Nowadays it is very common for you to be greeted by a female bartender. However, it was not always that way. Along with many others, Detroit Local 562 of the Bartenders’ Union members shared the same view on woman mixing up alcohol beverages. They believed women were not knowledgeable, outgoing, sociable or even physically capable of being a bartender. Although this belief was widely accepted and enforced, that was just not enough for Thomas Kearney, business Representative of the Detroit Local 562. He felt that there should in fact be a law established prohibiting women to be apart of the fruitful bartending business. In reaction to the substantial amount of pressure on Michigan legislators, the Liquor Control Act of 1933 was amended. In 1945, the revised version of the 1933 Act prohibited women from tending bars unless they were under establishments owned by their husbands or fathers.
Although this act encouraged women to depend on men, some women actually saw the act as protection. Like other polices passed by the Courts, legislators argued that the genetic makeup of a women requires them to work in different conditions than men. During the 1940’s there was a increase in revenue for bars. There was also a change in the type of population they held. More women spent time having a drink. And as this became widely popular women found more interest in bar-tending and owning their own bars.
In 1947, women and barmaids made their first attempt to crusade the law passed by legislators. (For those whom are not familiar with the terminology barmaid, it is a term to describe a female bartender.) This case is known as Goesaert vs. Cleary. Woman had become upset with laws that were passed that prevented women from being independent based on their genetic makeup. What was most challenging about this battle was influencing others to escape gender norms. By passing several laws it had became a norm for women to be treated different than men. For example, men worked in different environments, they held different positions, they affected wages and they also didn’t have any protection laws. These laws were examples of how we constructed our society to treat women.
The plantiffs of this case was Valentine Margeret Goesaert, Gertrude Nadroski, Caroline McMahon and 24 other bar owners and barmaids. These group of women proceeded to sue the Michigan Liquor Control Communion. These women thought that liquor laws made it possible for only men to benefit from the booming bar business. And this belief was due to laws being placed for bigger cities where there were more economic potential. This also created a bigger problem of unfairness because women of different class and location did not have to obey by these laws. In additional to that women were allowed to bar-tend while men were at war, so why did these opportunities have to be given back to male veterans? This showed that during this time it was a gender norm for women to have to prioritize being a housewife than employed. It also proved that men were more entitled to favorable paying jobs than women.
Even after having all the right evidence of gender inequality the Goesaert women failed to change the minds of the Michigan court. So they began to agitate the Supreme Court for change in 1948. And without much help the Supreme Court honored Michigan’s right to protect the public welfare. But this loss did not leave barmaids doubtful. Instead they continued to fight lawmakers for change.
In the 1950’s after years of fighting from the Barmaids Associations, the Bartenders Union allowed women membership. In their defense, this was due to economic reasons. In 1976 the Supreme Court finally decided to over turn the law. But this wasn’t until they saw men arguing over gender inequality concerning liquor laws.
French, Amy Holtman. “Mixing it Up: Michigan Barmaids Fight for Civil Rights,” Michigan Historical Review, Vol. 40 No. 1 (Spring 2014). pp. 27-48.