The Patriot Post® · American Femininity vs. American Feminism
Girlhood in America isn’t about oppression, and making girls the victims of society is not a way to bring about the sort of innovations that sustain a society. And yet the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History has in many ways reduced girls and their importance in American history and society on that alter of oppression. The museum seems to pose the theory that girls and women are only valuable for going against society’s standards.
The exhibit in question is called “Girlhood, It’s Complicated.” It can be experienced online. As you go through the exhibit, it is very obviously marketed for children. The language is simple and easy to follow. Sadly, it abuses the fact that children aren’t yet critical thinkers by saying things like:
“Schools undervalue girls because women are undervalued in the workplace.”
“In the 1800s, science was for girls … In the 1900s, science was for boys.”
“Girls’ power over the future made many adults uncomfortable.”
“While the United States valued women as mothers, it denied them their personhood. Nationally, women had a voice but no vote until 1920.”
These sweeping statements lack a lot of substantive backing or give vague anecdotal evidence. They lead the viewer to judge the claims through a very limited lens. This is a very narrow way to view history and leaves out much-needed context that would promote deeper understanding. Take, for example, another blanket statement that’s featured in the wellness section: “Not everyone gets a period.” This very 2022-centered statement is meant to include gender-confused and intersex people. It’s a way for the curators of this exhibit to thumb their noses at the historical and biological understanding of what a girl is by inserting their 2022 woke perspective.
If a young girl were to experience this exhibition, she would be left feeling like an object in someone else’s political game. That’s the intention of the exhibit. “Girlhood” aims to stir up feelings of injustice and resentment among young women toward the “patriarchy” or, more covertly, conservatives. It doesn’t feel like a celebration of girlhood. Girlhood, according to the creators, is too complicated to truly be celebrated. There is still too much to overcome. Girls, after being influenced by this museum display, would be turned into an object in the feminists’ political game.
The “Girlhood, It’s Complicated” exhibit ironically simplifies girlhood. It promotes the neo-Marxist worldview that girlhood can all be narrowed down to females perennially being oppressed and having to fight for every right they have. It’s more than a feminist’s daydream; it’s the logical conclusion of liberalism made manifest. In pursuit of rights, freedoms, and defying the patriarchy, this brand of feminism throws out all responsibility, loyalty, and true femininity worth promoting and preserving. As Zsanna Bodor explains, “It is akin to a Marxist saying that everything in history can be boiled down to class struggle, or advocates of critical race theory insisting that everything in history is about racism.”
History should be a unifier. It should instill a love of country in our students. Not overly fervent nationalism — which is just as biased as this “Girlhood” exhibit — but a balanced, unflinching look at the achievements and the failures. It should be telling the story of all the people who have made up the fabric of the American Story and tying it all back to the core values of the American Dream. This exhibit does little to unite in its telling of the history of girlhood in America. And it’s a disservice to all that women have done and continue to do to make this country a better place.