By Douglas V. Gibbs
Women have played a significant role in the progress of this nation. I have no doubt that a museum for their accomplishments would be a wonderful thing. However, such a facility would not, I am sure of it, include such people as Sarah Palin, and how she was picked as a vice presidential running mate. I doubt such a museum would also include Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, or a storyboard of Nancy Reagan's courageous stewardship during Ronald Reagan's final years. Nonetheless, the women of pantsuit feminism are pushing the leftists, before all is lost as a result of the November election, to do whatever they can to make sure they pass the National Women’s History Museum bill.
It's not like doing such a thing would be very hard, argues those in favor of such an establishment. Everyone loves the idea.
If that's the case, then why hasn't such a thing been completed before?
The legislation would allow a private group to buy a piece of federal land on Independence Avenue for the site. The organization says they are willing to pay fair market value, and pay for construction. The bill would allow five years to raise the money and break ground. If the group fails to live up to the commitment, the land would revert back to the government, which would get to keep the purchase price.
Meryl Streep, one of the folks behind the push for this museum (hence one of reasons I know this is a leftist feminist project), says that it is literally difficult to get the government to take the money. Streep is one of many that has put up $1 million for the cause.
Streep admitted she "was a little mad that a man did it first.”
Really?
According to Streep, Washington already has a postal museum, a textile museum, a spy museum and the Newseum.
The bill has actually passed Congress, but is being held up by them mean-old Republicans. . . I still can't figure out how they Democrats claim they can't get anything done because of the GOP, even though the Democrats have control over everything but the kitchen sink.
Senators, Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, have put holds on the bill. Coburn’s concerns are that taxpayers may be asked to pitch in a few bucks later, as well as feeling that the museum is unnecessary since “it duplicates more than 100 existing entities that have a similar mission.”
The museum is really going to be a tribute to feminism, a movement that has done more damage than good.
The women's movement began with a sincere and genuine attempt to improve conditions for women. Equal pay for equal work is a commendable effort. When the movement began, there was a sincere right for people to be angered by the treatment some women received, and the outcry by the women's rights movement is understandable.
The problem is, as with many things that start out with good intentions (like labor unions), and justifiable opinions, a shift in the approach, and in the type of women the movement attracted, changed the women's rights movement into a loud, militant cause whose views became based on a belief that women are superior to men, and that women don't need men. They began to push that to love and need men compromises women, and sets them back. The feminist movement avoided, and attacked, the traditional role of women because they somehow became convinced that being a wife and mother was responsible for making women, in their opinion, "subservient to men."
Society was being conditioned to accept a new feminist ideology that had gone way beyond equal opportunity, and reasonable activism. The roles defined by nature for men and women became the enemy of the movement. As a result, it became their very nature to be suspicious of all men, and to foment distrust between the sexes. It has literally gotten to the point that we don't even know how to act around each other. Chivalry has become synonymous with male chauvinism. Nature's defined roles are something to be eliminated by these women. Men were encouraged to be more like women, and women more like men. Sensitive men became all the rage, and dropping tears was a sure way to get a woman on your side as a man.
Then, the women began to complain that there wasn't any real men around anymore.
The militant style of feminism has gone way beyond concerns about equal pay, assertiveness, and expressing one's individuality. Now, it is about bitterness, hatred, and resentment toward men. Remember, Streep was upset a man had beaten her to the punch on donations.
The Women's Rights Movement is no longer about equality, but is more about radical leftism, and pushing the liberal agenda of the Democrat Party.
As for the hate of men, and the attempt to erase any need for men out of society? The greatest weapon the feminists have found for that is abortion. Feminists celebrate abortion, they are obsessed with perpetuating the millions of murders of babies every year. It has become their goal to see as many abortions performed as possible. To these women, abortion is the greatest show of power over men. It is their way to say that they don't need men to be happy, and that they have advanced so far that men don't even have say over the life or death of their own children.
With men precluded from the decision process of abortion, men have been reduced to nothing more than sperm donors.
Problem is, the natural balance of society has been upset. Feminism has been one of the factors in bringing into being high divorce rates, and out of control "out of wedlock" births. Men have literally walked away from their role. Men have thrown their hands up, and have abdicated their role as men. As a result, the family unit is breaking down, and society is in upheaval and confusion.
And for their partial role in the destruction of society, and the family unit, they want a museum erected where they can flaunt such accomplishments, while leaving out the real women of strength and character, like Ayn Rand, Margaret Thatcher, and Sarah Palin.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Unhold Us, Senators - New York Times
No comments:
Post a Comment