First question, why do women need a “special” museum when prominent female figures are already recognized in the Smithsonian’s American History Museum? And isn’t there already a section displaying the historical faces of our previous First Lady’s and the achievements of women’s suffrage?
According to advocates of the private, nonprofit museum mere “rooms” in a general museum are not enough:
Expect to see notables like Rosa Parks, author Laura Ingalls Wilder and Dr. Sally Ride, the first American woman in space fill the museum exhibits. But how will conservative women be painted? Will the boisterous first female Republican Vice-President candidate Sarah Palin and anti-Equal Rights Amendment activist, Phyllis Schlafly be painted as women of virtue or anti-feminists? Will Virginia Woolf and Betty Friedan be displayed as visionaries for women’s lib or destroyers of male/female gender roles?
It is important to recognize the achievements of women throughout history, just as it is important to recognize the achievements made by men. But in demanding equality, supporters of the NWHM expect women to be treated entirely different than men—equal just won’t do. The National Man’s History Museum, I think not. I am by no means saying that the museum itself will devalue the historical significance that women have had in history. It does, however, symbolize the unparallel requests that women demand from society not for equality but for superiority.