| I was listening to NPR (again) this morning and they were talking about a new Women's Museum that had been opened in Dallas, Texas recently. The commentator also noted that while there are literally millions of museums throughout the world, only a small handful are devoted to women, that out of all the events of historical significance, most are handed over to men (well, duh). She also said that in respect to the purpose of museums, history is not just for the past, but for the future. I would say this especially the case for a women's museum.
I'm not big into feminism, but I would probably be interested in visiting a women's museum just to see what artifacts they come up with that spotlight the success and struggles of women. I also agree with the concept that learning the history of anything dealing with humanity helps us prepare or pave the way for the future events from which the present branches. Unlike, say, the Holocaust Museum in DC, which showcases one unique modern atrocity, a women's museum is like a timeline whose end is an arrow insted of a hash mark.
Of course, women's accomplishments are made so in comparison to a) historical occurance, i.e. what they suffered through to do what they did, b) what men were doing on their own at the time, or c) social, sexual, or domestic pressures. And so, it's not a big surprise to assume that some things known as being historically significant is simply because they were done by women.
I think that women can do anything they put their minds to, but that will entail varying degrees of hard work, opposition, and perserverance. I don't think that women are in all ways equal to men in physical strength by nature, but that they can be if they are willing to go that route. Even I don't consider it typical for women to have jobs typical for men to hold, and so when I do see them doing different and new things, I consider it novel, a conversation piece, not necessarily a cornerstone for women's historical significance. I guess I just don't put much stock in that stuff, because I've always believed that women were significant enough for simply being women.
That said, I do currently hold a job that is atypical for women to have or to have any extended knowledge of. Women who strive for men's equality are not the norm, and neither do I consider myself the norm.
| 
