Assessing Shriver’s Demand for a Women’s Museum

Re “3 Quit State History Museum’s Board Over Shriver’s Proposal,” Oct. 13: California is in very bad financial shape. Funding for healthcare and education has been slashed. We are constantly asked to do more with less. Fewer courses are offered to college students. Services for the poor and elderly are cut. I thought I was on the same page as the rest of the state. The exception seems to be the governor’s wife. If we cannot fund our current programs, why on earth would Maria Shriver ask for a new museum in the middle of a recession?

A museum on the history of women has great validity, but to try and institute such a project in difficult economic times shows callous regard for the citizens of the state. I guess Shriver will continue to give lip service to the less fortunate and do exactly as she pleases.

Jeffrey S. Beckwith

Irvine

*

Shriver is making a mistake in her push to remake the focus of the California State Museum into one where women are the subject. She has violated the process by which such decisions are made, she has already lined up her cousin-by-marriage as the designer (aren’t there any women who design museums?), and if the current exhibit on “Remarkable Women in California” is any indication of the direction the proposed museum might take, she has not consulted people who are experts at how to present and interpret women’s history.

The state’s museums are few in number and their support from the state has been drastically reduced in recent years. (For example, the budget for the California African American Museum has been slashed by half.) Shriver needs to admit she acted hastily, made a mistake and lobby for increased resources for all of the state’s museums, which are sorely neglected.

Lillian H. Jones

Professor of U.S. history

and women’s history

Santa Monica College

*

Changing the focus to women does not “give up the focus on California history”; rather, it enhances it for the majority of the population whose interests and ancestry are rarely addressed.

The notation that the current “women’s” exhibit features modern celebrities shows how desperately public education on women’s contributions to history -- all history, not just California’s -- is needed. Brava to Shriver for recognizing this fact and using her influence to make changes that the Legislature should have made 30 years ago. Women’s history is not “special interest” or solely about fashion and homemaking. We can draw on women’s stories to teach our children about any of the topics everyone is so fearful of dismissing.

If the current trustees can’t see this, good riddance.

June Gerron

Orange

*

Shriver decided to change the state museum to a women’s museum and hires her cousin’s husband to design it without public debate? One can only imagine the outcry if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger refocused the museum to exclude the contributions of women.

Note to Maria: The California first lady is not an elected position with discretionary powers. California history is too important to exclude an entire gender. Well, on the bright side, perhaps now the “girlie man” museum will have a chance.

Rodney Kemerer

Beverly Hills