Editing Muller v. Oregon (section)

==Significance of the case ==
Groups like the National Consumer League (which included Florence Kelley and Josephine Goldmark as feminists) and the state won shorter hours for women.  However, many equal-rights feminists opposed the ruling, since it allowed laws based on stereotyped gender roles that restricted women's rights and financial independence. 
While it provided protection from long hours to white women, it did not extend to women of color, food processors, agricultural workers, and women who worked in white-collar jobs. 
The government interest in public welfare outweighed the freedom of contract that is displayed in the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Amendment]] and the effects of ''Muller v. Oregon'' did not change until the [[New Deal]] days in the 1930s. It was also a watershed in the development of [[maternalist reform|Maternalist Reform]]s.<ref>Brandeis, L. D. (1907). The Brandeis Brief--in its entirety. Retrieved September 24, 2020, from https://louisville.edu/law/library/special-collections/the-louis-d.-brandeis-collection/the-brandeis-brief-in-its-entirety</ref><ref>Woloch, N. (1996). ''Muller v. Oregon: A Brief History with Documents''. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press.</ref><ref>Barney, S. L. (1999). "Maternalism and the Promotion of Scientific Medicine during the Industrial Transformation of Appalachia, 1880-1930." ''NWSA Journal'', 11(3), 68–92.</ref><ref>Koven, S., & Michel, S. (1993). ''Mothers of a New World, Maternalist Politics and the Origins of Welfare States'' (). Routledge.</ref>

The ruling was criticized because it set a [[precedent]] to use [[Sex differences in humans|sex differences]], and in particular women's child-bearing capacity, as a basis for separate legislation, supporting the idea that the family has priority over women's rights as workers.<ref name="baron">{{cite journal |last1=Baron |first1=Ava |title=Protective Labor Legislation and the Cult of Domesticity|journal=[[Journal of Family Issues]] |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=25&ndash;38 |year=1981 |doi=10.1177/0192513X8100200103|s2cid=145776998 }}</ref>  Feminist Scholars such as Alice Kessler-Harris opposed the ruling as "an attack on women as workers" cloaked in altruistic labor laws.  Kessler-Harris recognized the admirable motives of the period's protective labor laws but also observed that the Muller case provided justification for not just regulating but possibly prohibiting women from working in certain capacities.  Moreover, the case supported a definition of women in society that according to Joan Hoff was "highly traditional and restrictive."  While many of the criticisms of Muller came by scholars in later decades there were some critics at the time of its ruling.  One such critic was suffragist and editor of the Rose City Woman's' Tribune Clara Colby who commented two years before the case was decided:  "the whole subject is very difficult and it had better be left to woman's own judgement as to what is necessary and desirable.  The State has no right to lay any disability upon woman as an individual and if it does as a mother, it should give her a maternity pension which would tend to even up conditions and be better for the family."<ref>{{Cite book|title=The radical middle class : populist democracy and the question of capitalism in progressive era Portland, Oregon|last=D.|first=Johnston, Robert|isbn=9781400849529|location=Princeton, N.J.|oclc=861692648|date = 2013-10-31}}</ref>

"Until the late 1930s, when the Fair Labor Standards Act created gender-neutral workplace protections, the Equal Rights Amendment championed by the NWP would have demolished the gains for women workers won in Muller. This dispute between feminists who valued protection and feminists who valued equality continued until the latter group gained the upper hand in the 1970s."<ref>"Muller v. State of Oregon." Open Collections Program: Women Working,. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2016.</ref>