Not Logged in.
Book Jacket

Code Girls


The riveting story of the USA's courageous and accomplished WWII female American...
Summary and Reviews
Excerpt
Reading Guide

The Army and Navy went about recruiting women differently. Do you think one of the branches had better results? Why or why not?

Created: 09/26/18

Replies: 6

Posted Sep. 26, 2018 Go to Top | Go to bottom | link | alert
davinamw

Join Date: 10/15/10

Posts: 3058

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 women differently. Do you think one of the branches had better results? Why or why not?


Posted Oct. 05, 2018 Go to Top | Go to bottom | link | alert
Suzanne

Join Date: 04/21/11

Posts: 281

RE: The Army and Navy went about recruiting women differently. Do you think one of the branches had better results? Why or why not?

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.


Posted Oct. 08, 2018 Go to Top | Go to bottom | link | alert
gwenc

Join Date: 07/14/12

Posts: 77

RE: The Army and Navy went about recruiting women differently. Do you think one of the branches had better results? Why or why not?

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.


Posted Oct. 10, 2018 Go to Top | Go to bottom | link | alert
dianaps

Join Date: 05/29/15

Posts: 460

RE: The Army and Navy went about recruiting women differently. Do you think one of the branches had better results? Why or why not?

I was surprised by the geographic locations of the recruitment. Texas was completely left out! Did that think our women were not smart enough?!


Posted Oct. 17, 2018 Go to Top | Go to bottom | link | alert
kathleenb

Join Date: 09/14/12

Posts: 108

RE: The Army and Navy went about recruiting women differently. Do you think one of the branches had better results? Why or why not?

I agree with Suzanne, I think the Navy did a better job of recruiting the code women. Looking at college degrees and especially aptitude in math.


Posted Oct. 19, 2018 Go to Top | Go to bottom | link | alert
teachlz

Join Date: 07/28/16

Posts: 50

RE: The Army and Navy went about recruiting women differently. Do you think one of the branches had better results? Why or why not?

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


Posted Oct. 19, 2018 Go to Top | Go to bottom | link | alert
joannev

Join Date: 04/14/11

Posts: 57

RE: The Army and Navy went about recruiting women differently. Do you think one of the branches had better results? Why or why not?

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.