A great many stereotypes about American women during World War II--
especially their role in war industries--do not really correspond to
reality:

"Only 8 percent of wives had husbands in the military; a majority of
married men were civilians working at home. Most women remained
housewives; of 33 million women at home in December 1941, seven out of
eight were still there in 1944, at the peak of wartime employment. Nine
out of ten young mothers did not work outside the home.

"Of working women, only 16 percent were in war industries, partly because
men did not want their wives in the grimy, often dangerous war plants
where, due to round-the-clock production, they were also open to sexual
advances on the night shift. A 1943 Gallup poll showed that 70 percent of
married men opposed war work for their wives and that 75 percent of
spouses agreed. GI surveys showed that the soldiers' dream was not Rosie
the Riveter but Mrs. Miniver (1942), Hollywood's model housewife (played
by Greer Garson), who kept familiar and respectable family values alive
during shifting times. Many middle-class women felt blue-collar work was
demeaning. And some wives worried that if they became self-supporting,
their husbands were more likely to be drafted.."
https://books.google.com/books?id=KXz0BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA46

Question: How can we get a greater mobilization of women for war
industries? There was serious talk of a labor draft, including women. Here
was LIFE magazine of January 29, 1945:

"Since the manpower situation is so tough, why not draft women? We may
come to it yet. War industries need 700,000 workers, of whom many should
be women. The WACs are still below their enlistment needs. The Army and
Navy need 18,000 nurses right away and seemingly can't get them by
voluntary means.

"These gaps argue for a National Service Act, a complete civilian draft of
able-bodied men and women. Britain has one and Representative Wadsworth
introduced one into the last Congress. The present Congress has turned to
a stopgap, the May-Bailey bill, which drafts men of 18-45 only. But nurses
may also be drafted, and if the war lasts long enough the National Service
Act will come up again.

"If it does, the objections of labor will be mild indeed alongside the
shocked objections of self-appointed defenders of American wom-anhood.
'These objectors will be men, not women. Public-opinion polls show that
wom-en are much more willing to be drafted than men are to draft them. To
intelligent wom-en a draft is not a move to enslave them. On the contrary,
it would be a milestone in an age-long process: their emancipation.."

https://books.google.com/books?id=lFIEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA28

As it turned out, labor conscription, even for men, never was enacted
(despite passing the House). With victory in sight in1945, it no longer
seemed necessary; businessmen feared government interference; and
organized labor was violently opposed to the idea, except for those unions
dominated by the Communist Party (or Communist Political Association as it
had renamed itself). The Communists of course thought it was just fine--
ever since the "imperialst war" had been transfomed into a "people's war"
on June 22, 1941, they had become "everything for victory" superpatriots
and FDR loyalists. Besides, the Russians were doing it, so it had to be a
good idea... But the Communists were isolated in the labor movement on
this issue; when Harry Bridges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Bridges
came out in favor of labor conscription, Phil Murray
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Murray forced Bridges to back down.
https://books.google.com/books?id=iWMprgS8q0AC&pg=PA208

To have labor conscription, including that of women, pass, what would
presumably be necessary is a considerably longer war--though I am not sure
even that would have been enough to make it include women. (One
possibility: if as LIFE indicated, there was a serious shortage of nurses,
perhaps as an excpetion to the all-male draft, women could be drafted as
nurses relatively early in the war--and if that went well, it might make
the idea of drafting them for other jobs more acceptable.)

--
David Tenner
dtenner@ameritech.net

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 06:35:58 -0000 (UTC), David Tenner wrote:

> A great many stereotypes about American women during World War II--
> especially their role in war industries--do not really correspond to
> reality:
>
> "Only 8 percent of wives had husbands in the military; a majority of
> married men were civilians working at home. Most women remained
> housewives; of 33 million women at home in December 1941, seven out of
> eight were still there in 1944, at the peak of wartime employment. Nine
> out of ten young mothers did not work outside the home.
>
> "Of working women, only 16 percent were in war industries, partly because
> men did not want their wives in the grimy, often dangerous war plants
> where, due to round-the-clock production, they were also open to sexual
> advances on the night shift. A 1943 Gallup poll showed that 70 percent of
> married men opposed war work for their wives and that 75 percent of
> spouses agreed. GI surveys showed that the soldiers' dream was not Rosie
> the Riveter but Mrs. Miniver (1942), Hollywood's model housewife (played
> by Greer Garson), who kept familiar and respectable family values alive
> during shifting times. Many middle-class women felt blue-collar work was
> demeaning. And some wives worried that if they became self-supporting,
> their husbands were more likely to be drafted.."
> https://books.google.com/books?id=KXz0BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA46
>
> Question: How can we get a greater mobilization of women for war
> industries? There was serious talk of a labor draft, including women. Here
> was LIFE magazine of January 29, 1945:
>
> "Since the manpower situation is so tough, why not draft women? We may
> come to it yet. War industries need 700,000 workers, of whom many should
> be women. The WACs are still below their enlistment needs. The Army and
> Navy need 18,000 nurses right away and seemingly can't get them by
> voluntary means.
>
> "These gaps argue for a National Service Act, a complete civilian draft of
> able-bodied men and women. Britain has one and Representative Wadsworth
> introduced one into the last Congress. The present Congress has turned to
> a stopgap, the May-Bailey bill, which drafts men of 18-45 only. But nurses
> may also be drafted, and if the war lasts long enough the National Service
> Act will come up again.
>
> "If it does, the objections of labor will be mild indeed alongside the
> shocked objections of self-appointed defenders of American wom-anhood.
> 'These objectors will be men, not women. Public-opinion polls show that
> wom-en are much more willing to be drafted than men are to draft them. To
> intelligent wom-en a draft is not a move to enslave them. On the contrary,
> it would be a milestone in an age-long process: their emancipation.."
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=lFIEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA28
>
> As it turned out, labor conscription, even for men, never was enacted
> (despite passing the House). With victory in sight in1945, it no longer
> seemed necessary; businessmen feared government interference; and
> organized labor was violently opposed to the idea, except for those unions
> dominated by the Communist Party (or Communist Political Association as it
> had renamed itself). The Communists of course thought it was just fine--
> ever since the "imperialst war" had been transfomed into a "people's war"
> on June 22, 1941, they had become "everything for victory" superpatriots
> and FDR loyalists. Besides, the Russians were doing it, so it had to be a
> good idea... But the Communists were isolated in the labor movement on
> this issue; when Harry Bridges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Bridges
> came out in favor of labor conscription, Phil Murray
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Murray forced Bridges to back down.
> https://books.google.com/books?id=iWMprgS8q0AC&pg=PA208
>
> To have labor conscription, including that of women, pass, what would
> presumably be necessary is a considerably longer war--though I am not sure
> even that would have been enough to make it include women. (One
> possibility: if as LIFE indicated, there was a serious shortage of nurses,
> perhaps as an excpetion to the all-male draft, women could be drafted as
> nurses relatively early in the war--and if that went well, it might make
> the idea of drafting them for other jobs more acceptable.)

It is an interesting post. Thanks for making it.

Let me make some observations. It is challenging for women to spend their
days in factories and then come home to their domestic chores and
care-giving.

In ww2, with larger families, so we have more kids, so more care-giving.

Plus, with the lack of home automation, e.g. washing machines, dishwashers,
vacuum cleaners, etc., what they had in ww2 today would be more
challenging.

Plus, large numbers of the workforce was in farming (17%). Few women on a
farm are near a factory, and if they did work, it would be on the farm, not
in your figures.

Plus, many Americans lived in small towns, so these women would not be near
a farm either.

The other issue is that women are generally not as strong, so they tend to
go for white-collar jobs. Which there were less then. Plus, being both less
educated and experienced, they would be looking at junior positions. A
riveter as here needs strength and experience.

Still, if we look at the figures, we see a significant increase in Female
Labor Force Participation During World War II in the United States.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/rise-and-fall-of-female-labor-force-participation-during-world-war-ii-in-the-united-states/66C7D7FD7F6424DF40625E913DDC788F

If you look at figure 1.

In 1940 15 million women and 42 million men were in the labor force. So
women make up 36%

In 1944, 19 million women and 36 million men were in the labor force. So
the growth of 4 million-plus with now women make up 53%.

On 7/19/2021 1:47 AM, SolomonW wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 06:35:58 -0000 (UTC), David Tenner wrote:
>
>> A great many stereotypes about American women during World War II--
>> especially their role in war industries--do not really correspond to
>> reality:
>>
>> "Only 8 percent of wives had husbands in the military; a majority of
>> married men were civilians working at home. Most women remained
>> housewives; of 33 million women at home in December 1941, seven out of
>> eight were still there in 1944, at the peak of wartime employment. Nine
>> out of ten young mothers did not work outside the home.
>>
>> "Of working women, only 16 percent were in war industries, partly because
>> men did not want their wives in the grimy, often dangerous war plants
>> where, due to round-the-clock production, they were also open to sexual
>> advances on the night shift. A 1943 Gallup poll showed that 70 percent of
>> married men opposed war work for their wives and that 75 percent of
>> spouses agreed. GI surveys showed that the soldiers' dream was not Rosie
>> the Riveter but Mrs. Miniver (1942), Hollywood's model housewife (played
>> by Greer Garson), who kept familiar and respectable family values alive
>> during shifting times. Many middle-class women felt blue-collar work was
>> demeaning. And some wives worried that if they became self-supporting,
>> their husbands were more likely to be drafted.."
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=KXz0BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA46
>>
>> Question: How can we get a greater mobilization of women for war
>> industries? There was serious talk of a labor draft, including women. Here
>> was LIFE magazine of January 29, 1945:
>>
>> "Since the manpower situation is so tough, why not draft women? We may
>> come to it yet. War industries need 700,000 workers, of whom many should
>> be women. The WACs are still below their enlistment needs. The Army and
>> Navy need 18,000 nurses right away and seemingly can't get them by
>> voluntary means.
>>
>> "These gaps argue for a National Service Act, a complete civilian draft of
>> able-bodied men and women. Britain has one and Representative Wadsworth
>> introduced one into the last Congress. The present Congress has turned to
>> a stopgap, the May-Bailey bill, which drafts men of 18-45 only. But nurses
>> may also be drafted, and if the war lasts long enough the National Service
>> Act will come up again.
>>
>> "If it does, the objections of labor will be mild indeed alongside the
>> shocked objections of self-appointed defenders of American wom-anhood.
>> 'These objectors will be men, not women. Public-opinion polls show that
>> wom-en are much more willing to be drafted than men are to draft them. To
>> intelligent wom-en a draft is not a move to enslave them. On the contrary,
>> it would be a milestone in an age-long process: their emancipation.."
>>
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=lFIEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA28
>>
>> As it turned out, labor conscription, even for men, never was enacted
>> (despite passing the House). With victory in sight in1945, it no longer
>> seemed necessary; businessmen feared government interference; and
>> organized labor was violently opposed to the idea, except for those unions
>> dominated by the Communist Party (or Communist Political Association as it
>> had renamed itself). The Communists of course thought it was just fine--
>> ever since the "imperialst war" had been transfomed into a "people's war"
>> on June 22, 1941, they had become "everything for victory" superpatriots
>> and FDR loyalists. Besides, the Russians were doing it, so it had to be a
>> good idea... But the Communists were isolated in the labor movement on
>> this issue; when Harry Bridges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Bridges
>> came out in favor of labor conscription, Phil Murray
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Murray forced Bridges to back down.
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=iWMprgS8q0AC&pg=PA208
>>
>> To have labor conscription, including that of women, pass, what would
>> presumably be necessary is a considerably longer war--though I am not sure
>> even that would have been enough to make it include women. (One
>> possibility: if as LIFE indicated, there was a serious shortage of nurses,
>> perhaps as an excpetion to the all-male draft, women could be drafted as
>> nurses relatively early in the war--and if that went well, it might make
>> the idea of drafting them for other jobs more acceptable.)
>
> It is an interesting post. Thanks for making it.
>
> Let me make some observations. It is challenging for women to spend their
> days in factories and then come home to their domestic chores and
> care-giving.
>
> In ww2, with larger families, so we have more kids, so more care-giving.
>
> Plus, with the lack of home automation, e.g. washing machines, dishwashers,
> vacuum cleaners, etc., what they had in ww2 today would be more
> challenging.
>
> Plus, large numbers of the workforce was in farming (17%). Few women on a
> farm are near a factory, and if they did work, it would be on the farm, not
> in your figures.
>
> Plus, many Americans lived in small towns, so these women would not be near
> a farm either.
>
> The other issue is that women are generally not as strong, so they tend to
> go for white-collar jobs. Which there were less then. Plus, being both less
> educated and experienced, they would be looking at junior positions. A
> riveter as here needs strength and experience.
>
> Still, if we look at the figures, we see a significant increase in Female
> Labor Force Participation During World War II in the United States.
>
> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/rise-and-fall-of-female-labor-force-participation-during-world-war-ii-in-the-united-states/66C7D7FD7F6424DF40625E913DDC788F
>
>
> If you look at figure 1.
>
> In 1940 15 million women and 42 million men were in the labor force. So
> women make up 36%
>
> In 1944, 19 million women and 36 million men were in the labor force. So
> the growth of 4 million-plus with now women make up 53%.
>
Issue with the math there. 15 million out of (15 + 36 = 57) is 26%.
And 19 out of (19+36=55) is 35%. Not 36% and 53%.

--
Troll, troll, troll your post gently down the thread
Angrily, angrily, angrily, the net's a nut's scream.

SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:47:17 +1000 typed
in alt.history.what-if the following:
>
>The other issue is that women are generally not as strong, so they tend to
>go for white-collar jobs. Which there were less then. Plus, being both less
>educated and experienced, they would be looking at junior positions. A
>riveter as here needs strength and experience.

OTOH, women generally being smaller, fit into some spaces easier
than men. Boeing still is looking for women to work inside wing (etc)
assemblies.
>
>Still, if we look at the figures, we see a significant increase in Female
>Labor Force Participation During World War II in the United States.

Yep. And not all in the "war industries". I suspect that
inducting eight million men put a cramp on labor supplies across the
board, from bus boys to senior managers.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On 7/19/21 12:39 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> Yep. And not all in the "war industries". I suspect that
> inducting eight million men put a cramp on labor supplies across the
> board, from bus boys to senior managers.

I've seen a picture of the locomotive cleaning crew
at a roundhouse in Iowa, in 1944. Eight very tough-
looking older women.

And the effect is seen in wartime movies. For instance, in
_The Big Sleep_ (shot in 1945), there's no mention of the
war, but there is a cab driver - who is a young woman.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 10:39:33 -0700, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> On 7/19/2021 1:47 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 06:35:58 -0000 (UTC), David Tenner wrote:
>>
>>> A great many stereotypes about American women during World War II--
>>> especially their role in war industries--do not really correspond to
>>> reality:
>>>
>>> "Only 8 percent of wives had husbands in the military; a majority of
>>> married men were civilians working at home. Most women remained
>>> housewives; of 33 million women at home in December 1941, seven out of
>>> eight were still there in 1944, at the peak of wartime employment. Nine
>>> out of ten young mothers did not work outside the home.
>>>
>>> "Of working women, only 16 percent were in war industries, partly because
>>> men did not want their wives in the grimy, often dangerous war plants
>>> where, due to round-the-clock production, they were also open to sexual
>>> advances on the night shift. A 1943 Gallup poll showed that 70 percent of
>>> married men opposed war work for their wives and that 75 percent of
>>> spouses agreed. GI surveys showed that the soldiers' dream was not Rosie
>>> the Riveter but Mrs. Miniver (1942), Hollywood's model housewife (played
>>> by Greer Garson), who kept familiar and respectable family values alive
>>> during shifting times. Many middle-class women felt blue-collar work was
>>> demeaning. And some wives worried that if they became self-supporting,
>>> their husbands were more likely to be drafted.."
>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=KXz0BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA46
>>>
>>> Question: How can we get a greater mobilization of women for war
>>> industries? There was serious talk of a labor draft, including women. Here
>>> was LIFE magazine of January 29, 1945:
>>>
>>> "Since the manpower situation is so tough, why not draft women? We may
>>> come to it yet. War industries need 700,000 workers, of whom many should
>>> be women. The WACs are still below their enlistment needs. The Army and
>>> Navy need 18,000 nurses right away and seemingly can't get them by
>>> voluntary means.
>>>
>>> "These gaps argue for a National Service Act, a complete civilian draft of
>>> able-bodied men and women. Britain has one and Representative Wadsworth
>>> introduced one into the last Congress. The present Congress has turned to
>>> a stopgap, the May-Bailey bill, which drafts men of 18-45 only. But nurses
>>> may also be drafted, and if the war lasts long enough the National Service
>>> Act will come up again.
>>>
>>> "If it does, the objections of labor will be mild indeed alongside the
>>> shocked objections of self-appointed defenders of American wom-anhood.
>>> 'These objectors will be men, not women. Public-opinion polls show that
>>> wom-en are much more willing to be drafted than men are to draft them. To
>>> intelligent wom-en a draft is not a move to enslave them. On the contrary,
>>> it would be a milestone in an age-long process: their emancipation.."
>>>
>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=lFIEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA28
>>>
>>> As it turned out, labor conscription, even for men, never was enacted
>>> (despite passing the House). With victory in sight in1945, it no longer
>>> seemed necessary; businessmen feared government interference; and
>>> organized labor was violently opposed to the idea, except for those unions
>>> dominated by the Communist Party (or Communist Political Association as it
>>> had renamed itself). The Communists of course thought it was just fine--
>>> ever since the "imperialst war" had been transfomed into a "people's war"
>>> on June 22, 1941, they had become "everything for victory" superpatriots
>>> and FDR loyalists. Besides, the Russians were doing it, so it had to be a
>>> good idea... But the Communists were isolated in the labor movement on
>>> this issue; when Harry Bridges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Bridges
>>> came out in favor of labor conscription, Phil Murray
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Murray forced Bridges to back down.
>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=iWMprgS8q0AC&pg=PA208
>>>
>>> To have labor conscription, including that of women, pass, what would
>>> presumably be necessary is a considerably longer war--though I am not sure
>>> even that would have been enough to make it include women. (One
>>> possibility: if as LIFE indicated, there was a serious shortage of nurses,
>>> perhaps as an excpetion to the all-male draft, women could be drafted as
>>> nurses relatively early in the war--and if that went well, it might make
>>> the idea of drafting them for other jobs more acceptable.)
>>
>> It is an interesting post. Thanks for making it.
>>
>> Let me make some observations. It is challenging for women to spend their
>> days in factories and then come home to their domestic chores and
>> care-giving.
>>
>> In ww2, with larger families, so we have more kids, so more care-giving.
>>
>> Plus, with the lack of home automation, e.g. washing machines, dishwashers,
>> vacuum cleaners, etc., what they had in ww2 today would be more
>> challenging.
>>
>> Plus, large numbers of the workforce was in farming (17%). Few women on a
>> farm are near a factory, and if they did work, it would be on the farm, not
>> in your figures.
>>
>> Plus, many Americans lived in small towns, so these women would not be near
>> a farm either.
>>
>> The other issue is that women are generally not as strong, so they tend to
>> go for white-collar jobs. Which there were less then. Plus, being both less
>> educated and experienced, they would be looking at junior positions. A
>> riveter as here needs strength and experience.
>>
>> Still, if we look at the figures, we see a significant increase in Female
>> Labor Force Participation During World War II in the United States.
>>
>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/rise-and-fall-of-female-labor-force-participation-during-world-war-ii-in-the-united-states/66C7D7FD7F6424DF40625E913DDC788F
>>
>>
>> If you look at figure 1.
>>
>> In 1940 15 million women and 42 million men were in the labor force. So
>> women make up 36%
>>
>> In 1944, 19 million women and 36 million men were in the labor force. So
>> the growth of 4 million-plus with now women make up 53%.
>>
> Issue with the math there. 15 million out of (15 + 36 = 57) is 26%.
> And 19 out of (19+36=55) is 35%. Not 36% and 53%.

oops

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 10:39:34 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:

> SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:47:17 +1000 typed
> in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>
>>The other issue is that women are generally not as strong, so they tend to
>>go for white-collar jobs. Which there were less then. Plus, being both less
>>educated and experienced, they would be looking at junior positions. A
>>riveter as here needs strength and experience.
>
> OTOH, women generally being smaller, fit into some spaces easier
> than men. Boeing still is looking for women to work inside wing (etc)
> assemblies.

There are pluses and minus. I know that generally, in factories in quality
control, women are preferred. The other issue then is that women are
cheaper.

>>
>>Still, if we look at the figures, we see a significant increase in Female
>>Labor Force Participation During World War II in the United States.
>
> Yep. And not all in the "war industries". I suspect that
> inducting eight million men put a cramp on labor supplies across the
> board, from bus boys to senior managers.

Plus, I am sure much of the increase in the female labor force was in tasks
like secretarial and clerical, which ww2 created a significant demand.

On 7/18/2021 11:35 PM, David Tenner wrote:
> A great many stereotypes about American women during World War II--
> especially their role in war industries--do not really correspond to
> reality:
>
> "Only 8 percent of wives had husbands in the military; a majority of
> married men were civilians working at home. Most women remained
> housewives; of 33 million women at home in December 1941, seven out of
> eight were still there in 1944, at the peak of wartime employment. Nine
> out of ten young mothers did not work outside the home.
>
> "Of working women, only 16 percent were in war industries, ---
>
I will accept your numbers, but am not sure they
really represent all that was happening.
They do not well represent what happened in my family.

My mother had gone to nursing school.
My father left the farm and figured out how
to earn his way through college by working and
living at Univ. of North Dakota at Camp Depression.
They got married and father was working as a social
worker in a pretty depressed area in North Dakota
and in 1941 they had my older brother.
In early 1942 for several reasons (economic improvement
and to work in defense industry) they moved to Seattle
area. My dad earned more as a laborer at Lake Washington
Shipyards then he had been earning. My mother also
started working at shipyard, first as a messenger,
then as a RN in the shipyard infirmary.

My dad had 3 sisters, one married a pharmacist in Dakotas.
One left farm, did ? (records/paperwork) in Spokane.
When the youngest finished HS in 1944 she left the
Dakotas to also go to Lake Washington area, then
she started work at Boeing. Neither married.

My mom's older sister was married, she worked in
Seattle at Boeing.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 10:34:59 -0700, a425couple wrote:

> On 7/18/2021 11:35 PM, David Tenner wrote:
>> A great many stereotypes about American women during World War II--
>> especially their role in war industries--do not really correspond to
>> reality:
>>
>> "Only 8 percent of wives had husbands in the military; a majority of
>> married men were civilians working at home. Most women remained
>> housewives; of 33 million women at home in December 1941, seven out of
>> eight were still there in 1944, at the peak of wartime employment. Nine
>> out of ten young mothers did not work outside the home.
>>
>> "Of working women, only 16 percent were in war industries, ---
>>
> I will accept your numbers, but am not sure they
> really represent all that was happening.
> They do not well represent what happened in my family.
>
> My mother had gone to nursing school.
> My father left the farm and figured out how
> to earn his way through college by working and
> living at Univ. of North Dakota at Camp Depression.
> They got married and father was working as a social
> worker in a pretty depressed area in North Dakota
> and in 1941 they had my older brother.
> In early 1942 for several reasons (economic improvement
> and to work in defense industry) they moved to Seattle
> area. My dad earned more as a laborer at Lake Washington
> Shipyards then he had been earning. My mother also
> started working at shipyard, first as a messenger,
> then as a RN in the shipyard infirmary.
>
> My dad had 3 sisters, one married a pharmacist in Dakotas.
> One left farm, did ? (records/paperwork) in Spokane.
> When the youngest finished HS in 1944 she left the
> Dakotas to also go to Lake Washington area, then
> she started work at Boeing. Neither married.
>
> My mom's older sister was married, she worked in
> Seattle at Boeing.

A typical problem with statistics and the real world is that 50% are male,
50% are female, so the average person is a queer.

SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Wed, 21 Jul 2021 02:13:49 +1000 typed
in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 10:39:34 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>
>> SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:47:17 +1000 typed
>> in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>
>>>The other issue is that women are generally not as strong, so they tend to
>>>go for white-collar jobs. Which there were less then. Plus, being both less
>>>educated and experienced, they would be looking at junior positions. A
>>>riveter as here needs strength and experience.
>>
>> OTOH, women generally being smaller, fit into some spaces easier
>> than men. Boeing still is looking for women to work inside wing (etc)
>> assemblies.
>
>There are pluses and minus. I know that generally, in factories in quality
>control, women are preferred. The other issue then is that women are
>cheaper.
>
>
>>>
>>>Still, if we look at the figures, we see a significant increase in Female
>>>Labor Force Participation During World War II in the United States.
>>
>> Yep. And not all in the "war industries". I suspect that
>> inducting eight million men put a cramp on labor supplies across the
>> board, from bus boys to senior managers.
>
>Plus, I am sure much of the increase in the female labor force was in tasks
>like secretarial and clerical, which ww2 created a significant demand.

Also, every woman who took a secretarial or clerical position,
particularly in "rear areas" (like state side) freed up the man who
had held it for 'combat' duty. One of the reason for the various
Women Services was to do just that.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:51:46 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:

> SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Wed, 21 Jul 2021 02:13:49 +1000 typed
> in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 10:39:34 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>
>>> SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:47:17 +1000 typed
>>> in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>>
>>>>The other issue is that women are generally not as strong, so they tend to
>>>>go for white-collar jobs. Which there were less then. Plus, being both less
>>>>educated and experienced, they would be looking at junior positions. A
>>>>riveter as here needs strength and experience.
>>>
>>> OTOH, women generally being smaller, fit into some spaces easier
>>> than men. Boeing still is looking for women to work inside wing (etc)
>>> assemblies.
>>
>>There are pluses and minus. I know that generally, in factories in quality
>>control, women are preferred. The other issue then is that women are
>>cheaper.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Still, if we look at the figures, we see a significant increase in Female
>>>>Labor Force Participation During World War II in the United States.
>>>
>>> Yep. And not all in the "war industries". I suspect that
>>> inducting eight million men put a cramp on labor supplies across the
>>> board, from bus boys to senior managers.
>>
>>Plus, I am sure much of the increase in the female labor force was in tasks
>>like secretarial and clerical, which ww2 created a significant demand.
>
> Also, every woman who took a secretarial or clerical position,
> particularly in "rear areas" (like state side) freed up the man who
> had held it for 'combat' duty. One of the reason for the various
> Women Services was to do just that.

Indeed but its not what we would call a Rosie the Riveter job

SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:07:52 +1000 typed
in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:51:46 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>
>> SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Wed, 21 Jul 2021 02:13:49 +1000 typed
>> in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 10:39:34 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>
>>>> SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:47:17 +1000 typed
>>>> in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>>>
>>>>>The other issue is that women are generally not as strong, so they tend to
>>>>>go for white-collar jobs. Which there were less then. Plus, being both less
>>>>>educated and experienced, they would be looking at junior positions. A
>>>>>riveter as here needs strength and experience.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, women generally being smaller, fit into some spaces easier
>>>> than men. Boeing still is looking for women to work inside wing (etc)
>>>> assemblies.
>>>
>>>There are pluses and minus. I know that generally, in factories in quality
>>>control, women are preferred. The other issue then is that women are
>>>cheaper.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Still, if we look at the figures, we see a significant increase in Female
>>>>>Labor Force Participation During World War II in the United States.
>>>>
>>>> Yep. And not all in the "war industries". I suspect that
>>>> inducting eight million men put a cramp on labor supplies across the
>>>> board, from bus boys to senior managers.
>>>
>>>Plus, I am sure much of the increase in the female labor force was in tasks
>>>like secretarial and clerical, which ww2 created a significant demand.
>>
>> Also, every woman who took a secretarial or clerical position,
>> particularly in "rear areas" (like state side) freed up the man who
>> had held it for 'combat' duty. One of the reason for the various
>> Women Services was to do just that.
>
>Indeed but its not what we would call a Rosie the Riveter job

True. I suspect that the iconic image was more propaganda, even
as women may have been "riveters" at the lighter end of the trade.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:33:41 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:

> SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:07:52 +1000 typed
> in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:51:46 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>
>>> SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Wed, 21 Jul 2021 02:13:49 +1000 typed
>>> in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>>On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 10:39:34 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:47:17 +1000 typed
>>>>> in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The other issue is that women are generally not as strong, so they tend to
>>>>>>go for white-collar jobs. Which there were less then. Plus, being both less
>>>>>>educated and experienced, they would be looking at junior positions. A
>>>>>>riveter as here needs strength and experience.
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH, women generally being smaller, fit into some spaces easier
>>>>> than men. Boeing still is looking for women to work inside wing (etc)
>>>>> assemblies.
>>>>
>>>>There are pluses and minus. I know that generally, in factories in quality
>>>>control, women are preferred. The other issue then is that women are
>>>>cheaper.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Still, if we look at the figures, we see a significant increase in Female
>>>>>>Labor Force Participation During World War II in the United States.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep. And not all in the "war industries". I suspect that
>>>>> inducting eight million men put a cramp on labor supplies across the
>>>>> board, from bus boys to senior managers.
>>>>
>>>>Plus, I am sure much of the increase in the female labor force was in tasks
>>>>like secretarial and clerical, which ww2 created a significant demand.
>>>
>>> Also, every woman who took a secretarial or clerical position,
>>> particularly in "rear areas" (like state side) freed up the man who
>>> had held it for 'combat' duty. One of the reason for the various
>>> Women Services was to do just that.
>>
>>Indeed but its not what we would call a Rosie the Riveter job
>
> True. I suspect that the iconic image was more propaganda, even
> as women may have been "riveters" at the lighter end of the trade.

I used to work as a storeman. I was expected to carry clothes dryers by
myself. It would have to be a strong woman that could do that.

On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:07:52 +1000, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com>
wrote:

>> Also, every woman who took a secretarial or clerical position,
>> particularly in "rear areas" (like state side) freed up the man who
>> had held it for 'combat' duty. One of the reason for the various
>> Women Services was to do just that.
>
>Indeed but its not what we would call a Rosie the Riveter job

It wasn't just "Rosie the Riveter" or clerical positions. Lots of
women served either as nurses on the one hand or as drivers on the
other.

Probably the best known of the latter was HRH the Princess Elizabeth
aka "The Queen"