Michele Bachmann's Insane Crusade Against Her Own Gender

On May 7th, Michele Bachmann stood on the House floor, asking her colleagues to vote AGAINST the creation of a bipartisan committee to explore construction of a privately funded effort to build the National Women’s History Museum (NWHM) on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. A Republican bill, clearly thought to be destined for quick passage, this measure was brought to improve the GOP’s tarnished image concerning women generally, and women’s rights specifically. But Bachmann argued that the NWHM “…will enshrine the radical feminist movement that stands against the pro-life movement, the pro-family movement, and pro-traditional-marriage movement.”

I, too, made a “cursory review” of the online exhibits presented by NWHM. Michele Bachmann only had eyes for Margaret Sanger, who brought reproductive care and birth control to women, and concluded that her inclusion in the profiles outshines other, worthy profiles, including Bachman’s own, in the Profiles of Motherhood category for her role as a foster parent.

Please note that I did NOT see Sanger’s profile on the front page, which offers categories including women in sports, women who have accomplished daring feats, women who spied for their country during times of war, women who changed our world, our country, our thinking, our beliefs, our role as citizens. Bachmann surely had to dig a bit to find what she wanted to object to. Perhaps she searched out Sanger specifically?

Where Michele Bachmann sees dangerous feminism at play in the engaging profiles, I found a well-organized, thoughtful collection of profiles of women worth knowing about. The profiles seem to me to be representative of all the areas where people have made significant contributions for the betterment of man- and womankind. That these people happen to be women does not diminish their contribution, nor does the fact of their femaleness suggest any radicalization or feminism overtly.

It is only when such an exhibit is mulled over by the fertile and perverse mind of a Bachmann (or a Limbaugh, for that matter, who commented that women already have a museum and it’s called the M-A-L-L) that the individual profiles can be found to be dangerous, anti-American, or hostile to families.

The National Women’s History Museum is an inspiration to girls, women and humans. To malign the intent to inspire by ascribing negative motives to the NWHM is truly the height of deviousness. To attribute nasty connotations to what ought to be a perfectly wonderful future museum is both closed-minded and manipulative. In a country where museums can, and have, been created in support of false claims (Kentucky’s Creation Museum, where displays show human kids putting saddles on dinosaurs, comes to mind), it seems absurd to make false claims about a museum simply because you can’t appreciate what it has to offer.

photo credit internetweekly.com