ALS.
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION
HOME INTELLIGENCE SPECIAL REPORT NO. 12
19th MARCH 1942
“How the Call-up affects the women of Britain”
.
1. The following summary has been made of R.I.O's replies to an enquiry about public reactions to the recent Ministry of Labour's advertisement:
“How the Call-up affects the women of Britain”.
Regions
(a)
Seen by
:
(b)
Read by
:
(c)
Cut out by
:
1
“Virtually everyone”.
Few read whole, but most read parts applying to themselves.
Managements - but by few of the public.
2
90%
About 90%
Very few
3
83%
50%
18%
4
A “fairly high proportion”.
Not known
Managements
5
“Most women”
“Most women”
Very few
6
“Most women”
Majority: according to “Labour Status”.
“Very large proportion”
7
“Very large number”
“Uncertain”
Few
8
“Considerable numbers”
“Large proportion”
“Numbers of women”
9
“Nearly all”
Not known; believed few.
None
11
“Most women”
Most read parts applying to them.
Few
12
“Most women”
About 50% of (a)
Few
From the accompanying table of Regional replies it appears that almost all women in the habit of seeing newspapers had noticed this advertisement. Of these a large proportion seem to have read it (50% being twice estimated), but a majority had apparently read only those parts applying to themselves.
Comparatively few seem to have preserved the advertisement. Managements often appear to have done so, some pinning it up on staff notice boards where it is said to have attracted considerable interest.
2. The following analysis is of replies to whether it was found:
Regions
(a)
Readable
(b)
Complicated
(c)
Extravagant
1
Yes
-
-
2
Yes
-
-
3
Yes
-
A few think so
4
Yes, but
“over-official: slightly intimidating”.
No criticism
5
Yes
A few think so
No criticism
6
-
-
No criticism
7
Yes
-
A few think so
8
Yes
-
-
9
-
“Didn't bother; too much to read”
-
10
11
Yes
A few
No adverse comment
12
Yes
A few
Uncertain, but “believed to be wasteful"
Eight R.I.Os report that the majority found the advertisement clear and useful. Among criticisms of it redundance was most often suggested
Little comment is reported on (c)
3.
Comments
: Most R.I.Os submit comments and criticisms of which a good many appear to be individual complaints rather than to be representative of public feeling. Those relevant are included below; they are grouped by subjects, not by Regions.
(a)
“Wives whose husbands live at home”
: This paragraph seems to have aroused most concern. Two R.I.Os state that after reading it women seemed to get the impression that they will be compelled to go out to work. The words “sent” and “directed” are felt to be ambiguous; the “misunderstanding” of this position seems to arise from the Ministry of Labour's “powers to conscript everyone”, which, so far, have not been implemented. In one factory in the London area it is said that men went to the Personnel Manager to complain about the conscription of their wives. They are said to have felt that “people like us” were being “stampeded” into work while “educated people” understood the “get-out” [i.e. the clause relating to domestic duties], and took advantage of it.
(Northern and London Regions)
(b)
Essential Work
: Some doubts appear to have arisen about what is meant by Essential Work. Two R.I.Os state that the advertisement was thought by many women to give no guidance as to whether or not their present occupation is of national importance.
(Northern and London Regions)
(c)
“Single women born 1920-21”
: The R.I.O. Scottish Region reports queries regarding this paragraph. A propos of the section “If you choose industry” girls are said to be complaining that although they may prefer to enter industry “they are sometimes compelled to join the A.T.S.”
M.O.I. speakers are said to report that at meetings held during the week of publication many of the questions they were asked showed that the advertisement had either been imperfectly understood, or that more information was needed.
(d)
Was it readable
? There seems to have been a minority of opinion that, though readable and easily understood, the advertisement does not answer any questions, and is “long-winded”: “It is drawn up in the usual vague manner of such communications”; “It cannot have been drawn up by a person with any knowledge of publicity. It was altogether too wordy” etc.
(North-Eastern, North Midland, Eastern London, Midland and Scottish Regions.)
A Labour Exchange Supervisor in the London Region is said to have stated that out of every 26 women interviewed only 6 appeared to have read the advertisement.
A general attitude in the Midland Region is stated to have been: “Why bother, when I shall have to go anyhow when the time comes?”
(London and Midland Regions)
(c)
Time of appearance
: Two R.I.Os report the criticism that this advertisement should have appeared in December, and that it did not tell many women more than they had already found out for themselves.
(Northern and North-Midland Regions)
NOTE
: Material received from the R.I.O. North Western Region reached us too late for inclusion in the main part of this Report. Comments from this Region are, however, noted below:-
From a “mixed sample of 116 women” questioned in Greater Manchester and Burnley it appears that about:-
98 Saw it,
78 Read it
9 Cut it out.
From fourteen other areas in this Region the average appears to have been:-
Seeing it
Reading it
Cutting it out
About 80%
From 40% - 80%
Few
The advertisement was praised for its clarity, and was usually cut out by “institutions”. The usual criticism of verbosity was made. It is stated that “the most serious local criticism was directed against the omission of cotton from the list of vital industries. This omission is reported to have had serious repercussions, and to have discouraged workers”.
