Congress is considering funding for a National Women’s History Museum and Concerned Women
for America Against Women are highly agitated because it might actually celebrate the movement that made women more equal instead of, say, anti-female women like Phyllis Schlafly.
While the idea of celebrating women is admirable, the content of such a museum would create a shrine to the leftist ideology and would not provide an accurate portrayal of American women. It is for this reason we object to the National Women’s History Museum as currently structured…
• In 2010, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC) opposed the building of the NWHM on the National Mall and successfully requested Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) to place a hold on this bill.
• During the 112th Congress, CWALAC worked with Republican House leadership to ensure this bill did not come to the House floor for a vote…• The NWHM does not accurately portray women’s history and for this reason we oppose the NWHM. The museum’s online exhibits tout the “progressive era” and feminism but do not acknowledge their ramifications, the destruction of marriage and the family. The online exhibits highlight the feminists’ view of “free love” (like Victoria Woodhull) but do not acknowledge their pro-life ones.
• The NWHM will indoctrinate those who visit the museum to a jaundiced view of women’s history. The NWHM website attached to this proposed museum references Margaret Sanger nine times and Victoria Woodhull over 20, while referencing Phyllis Schlafly once and not mentioning Beverly LaHaye at all. It also highlights Sandra Fluke, while ignoring Kay Coles James, Alveda King, and Star Parker.
Gosh, a women’s history museum that celebrates Margaret Sanger rather than Phyllis Schlafly? That’s like the Pro Football Hall of Fame celebrating Joe Montana instead of Tim Tebow. What a shock.