There are several explanations for this, all of which overlap somewhat. Here are two:

One prevailing view is that the habit of drinking during the day, customary in pre-industrial economic systems, was incompatible with industrial capitalism. There are several reasons for this. First of all, in an artisanal labor system, a man's time was essentially his own. If a joiner completed only five chairs in one day when he intended to do seven, well, the only one who suffered was him (and his family, of course). In a chair factory, however, where one man attaches only the legs to a chair and others take care of the arms, seats, etc., inefficiency or waste caused by drunkenness affects the productivity of the entire factory, severely hurting productivity. Thus, capitalists could not countenance drunkenness of any kind, as it adversely affected profits.

Secondly, it is true that temperance was generally a female-led movement. This is not to say that many men were not involved, but temperance did have a decidedly female cast. In earlier, pre-industrial modes of production, every member of a household contributed to its economic well-being. If the male member(s) decided to knock off for a drink or two, the household was still producing through the various tasks performed by women and children. The coming of capitalism, however, resulted in a strict bifurcation of social and economic life. Men went out into the world, into factories or offices, and made money. Women stayed at home and cultivated the home as a peaceful oasis, away from the crass and stressful world of the market. This caused women to be divorced from economic production. Thus, drunken husbands who did not bring home enough money became a direct threat to women's well-being, one that could be countered only indirectly, through social pressure and activism.