The War Department was responsible for industrial mobilization and the Army Service Forces was put in charge of supervising and coordinating the placement of civilian workers on a national basis.   This included the widespread use of women to fill civilian male labor shortages caused by military service. This novel situation was addressed by the Army publication, The Guide to the Immediate and Maximum Utilization of Civilian Womanpower, which covered the practice of actually putting civilian women to work in wartime industrial jobs. The guide stated, “Commanding officers will adjust their procedures, policies and working methods in such a manner that women may be employed to the maximum extent compatible with efficiency. This will necessitate careful reappraisal of employment and production processes and cannot be considered solely upon the basis of present operating conditions [that is, the peculiarity of women must be taken into account].” 

The guide was issued by the Army Service Forces on November 10, 1943, and mirrored the male-dominated Army view of women as a distinct group of human beings who, unlike males, required all sorts of special consideration. This overriding prejudice is continued within the pages treated in this column. These deal with Retention of Women in the categories of Safety (Page 16) as well as Health and Medical Care (Page 17).

Perceived differences in safety consciousness between men and women constitute a constant theme throughout the guide.  Safety issues and the need to “give special emphasis to safety” in putting women to work (i.e., “determining the facts of the job which can be performed safely by women”) reveal a recurring bias that women operate in an unsafe manner compared to men (see Page 2 in July II column).  The supposed unsafe operating attitude of women is raised as a source of their resulting fear and lack of confidence around mechanical equipment, suggesting that male supervisors take extra safeguards to protect them (see Page 12 in September I column). 

Special safety considerations for female workers are introduced to "emphasize safety rules pertinent to women" on Page 16.  The official policy includes several misgivings about widespread deficiencies noted in feminine attire ("work clothing safe for the occupation" to include "closed-toe, low-heeled shoes"), improper hairstyling ("loose hair") and items of female jewelry ("bracelets, rings, necklaces not to be worn").  This portion of the guide was not prejudicial, but a realistic response toward alleviating the safety hazards potentially resulting from the fashionable stylishness imposed by social dictates of the time.

The “new women employee” needed an opportunity (preferably early in the “induction or orientation period”) “to impress” her with the “value of safe practices” (unlike the man, for Safety Point 1 notes that these are safety rules pertinent to women).  As a result, “she should be shown the hazards of the job and how to work safely.” The extra burden of accommodating any female worker was underscored at the employer’s expense in time and effort, “Whenever a job has been changed over to a woman’s job, special precaution must be taken to insure the installation of adequate safety devices.”

The lower endurance and physical limitations of the female gender are then specifically addressed, including the admonishment, “it is essential to comply with these laws” (i.e., state laws and regulations restricting exertion by women).  The bias against hiring women, except for emergency war production, is reinforced because the advantage of using a man in the same position is implicit within the stated circumstances.

Finally, the Safety suggestions advise supervisory flexibility toward allowing women as much individual choice in their working garments as possible. This approach was not allowed during the 40s-era for men holding industrial occupations, which demanded working clothes in almost uniform conformity to shop and union prerogatives.  The reason for this differing government policy in the case of women was simple. It was aimed at bringing more contentment to the female work force, in order to avoid productivity lapses and turnover (both of which, according to the guide, were caused by female discontent).  Women were assumed to be primarily concerned about dress.

The guide recommends women's clothing that is attractive, as long as it is safe and suitable.  This permission was understandable in view of the typical societal roles that women then fulfilled, for looking smart and stylish was important to female self-esteem in fulfilling societal expectations of dating, marriage and childbearing.  In any case, feminine individual preferences were expressly promoted, "it is desirable that women be permitted to choose the type of suitable garment they wish to wear."
Even clothing then generally frowned upon for female social or street wear, like slacks, was approved on the production line (or, instead of slacks, "Hoover-apron" types of clothing). Nevertheless, even these dress exceptions for women had a limit: "However, the same safety clothing and equipment required of men must be required of women."

The Health and Medical Care section (Page 17) provides seemingly standard advice. Yet some curious statements reflect the underlying anti-feminine orientation of the guide.  For example, “Dispensaries to take care of emergency illness and accidents are an accepted part of plants today and they are especially needed where women are employed.”  Why is this? Perhaps the Army officials writing the guide assumed that female workers were more prone to emergency illness and accidents than male workers in manufacturing plants, and thus heightened the need for dispensaries.  The section also tasks employers of women with additional medical requirements, such as testing for pregnancy and lifting injuries, not necessitated for male employees. Such cumulative effects of costly medical care would naturally discourage the hiring of women employees, except for extraordinary wartime emergencies.

The women who manned the production lines, assembly plants and factories during World War II were forced to confront and overcome the prejudiced predisposition of the male establishment against their working contribution on behalf of the nation.  The government guide demonstrates the disadvantageous climate of job discrimination that female workers faced in achieving Victory.
.

Page 16: Safety click to enlarge

Page 17: Health and Medical Care click to enlarge