tilter!
#10 - these assholes are fucking kidding, right?
;)
P.S. Take THAT, sixty-six years ago! And stop flexing and get back to riveting, Rosie!
Does #8 mean men AREN'T washing their hands several times a day? Ew.
Real men never wash. If they need to remove germs or dirt, they merely scowl at it until it leaves of its own accord.
No, that's just Chuck Norris. The rest of us just ignore it and hope it goes away.
"Older women who have never contacted the public have a hard time adapting themselves and are inclined to be cantankerous and fussy."
What does that even mean? BTW, I'm a young, "husky" woman who has contacted the public many a time, and I have been known to be cantankerous and fussy. Especially when my boss treats me like a small child. I guess that's just a female weakness of mine.
Wow. Aren't women so cute and mysterious how we like to have clothing that fits our actual body size, rather than being expected to make due with one specific size for everybody?
For real...
I have had many the laugh over the years at employee manuals and training videos that stress a "neat, orderly appearance", while the management provides me with technician uniforms made for men 3x my size. At one place, where I happened to be the most experienced tech on the team, I simply refused to wear the uniform until they had one that fit me. They found one pretty quickly.
Baggy uniforms aren't just a put-off to customers; they don't just look unprofessional and laughable; they're actually unsafe around machinery (electronics included)!!
"Pick young married women. They .... need the work or they wouldn't be doing it..."
How attitudes about working women have changed but still remained incredibly sexist. As a married woman in this day and age, I often get the assumption that I am working as a hobby, or for "stimulation" since clearly I don't need to support myself since I've got a hubby to do that for me. I for one find this incredibly offensive, since I work to make a living for me and my family, just like the dude in the office next door.
I guess the idea back then was that single women were more likely to be working for non-monetary reasons? Like meeting a husband? Or socializing? Something tells me that assumption was equally as untrue as the one I face. nowadays.
Posts like this remind me of all the damage feminism has done to the workforce. Before the influence of feminism, our male superiors were allowed to be more sensitive to the things about women that make us different and special. Now, they have to treat us exactly like men just because you shrill spinsters wanted more money for your lonely, childless lives.
In all seriousness, we should just cite this shit when anti-feminist women start wishing for the good old days.
How fitting that this be posted today! In my graduate program today, we had a very interesting discussion about gender conflict and issues in the work place. I shit you not, the presenters pretty much brought up points 8, 9, and 10!
Us ladies need lots of breaks, are overly sensitive, and don't like it when big manly men curse...
Seriously?
I thought my graduating class was 2010 but apparently it is 1950...
Actually, I don't see why it's inherently sexist to point out that women, on average, might need more / longer breaks than men...
Cis women have smaller bladders (all those extra reproductive organs are taking up room in there!) and so have to use the rest room more often than men. Women who menstruate may also need extra time in the bathroom to clean their cup / change their tampon, whatever.
Obviously the way it's written in this article (women need lots of time to feel pretty and can't work without extra time to primp) is ridiculous, but male bosses today still fail to realize the reasons that some women DO need a little extra bathroom time!
And numbers 9 and 10 could also be relevant today, much reworded. Nobody should put their employees down, men or women! But male employers should also recognize that women are often socialized to take criticism very personally, and so something that a male employee might brush off could seem harsher to a woman... so they should just try to avoid the problem altogether and treat everyone with respect. Likewise with 10... it's not that you can't swear in front of delicate ladies, but everyone should watch their language at work and make sure they aren't creating a hostile environment for folks of any gender (helloooo sexual harassment).
well said
I've never heard of employers hassling employees for time they spend in the bathroom. Usually the big fat managers who fill themselves with donuts and MickeyDee's burgers (on the company expense account) for the first half of the day spend the longest in there, around mid-afternoon. Everyone's gotta go, and sometimes it takes a little while. I don't even think they realize that the tampon-changing or cup-washing time isn't the same as constipated-McD's-unloading, especially since it happens far less often.
Oh shit...be right back. Time for me to go wash my fucking hands again and tidy my goddamn hair.
[i]fucking[/i]
Whoa whoa whoa, don't you know that [i]women[/i] read this site? Their little girly brains can't handle big people words.
HTML fail.
I will turn in my nerd badge now.
I just tidied my hair and I still don't feel like being at work. What's a girl to do?
Maybe I need to gain ten pounds or get married instead...
9. 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.
You know, when they say when more women entered the workforce, they changed the workplace, I never really thought about it---but this line is really striking. I mean, bosses back in the day weren't tactful with instructions and criticisms?!
In the only job I've ever had where everyone who worked there was a man, I'll say my boss treated everyone far more in the "men only" social dynamic than the "mixed company" social dynamic, yeah. Of course, there may've been class issues there too, stocking shelves at night is a very lower/working class occupation. But yeah, when I sliced my finger open with a boxcutter, he called me a "fucking moron", for instance. (Of course, if the label fits ...)
1. was actually pretty revolutionary for its time. Married women were commonly expected to quit, or indeed routinely fired, upon getting married.
11. is *still* a problem. When I had a job requiring uniforms about 10 years back, they were still only available in men's sizes, and I was 5'2 and curvy. Did. not. fit.
It seems very sexist in a modern light but I think the guide was well meaning for the times. Certainly it was a step in the right direction toward the current superior status of women in western society, so although it does have problems it should be viewed as a stepping stone on the path to female supremacy.
Now if only such progress could be made in the Islamic world where women are not much more than chattel. Western women have won the battle for themselves, but don't seem to give a damn about their Muslim sisters who have it worse in these modern times than women in the West ever had it.
I guess the oppression of "Those" women is of no consequence now that "We" have attained full equality and more for ourselves!
Condell is right to ridicule the Silent Feminists on the issue, and we should burn red with shame for abandoning our oppressed sisters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48
Haw haw, it's funny 'cuz sexism doesn't exist in western society anymore, and feminists are just looking to rule the world! Awesome troll, dude.
It seems very sexist in a modern light but I think the guide was well meaning for the times. Certainly it was a step in the right direction toward the current superior status of women in western society, so although it does have problems it should be viewed as a stepping stone on the path to female supremacy.
Now if only such progress could be made in the Islamic world where women are not much more than chattel. Western women have won the battle for themselves, but don't seem to give a damn about their Muslim sisters who have it worse in these modern times than women in the West ever had it.
I guess the oppression of "Those" women is of no consequence now that "We" have attained full equality and more for ourselves!
Condell is right to ridicule the Silent Feminists on the issue, and we should burn red with shame for abandoning our oppressed sisters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48
Which Muslim country is that? Are you aware that Turkey, Iran, Lebanon, Indonesia and several other Muslim countries have high levels of female employment? Are you aware that Islamic country vary wildly in the status of women and how repressive or liberal their marriage laws, standards of dress and so on are? Have you read Muslim feminist blogs like Muslimah Media Watch to see how your "oppressed sisters" feel about clueless Western feminists who want to "rescue" them?
bifemmefatale said:
"1. was actually pretty revolutionary for its time. Married women were commonly expected to quit, or indeed routinely fired, upon getting married."
Not in 1943, in the middle of WWII, at a time when victory for the Allies was hardly a sure thing. Hiring women married or single was done out of necessity, since a lot of "able-bodied" men were in the service. This article was basically written for men who absolutely had to hire women, even though they didn't want to.
Happily for the sexist pigs, women were scooted back into the home in the late 40s and early 50s when "Johnny came marching home again" and needed a job. Men underqualified? Let the G.I. Bill help, and give a veterans' preference in hiring.
Small nit: you don't have the original. You have a jpg of a photocopy of what appears to be an article from page 46 of the September/October 2007 issue of something called "Savvy & Sage," claiming this came from a 1943 magazine.
It is real, though; Snopes has the originals:
http://67.19.222.106/language/graphics/women2.jpg
http://67.19.222.106/language/graphics/women3.jpg
Rosie, turn in your riverter.
Rosie, turn in your rivets.
"Is it just me or does this sound like an episode of the Crocodile Hunter?"
CRIKEY! Look over there as a herd of teh wimmenz congregate in their natural habitat, the women's lavatory. Rumor has it that in addition to doing their makeup in there, this is where the most incisive and florid of their gossip occurs.
They may also poop.....Nah, who are we kidding?
Awww... I miss Steve Irwin.
"...and remember: nothing says 'Good Job" like a firm, open-palmed slap on the behind".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS2UsjBufqE
"8. 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."
Yes, because girls can't handle feeling "icky" or dealing with "icky" things. Also, feminine psychology?! Helen Thompson Wooley would have been so pissed if she had seen this rhetoric being used as an exercise of "feminine psychology." I want to say this even probably came out before she died. Wow. Feminine psychology my ass.....said the social psychologist.
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 the 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.
I suspect this is a euphemism for "Find out if she's pregnant." During WWII, married women may have been considered reliable employees, but pregnant women (or those with newborn infants) were regarded as fragile and distracted. After the war, women were sometimes fired as soon as they got married, because it was presumed they would be having a baby in the next year or so. My mother was a public school teacher in the 1960s, in a district that only employed women if they were not pregnant and had no children under 10. She managed to conceal her pregnancy until she was 8 months along, at which point the principal preferred to ignore it instead of getting a substitute for the last month of the school year.
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.
I don't think this connects to women's physical squeamishness, so much as squeamishness about speaking frankly in mixed company. I can't IMAGINE a woman in 1943 telling her new boss (perhaps man old enough to be her father, perhaps somebody she expects to have mixed feelings about the whole idea of hiring women), "Excuse me, I have to go change my sanitary napkin," or "Excise me a moment, I need to go to the toilet." She's just going to look increasingly worried and uncomfortable from 2 or 3 hours into the workday, until the time when she can take her handbag into the ladies' room. She'll come back with her hands washed and hair combed, looking more comfortable and focused.
Yes. It's typical of the era that the men, totally unaware of the physical reality of women's bladder and menstrual requirements, assumed it was mental fragility and a deranged need for lipstick that led to all those bathroom breaks.
The thing I found most interesting was how many of these guidelines, if applied to workers, make for a better work place - courtesy, tact, adequate rest periods, uniforms that fit, clearly delineating responsibilities and the importance of timeliness. Funny that the authors assumed only women needed these things, or that they were signs of weakness rather than signs of a well-run business.
doctors checked to be sure you weren't pregnant! no legal "elective" (not a danger to mother's life) abortions then(except in sweden and japan), and no 100% effective birth control exists... no one wanted to hire and train a woman who would then have to leave (be fired) when she "began to show" (we won't even get into morning sickness first here) and then was expected to never return cuz she needed to stay home with the baby.... I had one of these "pre-employment physicals" in the early 60s at one of my 1st jobs; at that point, men had physicals, too, so as not to put us on our guard about the reproductive questions, urine tests, and probing pushing hands on the tummy area where you would feel a pregnancy... they also tried to find out if you ever had a back injury,etc... (workers comp claim risk), general health, physical and emotional..... we weren't allowed to see the reports. the docs often called personnel to verbally discuss any reservations about an applicant....
Let's take a quick look at all the tips while bearing in mind that this was written in the 40's and that many things that applied back then no longer apply today.
1. If you're a boss, chances are you already have a workforce comprised of predominantly men. If you want to hire women, it's logically a good idea to hire ones that won't flirt with the guys. Sure, it's the guys' fault too for flirting back or getting distracted, but you can't really choose not to hire them because you've already hired them.
2. Makes total sense, even today. When you hire someone, make sure they have experience in their field. As for the older women part, it's actually quite feminist as it shows how a housewife's lifestyle negatively impacts women.
3. Applies, even today. Girls that don't spend every waking moment imitating stick-thin celebrities are less likely to be self-absorbed.
4. #4 is stupid.
5. This applies to everybody. Just because it was included in a guide on hiring women doesn't mean that the intent was to attack women.
6. This applied more back then than now. Think about how women were socialized in the 40's.
7. Not a bad thing. Keep her from getting bored. Considerate IMO. If anything, it implies that men are all old stiffs who resist change.
8. Stupid
9. This partially applies today, but much more so back in the 40's. Again, think about how women were socialized back then.
10. This was written in the 40's, where there really were a lot more women who disliked swearing.
11. Implies that women like to look good and are happy when they do. So what? Men are happy when they find a suit that fits them well. Heck, we even shell out big bucks to have them tailored to fit us well.
I think, JamesXL, while perhaps your point was to eliminate attacking this article for the sake of attacking this article, many of the things here were found to be offensive because they were directed specifically at women because they were women, with the idea that they were things that needed to be detailed because they were women.
1. Is to be honest not really a statement one ought to take offense at if you think about it. Hiring young people is something businesses do not to be sexist, but because they often have more energy and will stay with a company longer. Hiring young married people is to hire people that need the money, ie. people that will work harder. Married women are hopefully less interesting to your existing male employees, and less interested in your existing male employees outside of a work environment.
2. (Alert!!! I am usually heavily against linguistic forms of feminism as they too often go out of their way to cry wolf, however...)
This one is offensive mostly to older people, the tone implies that they are people never to be hired except as a last resort (a tone that may well be echoed in the opening lines of the article, if you can make them out in the image above.) The other thing to be found offensive is the use of the words cantankerous, (often applied to both older people and women, in a negative way. Stereotype) and fussy (often applied to women, older people, children, negative connotations). Offensive because again, this was written specifically towards women, as if women are more likely to have these negative traits of being fussy and cantankerous than men.
3. Offensive not because of an attack on women, but because it involves both stereotyping, and the taboo topic of weight. Considering the time period, women who were a little heavier were preferred overall to smaller slighter women. Also, given the time period, smaller slighter women could be getting less food, and thus having less energy, a possible explanation for why they seem to be "better workers." Although this seems completely ridiculous to us today.
4. ...WTF is this even talking about? Why would the property be sued? And what are they worried about even, fainting spells? WTF. On the plus side, at least the women were being offered some complimentary health care.
5. Again, because this was apparently deemed something necessary to point out to specifically women, not new hires in general.
6. A. This would be useful for anyone, and B. Again, apparently women are much more likely to "bother" the management with stupid questions. Offensive once more because its a hiring guide for specifically women, with tips with how to deal differently with your new women employees, not new employees in general. And how those new female employees are different from the old workforce of all or mostly all men.
7. It is implying that women, as opposed to men, are not capable of cheerfully doing the same dull job all day, while men are capable of this. Why men should want to be trapped behind a dull desk all day anymore than women is beyond me, but I was never one for keeping still all day anyway.
8. While it may be true that men and women feel better and work with more confidence when they are confident and worried about their appearance, the idea that women should need allowances at work is offensive, especially when said allowances are for one's vanity. It has however been proven that people do work better when confident of their appearance. For example, students are often asked now to wear their favorite clothes to end of year examinations, in the hopes of raising standardized test scores.
9. This is the most offensive to me in some ways. While the first half is a general good idea for any manager. (Issue instructions and criticism without anger or harsh words.) The idea that you'll break a woman's spirit with some off hand comments one day about her work if those words aren't sugar coated and softly delivered, is terribly offensive. While some would argue that women back then were raised to be more delicate, I guarantee you they were tougher than your average woman today. Pretty much everything about their lives was harder. It is disgusting to think that these men were arrogant enough, and confident enough in their superiority to assume that a harsh word to any woman on their payroll would permanently break her spirit. See a man in labor and then talk to me about women being "broken" more than men.
10. This had to do with the culture of the time. Swearing was in general much less common and much more offensive. Remember this is only 50-60 years after table legs had to be covered for fear of being indecent in England. While society was looser on this I think in the USA, you didn't swear in polite company, it was very rude. You especially didn't swear in front of women, doubly rude. Thus naturally, a woman is never going to want to work in an environment with lots of swearing, where any polite or gentlemanly male would likely complain at best, and quite likely refuse employment. It wasn't until much later that social standards about even impolite speech began to relax. Swearing here may even cover things like darn, and would certainly encompass taking the Lord's name in vain or using any obscenity.
11. From a practical standpoint...Duh!!! If you suddenly start hiring women, you're going to need women's uniforms. Though this smacks a bit to me of the same kind of attitude that occurs in number 8. The idea that women are more vain. Could be me seeing offense where there ought not to be however.
Anyway, overall, most of these are offensive because this was not a guide to hiring simply acknowledging that there may be more women hires, it was a guide to things you need to do now that you've got not choice but to hire a whole lot of women. It ought to have been titled, accommodations you have to make cause you've got to have women on the payroll.
This is fantastic! And the timing couldn't be better, I am in hiring mode! (tsk tsk)
For fun:replace "woman" with "man". It works quite well. Except maybe for the lipstick one.