Talk:Women in the world wars

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 23 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amygross.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

what did the women do after the war was over? what did the widows of the war do?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.10.206.50 (talk • contribs) . they married again (H)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.219.252.251 (talk • contribs) .

Interesting questions, especially with a Username of Doc glasgow.

The forced (by conscription) introduction of women workers (who were unskilled - not a derogatory statement, just a fact) into industry and ship building in World Wars I & II was known as "dilution" and was bitterly contested by the unions, especially in the greater Glasgow area in World War I (that is when the "militancy of "Red Clydeside" first became famous).

Before "dilution", women (before marriage) worked in shops and domestic service, i.e. someoneelses big house / estate. After the two World Wars the women were basically thrown out so that the former male workers, who had been consripted into the armed forces, could have their old jobs back. After the WW II domestic service was on the decline and there was a big economic depression in the mid 1950's. Pyrotec 20:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to know between what ages women were accepted as nurses for World War 1. I believe men could enlist at age 18, but I'm not certain if the criteria was the same for women.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mynoris (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure I know the answer to this one, as I've not yet done any research on it; anyhow no one else has responded. You're right that in WW I men could enlist at 18 and many doctor's (who were almost all male) were called up for service. It also turns out that there were male nurses in WW I, my grandfather was one but I did not know that whilst he was still alive.

At the beginning women tried to enlist as nurses but were not wanted by the British War Office, so some women, middle & upper class, set up volunteer corps of nurses in Poland, France and Serbia, as per Florence Nightingale, although she was dead by then. It was only later that women were allowed to enlist as nurses. This is discussed in books about Lloyd George, who was the 1st Minister of Munitions, also there is a reference to a book by Irene Chapman (written 1935)"Towards Sex Freedom".

If you find out, you could add it to Wikipedia. Pyrotec

See Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps which was started well before WWI, in 1902; the first Matron-in-Chief (Sydney) male, but the second (Caroline) was not. The Voluntary Aid Detachment (VAD) catered for the wartime volunteers, though they were not allowed in the front line before 1915. Hugo999 (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

"There is little doubt that women's work in the two World Wars of the twentieth century was an important factor in the course of both wars. This involvement changed the social status and working lives of women in many countries from that point onwards.

Women's contribution to both wars was significant; though the attitudes towards their contribution were typically paternalistic."

Biased and written like an essay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.96.236 (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The numbers involved were very small, and of all occupations for women in WWII, this was easily the most disreputable of the lot. Irma Grese, hanged in December 1945, has come to be seen as the archetype. Norvo 03:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

This entire section should be removed as it is irrelevant to the subject of this article, and in fact contains some nonsensical statements such as donating stockings to soldiers to carry gunpowder!!!. The first sentence: "In part because of female participation in the war effort in the years after the First World War, Canada, the United States, Great Britain, and a number of European countries extended suffrage to women." may be added to the previous section as it was a consequence of women's role in WW I.

Syrenab 20:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I suggest the title be changed to "Women's roles in the World Wars" in line with the usual preferences in history studies. Rjensen 04:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. I'll change it. Asarelah (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The image File:Jhansi Trooper.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've deleted the following from the United Kingdom sub-section of World War II:

The most common job for women was in domestic service, which about one and a half million women worked. Some domestic servants lived in attics and worked long hours as cleaners, cooks or chamber maids. They would be typically paid £5 or £10 a year. Often domestic servants would get half a day off a week however some only got half a day a month. This style of work was very appealing to young girls as the schools leaving age was twelve and domestic service didn’t require a high level of education. Nine-hundred thousand women worked in textiles. The textile industry was a major employer of women as they could supervise the spinning and weaving machines as effectively as men. Pay was of course much lower for women than it was for men. Five-hundred thousand worked in the ‘sweat trades’ where they would work excessive hours of work for very low pay in unsanitary conditions. The worst examples of the sweated industry were clothing and dress making, where women worked in workshops in the home of their employers. Some women however worked from home and were paid piece rates (paid for every item they made). Women were easy targets for sweatshop owners as they could not afford to complain for fear of losing their jobs, and it was almost impossible to set up trade unions as the number of workers per shop was very low. Women were usually paid two-thirds of a man's wage, or even less and were rarely ever promoted above men.

Women usually weren’t as well educated as men as some families educated their sons and not daughters because they assumed that women would get married and have children. The school leaving age was twelve and staying at school after that meant having to pay school fees or winning a scholarship; sometimes if a girl won a scholarship her parents would refuse it as they needed her wages. As a result 10 per cent of children attended school after twelve and 10 per cent of them were girls. Before the war effort middle and upper-class women were not expected to work. Middle-class women would sometimes work as secretaries or in posh shops as assistants before they were married.

This material was originally added in a single edit on 3 June 2008 by User:Boothferry. Reasons for deletion:

• Appears to be closely based on a school history book called The Home Front, 1914-18 by Malcolm Chandler (here on Google Books), so may be COPYVIO—I don't know how closely you're allowed to paraphrase a textbook.
• Completely inappropriate for the WWII section as it is describing the situation before the First World War. The assertion that caught my eye was that before WWII "the school leaving age was twelve" which as any fule kno is contradicted by this, this, this and not least this.

However, the material and source might be useful for the World War I section: I'm not a historian so I'll leave it to other editors to decide. - Pointillist (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Rosie the Riveter article says this article's lead image Image:We Can Do It!.jpg "was not meant to represent a character called Rosie the Riveter at all.". I've adjusted the caption accordingly. - Pointillist (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Rosie the Riveter" is the generic name for all amwerican women in war facories, regardless of their job. So it can stay. Rjensen (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The link for an online edition for source 2, D'Ann Campbell, "Women in Combat: The World War Two Experience in the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and the Soviet Union" is now dead. If possible, a replacement should be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squirrellyone (talk • contribs) 04:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

A new editor who has not been active on this page or related topics has slapped several bias tags with no apparent reason. They need to be explained in depth here, especially since they seem so dubious (the article has many inline citations and bibliographical references for example). Rjensen (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi all, I'm the "new editor" who "slapped" on the bias tags. If nothing else, the following opening paragraph surely does not meet encyclopeadic standards. It's too opinionated and essay-like in my opinion:

"There is little doubt that women's work in the two World Wars of the twentieth century was an important factor in the course of both wars. This involvement changed the social status and working lives of women in many countries from that point onwards.

Women's contribution to both wars was significant; though the attitudes towards their contribution were typically paternalistic." I'd like to request that the paragraph be rewritten in a more neutral manner, or to place a bias tag on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indicoid (talk • contribs) 08:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you please suggest alternate wording? Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

the current wording reflects the RS cited in the bibliography-- Indicoid needs to explain what alternative RS she is relying upon. Rjensen (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is a dubious tag on the line concerning women killed in action. I am not familiar enough with editing on WP to do this correctly, but wanted to pass on this .pdf from the US WW2 Museum which verifies the quote and might be a good source for making it more specific.

http://www.nationalww2museum.org/education/for-students/fact-sheets/women-in-w.pdf

The applicable section of that pdf is as follows:

Some women served near the front lines in the Army Nurse Corps, where 16 were killed as a result of direct enemy fire. Sixty-eight American service women were captured as POWs in the Philippines. More than 1,600 nurses were decorated for bravery under fire and meritorious service, and 565 WACs in the Pacific Theater won combat decorations. Nurses were in Normandy on D-plus-four.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.248.236 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

This article is well researched and supported by historical information and well laid out. An area of improvement would be the introduction as it is very short and does not serve its purpose of giving an informative introduction to the topic. The citations throughout the article are well done. The article is clear and able to go into detail on the women’s roles and the affect these roles had on society. The article includes a broad area of information under the topic as well as pictures to improve the piece. The sections on Finland and Italy are lacking some information and could use more content. Overall, the article is organized well and is objective when providing information to the topic. It provides accurate and relevant information. In most sections, the information is thorough in detail although there are some sections that could use improvement. The article includes a good quality of writing and is easy for the reader to follow. The headings provided are clear and help to improve the structure of the article. The references are complete and correspond with information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcoutts12 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

History 208 Peer Review

• Some links don’t further the topic such as “millions” in the first category. • Some of the links do not further the reader in understanding the topic such as “millions” which is a link in the category Women’s roles before World War 1. Also there is a repetition of links such as “World War 1” • I like how in “Home Front”: both sides of “the historical debate” is discussed. • Plural, singular contradiction: “...women secondarily was...” which is in the area “Home Front” and “factories - which, by comparison, was” which is in the area “U.S. women on the Home Front”. • Some possible spelling errors include: “byproduct” is either by-product or by product, in the subcategory “Britain”, as well as the link “salvation Army” is missing a capital letter on salvation- unless that is just the way the link is. • Some subcategory titles are not cohesive with the font of the other subcategories. Such as “Home Front” vs. “Canadian women in the first world War” • I did like the amount of visual images, there is a complimentary abundance of images with consistent placement. • The style of the Works Cited information is consistent throughout all references. StAnMc18 (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC) StAnMc18StAnMc18 (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Funny that there's nothing about the white feather shaming that lead many men straight to their deaths... but this is wikipedia where nothing is censored, right? for such a loud, proud group you sure do love white washing your history... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebritches57 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

see White feather.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

My point was obviously that it should be talked about in this page, by keeping it in it's own page, readers must know about it to begin with, for those that don't they're completely out of luck. by including evena sentence with a link to the article you're expanding the knowledge of those that come here a LOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebritches57 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why don't you add mention of it to the article instead of complaining about (imaginary) censorship? Kaldari (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Women in the World Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110817105107/http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/military-international/ to http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/military-international/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110821093151/http://www.cbc.ca:80/news/background/cdnmilitary/women-cdnmilitary.html to http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/women-cdnmilitary.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is this article just covering the allied nations? If so, I'm planning on editing the lede. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Um, I see that the scope includes Germany and Japan. But are we seriously planning to call Japan's use of woman as sex slaves (i.e., Comfort women) a "necessary ... mobilization of society's resources"? I can see the headlines now: Jimbo Wales's encyclopedia calls rape "necessary"!

Please, tell me it ain't so! --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Are you aware that women in Japan and Korea performed industrial labor duties during the war? They helped make bombs and guns and airplanes, etc. The issue of comfort women was not part of the "necessary" mobilization of women. And a far greater number of women worked in war industry than in sex slavery. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your quick reply. The facts you mentioned need to be added to the "Asia and Pacific" section of the article, which currently says only:

• Minority women, called comfort women, were forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army before and during World War II. Korean women were especially used.

Do you want me to add the facts you outlined above? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

yes, please do so :) Rjensen (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I will be updating this Wikipedia article for my English assignment. There are many opportunities for me to add citations with more information on the subject, eliminate biases, and fact check extensively while possibly removing false information. I will do so by using these reliable sources:

-Weatherford, Doris. American Women and World War Ii. New York: Facts on File, 1990. Print.<ref>

-Honey, Maureen. Bitter Fruit: African American Women in World War Ii. , 1999. Internet resource.<ref>

-Tomblin, Barbara. G.I. Nightingales : The Army Nurse Corps in World War II. The University Press of Kentucky, 1996. EBSCOhost, butte.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=50518&site=ehost-live&scope=site.<ref>

Thank you and please let me know if you have any advice! Amygross (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I will be updating this article with the edits and additions I have made in my sandbox. I also plan on eliminating parts of this article and their sources for the only reason that they are not cited by credible sources. Please let me know if you have any questions or tips, thank you!

Amygross (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Amygross: could you please provide a link to your sandbox? It would help editors to see what changes you're going to make. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 14 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emustarde25 (article contribs).

I am planning on making some major edits to this article in the near future. First, I am planning on adding more information about women in other parts of the world during the wartime period, including places in Asia and other parts of Europe. This will be beneficial because it will add a more worldwide perspective on the topic of the article. Furthermore, I plan on rewriting the lead section of the article by making more of a general summary of women in the World Wars rather than just women in Great Britain during the World Wars. This will be beneficial because it will be more accurate in regards to what the article is actually about. I am also planning on dividing the WWI section up by country similar to the WWII section in order to add more clarity and structure. Finally, I am planning to add more citations and references to some sections that are already written in the article, just to make it more reliable as a source. Emustarde25 (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

here is the bibliography I plan to use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emustarde25/Women_in_the_World_Wars/Bibliography?venotify=created Emustarde25 (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am currently working on this article for my class. Details about my additions to this article are above in the previous comment. I have noticed that there are many plagiarized sentences in this article, specifically and most notably in the "soon to be" Europe WWI section and U.S. WWII section. A great future project for this article would be to rewrite these sections in accordance with more reliable sources. I am trying to add some citations to the old text, but there is more work to be done than I have time for. Thanks Emustarde25 (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 12 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bopis13, Mason.Mello1, Redfire21, Themightyduck20, Mightyduck2020 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ghamilton5000 (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Canadian women in the World Wars which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply