your commentary reads like this is a bad thing -- like women would only wear things like this for the sake of looking good for men? I wore something just like this under my jacket when I used to fence. It HURTS to have something stab you in the boob! I'd imagine if i were working around dangerous tools and the rate of accident were high, i'd want all the protection I could get....and excuse me if i'm coming off rudely, but I'm not sure how else to read "'The girls" will be protected" if not sarcastically

I don't understand why you ended the post with, "Don’t worry fellas, the 'girls' will be safe!" Wouldn't it be in the interests of a woman to protect her breasts as well? I mean, it's odd that the "safety gear" includes a plastic bra rather than a helmet, but I don't see how a plastic bra is designed to put a man's mind at ease rather than the woman wearing it.

@ Jennifer;

I think it would have been because they already had plenty helmets, and these chest protectors were a new thing.

Certainly makes sense, David. ;)

I think the bit for the "fellas" is that they felt the need to make a chest protector fitted in a way that boobs continue to look like boobs, rather than just having a plastic shield that is larger around the chest. I don't know of any industrial accidents that can only be prevented by an indentation in the plastic between the breasts.

I think the last line of Lisa's post was an homage to the conventional style of 'concluding' comments on newsreels from the period.

I guess my sarcasm was inspired by an assumption that chest protectors are a gimmick meant to ease concerns about women working, as opposed to an actual product that women need. But, of course, as Samantha C points out, it's possible that they might be important safety gear for some occupations. My assumption that they were a gimmick was based on the fact that I've never heard of such a thing in all of my life. Have any of you? And, assuming that chest protection is needed, wouldn't everyone need it, not just women?

"Bad tools" "Mean bad work and bad accidents"

I find it hilarious and sickening how the ad campaign patronizes the working women they are selling to. (Although the women would probably buy the safety 'gear' anyways) You'd think the women were mentally 5 year olds or something.

As for the chest guard, I don't think even the plastic would protect much against oncoming metal, etc. unless it was REALLY thick. It's also interesting that it looks skin colored.

I don't know, Lisa, my fiance constantly tells me that her chest is a lot more sensitive to bumps than mine, but it's possible that I've just got harder and more awkward elbows.

I do agree that it's odd that the chest protector is shaped so specifically, like if it's hard plastic does it fit all sizes? does everyone suddenly look like they have the same size chest? hah

"I do agree that it’s odd that the chest protector is shaped so specifically, like if it’s hard plastic does it fit all sizes? does everyone suddenly look like they have the same size chest? hah"

Good point, I missed that. Don't forget same chest shape.

well if men sometimes need to wear a cup.......

It's remarkable how similar that ad campaign looks to one of the styles typically in use today. I mean, I knew retro was in, but for some reason I associated that font and look with 'modern' ads.

This is what we wear in fencing: http://www.mp-fencing.com/allstar/bilder/SBS_E.jpg Unfortunately, the ones in my school are BRIGHT YELLOW and attract a lot of attention [funny, though, to watch the freshmen boys walk by with their hands over their eyes, half really wanting to look and half really not].
I know it might sound weird but it's actually pretty comfortable o_O And it sure beats the alternative. No, we don't all have the same chest sizes but you go with which one fits you best [like t-shirts, not all the same but general ball-park] because it's better than nothing.

It looks to me like only the parts directly over the breasts are hard plastic, and the rest (including the indentation between them) is fabric. If this is the case then the size could be somewhat adjustable and it could fit a range of chest shapes as well.

"It looks to me like only the parts directly over the breasts are hard plastic, and the rest (including the indentation between them) is fabric. If this is the case then the size could be somewhat adjustable and it could fit a range of chest shapes as well."

I'm still wondering about its protective capabilities, though. Maybe that was why it is not so popular now? (With the exception of Kathy's example, but that one looks different)

As a large-breasted woman who used to work on the manufacturing floor, I worried far less about getting HIT in the chest with something than getting a nipple or breast CAUGHT in something. A woman's effective reach is shorter than a man's not only because her arms are often objectively shorter, but because her torso/breasts often extend farther forward from her shoulders. When working on equipment designed for male workers -- more of a problem during WWII than now -- your breasts often end up within a whisker's-breadth of the machinery, if not shoved right up against it. There were some rotating parts-bowls that men wouldn't give a moment's thought to, but which women treated with healthy respect -- we'd all heard the story about what had happened to that one woman twenty years ago, you see.

"As a large-breasted woman who used to work on the manufacturing floor, I worried far less about getting HIT in the chest with something than getting a nipple or breast CAUGHT in something. A woman’s effective reach is shorter than a man’s not only because her arms are often objectively shorter, but because her torso/breasts often extend farther forward from her shoulders. When working on equipment designed for male workers — more of a problem during WWII than now — your breasts often end up within a whisker’s-breadth of the machinery, if not shoved right up against it. There were some rotating parts-bowls that men wouldn’t give a moment’s thought to, but which women treated with healthy respect — we’d all heard the story about what had happened to that one woman twenty years ago, you see."

Something ELSE I hadn't considered. (This is why I love dialogue, you learn something new everyday) So in your opinion, do you think the breast guard shown would have been useful to factory workers with breasts (even the men, as lisa said) during the 1940s?

I couldn't say, not without knowing what the job in question was, what the job's hazards, why the employer went for protective equipment instead of changing the job, nor when (or if!) breast protectors were required (as opposed to being requested by the employees).

(And frankly, those answers would only help me judge whether were useful from today's perspective. The methods of occupational safety have changed hugely since the 1940s; quite a lot of what was common safety practice in the '40s would be unacceptable today. Even if breast protectors for a given job wouldn't pass muster today, they might very well have been useful then, within the context of acceptable safety practices of the day.)

No, what's unusual about this photo to me, as a safety professional, is that they were willing to consider issuing sex-specific safety equipment at all. Nowadays, creating and maintaining sex-specific safety regs looks very much like sexual discrimination, and can easily cross the line into outright discrimination if you're not thinking about it very carefully. (Not to mention: who's going to check under these women's coveralls to make sure they're wearing their required protective equipment, assuming breast protectors are required?) Nah, even if initial analysis indicated that breast protectors would be reasonable/useful for a given job, any contemporary safety pro worth his or her salt is gonna work pretty hard to find another way to do things.

Does anyone else find it odd that breasts need armour but elbows can be left exposed? I would not want my bare skin around factory machines!

"Kelly
Posted July 19, 2009 at 3:44 pm Permalink

It’s remarkable how similar that ad campaign looks to one of the styles typically in use today. I mean, I knew retro was in, but for some reason I associated that font and look with ‘modern’ ads."

To me it looks like the Typographic Style, still as cutting edge now as in 1940.

What I found odd was that it was flesh colored and the woman showing it was baring her chest (or at least, what looked like a nipple-less bare chest).

Modification of equipment and tasks for safety reasons is a luxury of modern advancement. Before the 1960s, the more important issue was the calculus of how difficult it was to find someone willing to work in certain conditions. People were more often responsible for their own personal protective equipment that they would take with them from job to job, as well as personal tools. That's what the "bad tools mean bad accidents" line is about. The same audience of employees who are buying tools to use at work is also buying protective equipment for themselves to protect against work environments often hostile to the human body.

As for how much protection it would grant - what's it made of? Even if just a stout layer of rubber, that's a start. It creates a barrier between exterior clothing and skin. No one will argue that latex or rubber gloves are effective protection in many cases.

Like Kath, I was reminded of fencing equipment. I fenced in undergraduate school, and women were required to wear protection -- essecntially, stainless steel cereal bowls that we slipped into pockets inside our fencing jackets (I'm sure I still have mine somewhere). The older fencers told us stories about the previous coach, a woman, who would clang the bellguard of her weapon between her breasts during matches, which her opponents found off-putting (which was the point, I'm sure).
(I'm sure men had to wear protection, too; I just didn't pay much attention to that).

This actually reminds me of bulletproof vests: http://www.blackarmor.com/Vest/Woman_Only.htm

Oh, here's the all male version: http://www.securityprousa.com/bodyarmor.html?gclid=CLnXsriH6JsCFRghDQodNEb13w

Like the other fencers, yes, this is actually a familiar piece of equipment. And yes, men wear them too. However, I'm a damn sight more likely to wear mine than they are. Why? A lot of fencing you're side-on to your opponent, and if you are large-chested you present a greater target to them.

This is more of an extension of Sanguinity's point about lower effective reach; there is also more of a 'target' to be injured in certain tasks.

Oh, and breast injury may be a risk factor for breast cancer:
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=5708#injury
Even if it isn't, fibrous scar tissue can confuse the issue when you're checking yourself for lumps. One could argue that even if the posing is, ah, interesting, these are accidentally ahead of the curve!

Thanks for your great information, the contents are quiet interesting.I will be waiting for your next post.Rescue equipment aids townsville