137-138). The WCTU membership simply could not conceive that women would actually support Prohibition reform, and so, they could not change with the times and learn how to become more open and lenient. They could not lend any support to their sisters or their cause, and so they condemned them instead, drawing distinct lines between many groups of women in the country.
Despite their differences, the importance of women's voices in the alcohol debate cannot be ignored. Murdock writes, "Both woman suffrage and prohibition emphasized male excess and potential female redemption" (Murdock, 1998, p. 7). Thus, women held political power, even if they did not even have the vote when Prohibition went into effect in 1919. This is one reason the two organizations are so significant and so important to American history. They show the long and illustrious history of political and social debate in the country. The founding fathers envisioned a country that would support freedom for all, and freedom for differing opinions. In many countries, there would be no debate allowed over a law such as Prohibition. That two such diverse organizations could exist side-by-side says a lot about the freedom of the American people, and their diversity, too.
In contrast, the WONPR was totally opposite from the WCTU in action and belief. These so-called "wet" women believed Prohibition should be repealed. Why? For a variety of reasons. These reformers believed that Prohibition increased crime (it did), actually created more drinking and drinking to excess, and threatened personal freedom, which the Constitution was based on. It also cost the government millions of dollars to enforce the law, when it could have been collecting millions of dollars in liquor sales taxes. The group formed in 1929, after Prohibition had been in effect for 10 years. They found Prohibition to be hypocritical, because it encouraged people to drink illegally, and many people acted "dry" but drank in private. It also created a mystique around alcohol that many young people found attractive. Head of the WONPR, Pauline Sabin said...
143). Largely, this was correct. Illegal drinking created a black market for alcohol, and created the underworld mobster who made his money through bootleg booze. Prohibition made alcohol more glamorous and more mysterious, and with changing values in young people, it made more people want to try it and enjoy it. Many members of WONPR actually did not drink, but felt the law should be repealed because it was flawed and because it glamorized liquor rather than illustrating its' evils.
Ultimately, both these groups may have failed. Drinking, as Murdock notes, has become increasingly "domesticated." People drink largely at home, and it has become far more acceptable in much of society. Drunk driving is unacceptable, but teenagers seem to drink more now than they ever did, and in increasing quantities. "Binge" drinking is de rigor on many college campuses across the nation. Are we a nation of drinkers? Many people think so, and alcohol is still the most popular drug of choice for many, many Americans.
In conclusion, these two groups were especially significant because they indicated how women's ideas began to shift and change after the turn of the 20th century. Women began to be increasingly involved in American politics and reform, and after they gained the vote in 1920, they were even more vocal with their thoughts and ideas. Before, one group felt that it comprised the feelings of all women, but that was not the case. These two groups illustrate the freedom America offers for everyone, regardless of beliefs and ideals, to live together. We can agree to disagree. These two groups also illustrate there is never simply "one" voice that is right or wrong. There are many sides to issues, just as there are many sides to women, and these two organizations clearly show the commonalties and the differences that make up society.
References
Murdock, Catherine Gilbert. (1998). Domesticating Drink: Women, Men, and…
