The Army and Navy went about recruiting women differently. Do you think one of the branches had better results? Why or why not?
The Army and Navy went about recruiting ...
Created: 09/26/18
Replies: 6
|
|
|
Join Date: 10/15/10
Posts: 3442
|
|
|
Join Date: 04/21/11
Posts: 281
The Navy was more selective in choosing recruits—they wanted only the finest—educated and high class women, whereas the Army settled for whoever they could recruit to fill quotas. Often the WACs created inaccurate facts touting the living and working conditions of the code girls.
Although not necessarily a recruiting ploy, the Navy WAVES wore stylish blue uniforms, appearing much more classic than the Army WACs wearing dull khaki uniforms with khaki underwear.
|
|
|
Join Date: 07/14/12
Posts: 94
I agree with Suzanne's comments (no pockets in WAVES uniforms - deal breaker? )(kidding). It was my perception standards were lowered (and more civilians included as the war went on. The Army did allow their WACs to be deployed overseas but, everything was so hush-hush and deceptive in the initial recruitment it's hard to know if that inducement was a major factor.
|
|
|
Join Date: 05/29/15
Posts: 460
|
|
|
Join Date: 09/14/12
Posts: 111
|
|
|
Join Date: 07/28/16
Posts: 54
The Navy was more selective and more specific in what their requirements were.The Navy want Ivy League type or intelligent women, and mathematicians.The Navy did use advertisements with their uniform to entice women. The Army used handsome men to try to get some women, and hired teachers and other bright women. I think that there were talented candidates that were in both the Army and Navy
|
|
|
Join Date: 04/14/11
Posts: 68
The Navy seemed more selective - only the best and the brightest - but there were talented women in both branches of the service. The Navy had better uniforms, but that didn't necessarily mean that their contribution was any the less important. Once recruited, they actually had to perform.
Reply
Please login to post a response.