Women on the Twenty

[credoconsolans]

We could even drop US Grant from the 50, and make room for two women.

Why?

One of the worst presidents ever. His entire administration filled with corruption. His administration is best not emphasized.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Actually, when these guys got put on the money it was back when it was routine to switch up portraits, it's just that it's been generations that guys like Jefferson have been on the $2. There is no rhyme or reason to it.

 

[bilby]

but apparently that doesn't count to those obsessed with this issue.

I'm not obsessed with the issue, but I too think the queen doesn't really count. Why? Because there's not really a choice about it. It's always been the case that kingdoms put the monarch's face on their money; so it doesn't earn any special points when the monarch happens to be a woman. It's meaningless as an expression of gender equality if there's no choice to be had about who to put on the money in the first place.

Well a lot of ink was spilled over her inclusion on the Australian $5 note.

She appears on all of our coins; but did not feature on the banknotes apart from the $5, which has HM the Q on one side, and Parliament House on the other.

All other Australian banknotes (of the post 1988 polypropylene series) as far as I am aware, have a famous Australian man on one side, and a famous Australian woman on the other.

I recall seeing one or two of the old paper banknotes, but they were pretty rare by the time I arrived in Australia, so I don't know who was on those.

I was quite surprised that the Euro notes were introduced as paper notes, given the huge advantages of polymer in both durability and forgery prevention. They missed an opportunity there; I visited Europe a year after the Euro was introduced, and the Eur.5 notes were already disgusting and falling to bits.

No Australian continues to prefer paper notes after their first experience of putting a pair of jeans through the wash with $20 still in the pocket.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

.

I saw what you typed, i am asking for clarification. If your real problem is wanting to end identity politics, then you would be equally engaged in getting men on money replaced with wild life and since men have been on money your whole life you would have been bothered your whole life by it. It is reasonable to think You would have a history of criticizing men on money. I'm just asking if you do.

Or did your disgust with identity politics and who was on our money just show up after there was a chance that an real woman might make it on a bill?

My comment was about the process for putting people (or water fowl) on money. Or the criteria, if you will.

I would say generally we have used the criteria of putting "our greatest Americans" on money. This leads us to Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Ben Franklin, even Roosevelt on the dime, etc. Hamilton was first secretary of the treasury so there's some sense in that. Conventional politics and sentimentality are bound to enter the "who are the greatest Americans" and as values change we end up with some people we would not think are so great today - Grant, Jackson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, maybe wouldn't make the list now. It's probably not a bad idea to require someone to be dead for 50 years and be chosen by a bipartisan panel of experts or some such if you really care about avoiding these sorts of things.

As much as you try desperately to claim otherwise, I don't object to a woman being on money -- if we have an objective process and objective criteria that results in a woman being on money. I object to reducing the process and criteria for who is on money to identity politics. I'd rather go with assorted water fowl and spare our children the debate over whether to put Ru-Paul or Bruce Jenner on the $5.

If you're saying that we are applying an objective scale of greatness here I struggle to believe a panel of objective historians would rank, say, Patsy Mink over say, James Madison.

I don't believe I have claimed anything. Show me otherwise, if I am mistaken.

SO now we have moved from putting wildlife on the money to making sure that only people dead at least fifty years and have a sufficient amount of greatness on their resume are eligible, with wildlife as a back up because ducks did ... what? Ghost write the Articles of Confederation? Is that where we are?

 

[bilby]

.

My comment was about the process for putting people (or water fowl) on money. Or the criteria, if you will.

I would say generally we have used the criteria of putting "our greatest Americans" on money. This leads us to Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Ben Franklin, even Roosevelt on the dime, etc. Hamilton was first secretary of the treasury so there's some sense in that. Conventional politics and sentimentality are bound to enter the "who are the greatest Americans" and as values change we end up with some people we would not think are so great today - Grant, Jackson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, maybe wouldn't make the list now. It's probably not a bad idea to require someone to be dead for 50 years and be chosen by a bipartisan panel of experts or some such if you really care about avoiding these sorts of things.

As much as you try desperately to claim otherwise, I don't object to a woman being on money -- if we have an objective process and objective criteria that results in a woman being on money. I object to reducing the process and criteria for who is on money to identity politics. I'd rather go with assorted water fowl and spare our children the debate over whether to put Ru-Paul or Bruce Jenner on the $5.

If you're saying that we are applying an objective scale of greatness here I struggle to believe a panel of objective historians would rank, say, Patsy Mink over say, James Madison.

I don't believe I have claimed anything. Show me otherwise, if I am mistaken.

SO now we have moved from putting wildlife on the money to making sure that only people dead at least fifty years and have a sufficient amount of greatness on their resume are eligible, with wildlife as a back up because ducks did ... what? Ghost write the Articles of Confederation? Is that where we are?

During our most recent debate on becoming a republic, Aussie comedian, Adam Hills, suggested that we could make a platypus our new head of state, so we wouldn't have to mint new 20c coins - we could just turn them over.

 

[fromderinside]

During our most recent debate on becoming a republic, Aussie comedian, Adam Hills, suggested that we could make a platypus our new head of state, so we wouldn't have to mint new 20c coins - we could just turn them over.

Your flip reminded m that flipping is an american pastime. So why not put a feature from what's on one side of the twenty on the other.

Someone going over the WH fence would be my choice.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I don't believe I have claimed anything. Show me otherwise, if I am mistaken.

SO now we have moved from putting wildlife on the money to making sure that only people dead at least fifty years and have a sufficient amount of greatness on their resume are eligible, with wildlife as a back up because ducks did ... what? Ghost write the Articles of Confederation? Is that where we are?

During our most recent debate on becoming a republic, Aussie comedian, Adam Hills, suggested that we could make a platypus our new head of state, so we wouldn't have to mint new 20c coins - we could just turn them over.

 

[dystopian]

I was quite surprised that the Euro notes were introduced as paper notes, given the huge advantages of polymer in both durability and forgery prevention. They missed an opportunity there; I visited Europe a year after the Euro was introduced, and the Eur.5 notes were already disgusting and falling to bits.

No Australian continues to prefer paper notes after their first experience of putting a pair of jeans through the wash with $20 still in the pocket.

I'm not sure how that's possible. Euro notes are made from 100% cotton fibre paper; which can last for centuries without discoloration, fading, or deterioration; and which also works as forgery prevention since it produces a unique texture and only high level forgers would use the same kind of paper (and for them there's a slew of other security features to get past). It would take quite a lot of unusual abuse for a euro note to fall to bits like how you've described. Putting it through the washer wouldn't do it; I did that once and the note came out only slightly discolored but otherwise intact and perfectly valid.

Perhaps Australians need to either stop replacing laundry detergent with battery acid, start using actual money instead of the monopoly kind, or stop pretending they're in organized crime by laundering their money.

 

[Bomb#20]

Also, why such hostility toward poor Andrew Jackson? Just because of Trail of Tears?

Isn't that a good enough reason?

The problem is that current paper money is mostly presidents with two non-president founding fathers, Hamilton and Franklin thrown in. Any woman would have to be of similar stature for her selection not to seem (and quite rightly) as identity politics driven token. I do not think any of the women from that survey qualify.

No problem. This is money we're talking about, after all. So put Elinor Ostrom on the $20. Then ditch Franklin, ditch the rest of the presidents, and distribute the freed-up denominations to Paul Samuelson, Kenneth Arrow, Milton Friedman... Alexander Hamilton can be grandfathered in.

 

[thebeave]

I kind of like this solution:

http://www.theonion.com/article/treasury-department-honors-women-first-female-curr-50443

 

[arkirk]

Isn't that a good enough reason?

The problem is that current paper money is mostly presidents with two non-president founding fathers, Hamilton and Franklin thrown in. Any woman would have to be of similar stature for her selection not to seem (and quite rightly) as identity politics driven token. I do not think any of the women from that survey qualify.

No problem. This is money we're talking about, after all. So put Elinor Ostrom on the $20. Then ditch Franklin, ditch the rest of the presidents, and distribute the freed-up denominations to Paul Samuelson, Kenneth Arrow, Milton Friedman... Alexander Hamilton can be grandfathered in.

Uncle milty..give me a break! That shithead is part of our current economic problem...might as well put Harding on a bill!

 

[KeepTalking]

The problem is that current paper money is mostly presidents with two non-president founding fathers, Hamilton and Franklin thrown in. Any woman would have to be of similar stature for her selection not to seem (and quite rightly) as identity politics driven token. I do not think any of the women from that survey qualify.

Since women were not allowed to have that stature for the first century and a half of our nation, it's going to be hard to find one that meets your criteria. So, what's wrong with putting those who enabled women to reach that stature on the bills. All of the women I mentioned were very influential in the Women's Suffrage movement.

In fact, of non-president figures of the more recent history who could compete would be MLK Jr.

Sure, I'd be all for it, but the subject of the thread is women on the twenty, not minorities, my joke about Obama aside.

Of the women mentioned in the OP, I would like to see either Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, or Elizabeth Stanton.

Anthony and Stanton were prohibitionsits. Don't know about Paul.

Prohibition has nothing to do with it, did none of the male figures on our money have a stance on any issue with which you do not agree. These women were indispensable in the effort to bring equal rights to women in the US.

I would add Carrie Chapman Catt and Lucy Stone to the list.

Too obscure for the $20 bill for sure.

Obscure or not, they were important women in the suffrage movement. Putting them on our money may just help to lift them out of obscurity, and give them the recognition they deserve.

We could even drop US Grant from the 50, and make room for two women.

Why?

I just don't think his presidency rises to the level of the other men featured on our bills, thought he is probably more deserving than Jackson, but we have already put Jackson up as the prime candidate for removal. I would not be adverse to replacing Hamilton, either. Let's do all three, and give one of the spots to MLK, as you suggest.

Since we now have men on all of our paper money, I find the suggestion to change from historical figures to anything else just at the time when putting a woman on one is gaining traction to be a terrible one. I did not single out your comment in that regard, as you were only endorsing another poster's suggestion, so this is not necessarily directed at you. At any other time I would not have a problem with such a change, it just seems misguided at this point.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Benjamins, Sawbucks, finbacks, bucks, dough, bread, scratch, moolah, cheddar, smackers, simoleons, duckets... We like to nickname our money.

If we do put a woman on the twenty, what'll the slang term for it be? And how likely will it be a step forward for feminism.

Just thinking about my former peer group of sailors, and their incredible imagination when it comes to slang and anything female, feminine or even androgynous.

I imagine some pimp will think it quite clever to charge someone five bitches, for example, to hire one of his bitches. "Bitch better BE my money."

 

[Shadowy Man]

The problem is that current paper money is mostly presidents with two non-president founding fathers, Hamilton and Franklin thrown in. Any woman would have to be of similar stature for her selection not to seem (and quite rightly) as identity politics driven token. I do not think any of the women from that survey qualify.
In fact, of non-president figures of the more recent history who could compete would be MLK Jr.

Yes...if only women had had the wherewithal to have become President in the young republic.

- - - Updated - - -

Since women were not allowed to have that stature for the first century and a half of our nation, it's going to be hard to find one that meets your criteria. So, what's wrong with putting those who enabled women to reach that stature on the bills. All of the women I mentioned were very influential in the Women's Suffrage movement.

No, no.. you have to find a woman so famous that even the misogynists have heard of her.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I wonder how many people know who Alexander Hamilton was, other than being the guy on the ten dollar bill?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

He was shot by Aaron Burr. They should double portrait on the front and duel on the back.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The Notorious Liz-B.

Hatchet Woman.

With the crime scene on the back and the words to the skip-rope song.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

She ain't dead yet, but Ruth Badass Ginsberg would be another woman to adorn the money.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I wonder how many people know who Alexander Hamilton was, other than being the guy on the ten dollar bill?

Same could be asked about Franklin, Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt. Americans don't know much about America.

I think Barton would be very good. If we are looking for Government historical, O'Connor would be a logical choice.

Honestly, I don't think America is ready for its first black person of interest on currency yet.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Honestly, I don't think America is ready for its first black person of interest on currency yet.

Really, what if we moved to replace Andrew Jackson with Samuel L. Jackson?