"Luck be a Lady" new bill
Susan B. Anthony?
Sorry ladies, but is that the best you've done in the realm of American life?
I guess so.
Yeah, I know, the deck's been stacked against them: I get it.
But if we're being honest, why put a woman on a bill if she's not done anything significant enough to warrant the recognition?
It's just another PC sop.
Quote: DJTeddyBearHow about posting some links to the images...?
These were the photos for the women on the $20 bill, but the $10 bill was chosen instead because it was next in line to be update. In this voting Harriet Tubman won. The last women to appear on a bill was Marta Washington in the 19th century. By law, the only limitation is the woman cannot be a living person, so no Hillary
http://www.womenon20s.org/candidates
This is the WSJ article. The funny thing is that in the actual paper the article is called "Ten-Buck Chuck: Woman to Trump Hamilton on Currency", but the new on-line article is called "Alexander Hamilton to Share Image on $10 Bill With a Woman", a more tamed headline.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/alexander-hamilton-to-share-image-on-10-bill-with-a-woman-1434591472
http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/firstSpouse/
Note that these aren't intended as circulating coins, and they usually cost substantially more than face value.
Aunt Jemima
Buttersworth lady
Mrs. Doubtfire
Because our politicians are blind and deaf to us citizenry.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Margaret Sanger
Amelia Earhart
Maya Angelou Oops, not dead yet
Write in: Annie Oakley
Quote: MrVI'm all for giving women equal time, but really, has there ever been a woman of Great Importance in American political life?
Yeah, I know, the deck's been stacked against them: I get it.
But if we're being honest, why put a woman on a bill if she's not done anything significant enough to warrant the recognition?
It's just another PC sop.
If a woman risked life limb and or reputation for good causes, (I think there may be a few)
Not sure how high a standard you have. That seems high enough for me.
That is a weak test: you've set the bar too low.
No, in order to adorn the currency currently in circulation in the USA, those selected have been VERY, VERY IMPORTANT in American history.
With the possible exception of Franklin, they were major political figures, usually presidents.
No woman fits the bill. *
*unintended pun, left for purposes of low comedy
Quote: Face
Maya Angelou Oops, not dead yet
Angelou died last year.
Quote: MrVUntold numbers of people have "risked life limb and or reputation for good causes."
That is a weak test: you've set the bar too low.
No, in order to adorn the currency currently in circulation in the USA, those selected have been VERY, VERY IMPORTANT in American history.
Important 'cause we had to kill a whole bunch of them? The buffalo on the other side makes me think that might be it. They're reduced greatly as well.
But as for that Indian, I suppose we put his mug on a nickle to pay homage to our western expansion, at the expense of he and his people.
He wasn't put there because we respected him; it was because he symbolized the west, and how we "conquered" it.
Kind of like head hunters taking the head of their foe.
Yeah, killing Indians and taking their land allowed us to morph into what we are today: rich, lazy and cynical.
Quote: MrVThe subject is currency, not coins.
Pretty sure M Webster supports coins as currency.
Full Definition of CURRENCY
1
a : circulation as a medium of exchange
b : general use, acceptance, or prevalence <a story gaining currency>
c : the quality or state of being current : currentness
2
a : something (as coins, treasury notes, and banknotes) that is in circulation as a medium of exchange
b : paper money in circulation
c : a common article for bartering
d : a medium of verbal or intellectual expression
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/currency
We already have a "famous American woman" on a coin: Susan B. Anthony.
I bet if you asked millennials who SBA was, most wouldn't know.
An exceedingly unpopular bit of coinage.
People can spin it all they want; the fact remains that women have not accomplished much in American history.
'Til now, it's pretty much been a man's world.
Quote: MrVUntold numbers of people have "risked life limb and or reputation for good causes."
That is a weak test: you've set the bar too low.
No, in order to adorn the currency currently in circulation in the USA, those selected have been VERY, VERY IMPORTANT in American history.
With the possible exception of Franklin, they were major political figures, usually presidents.
No woman fits the bill. *
*unintended pun, left for purposes of low comedy
All true, and BTW Franklin was most definitely a major political figure. At least as important in the early development of the United States as a new country as any of the founding fathers, he was just never president. Mostly because we was older than most of the founding fathers. I believe the oldest signer of the Declaration of Independence. People remember Franklin as an inventor, or purveyor of wisdom, business man, all true. But he was also very much a politician.
Quote: MrVPeople can spin it all they want; the fact remains that women have not accomplished much in American history.
Not really a fair assessment, since in some cases, wives of men were taking care of the men's homes and families while they were galavanting around making history. Somebody had to do the menial jobs. I'm seeing why women's lib got started right with this viewpoint. I myself, would say, the hell with that attitude, these bas****s aren't giving us credit and taking all of it for themselves.
I am talking about people who have had MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS in the public domain; not behind the scenes nurturers and caretakers.
I began my comments on this hot-button thread with a form of disclaimer: "for whatever reason."
Yes, cultural tradition rooted in the biology of human reproduction has served to limit the ability of women to take center stage and compete head to head against men: tough to wage war or guide a nation through perilous shoals with a baby at your teat.
As for women "taking care of the men's homes and families while they were galavanting around making history:" thanks for making my point for me.
Men have made history; women have enabled men to do so.
Just the way it's been.
Quote: MrV
As for women "taking care of the men's homes and families while they were galavanting around making history:" thanks for making my point for me.
Actually, I think your point is more wrong than ever after thinking about it, if you're saying women don't belong on the currency.
It's is as if you dismissed the entire air crew and only give the flying ace all the recognition.
Quote: FaceSacajawea
Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Margaret Sanger
Amelia Earhart
Maya Angelou Oops, not dead yet
Write in: Annie Oakley
Marilyn Monroe? She was intimately involved in politics...
Marie Curie
Eleanor Roosevelt
Quote: AyecarumbaQuote: FaceSacajawea
Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Margaret Sanger
Amelia Earhart
Maya Angelou Oops, not dead yet
Write in: Annie Oakley
Marilyn Monroe? She was intimately involved in politics...
Marie Curie
Eleanor Roosevelt
I am thinking more along the lines of Jenna Jameson
Quote: rxwineActually, I think your point is more wrong than ever after thinking about it, if you're saying women don't belong on the currency.
They don't belong on a bill, at least not if any form of objective test is employed to determine the issue.
But that won't be the case: like I said, it's a PC sop.
Spin away, but there it is.
Quote: MrVThey don't belong on a bill, at least not if any form of objective test is employed to determine the issue.
But that won't be the case: like I said, it's a PC sop.
Spin away, but there it is.
I'd happily put 3 or 4 on one coin in overlaying profiles and not feel like it was betrayal of any kind.
Quote:Hannah White Arnett (1733-1823) was an American woman who is known for preventing a group of men in Elizabethtown, New Jersey (now Elizabeth) from proclaiming their loyalty to Great Britain in exchange for “protection of life and property.” [1] When she heard the men, who were meeting in her house, talking about this offer, she called them cowards and traitors.[1] Although Isaac, her husband, tried to get her out of the room, she continued to harangue the men and stated that she would leave her husband if he did not continue to support the American Revolution.[1] The men eventually refused the offer.[1]
Quote:Near here rests Hannah White Arnett…Her patriotic words, uttered in the dark days of 1776, summoned discouraged men to keep Elizabethtown loyal to the cause of American independence.” [1]
The Hannah White Arnett Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution was named after her; it is a Fort Payne, Alabama chapter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_White_Arnett
Quote: FaceSacajawea
Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Margaret Sanger
Amelia Earhart
Maya Angelou Oops, not dead yet
Write in: Annie Oakley
I would really like to see Sacajawea replace Jackson on the twenty. Will admit I am biased but it would be rather poetic.
Abigail Adams may be good choice if one of the qualifications is political influence. Had a husband and son who were both presidents and she advised them both. She was even called Mrs. President by her political opponents. I think there have been many women throughout US history that have influenced the political leanings of the country but often times they were not acknowledged at the time. Both Abigail and Eleanor were politically active in their times. There was also the first women cabinet member under Franklin that did have influence on the US political system. Sad thing is I don't remember her name at this time.
But, they could select a freak transvestite like that Bruce Jenner chick.
Good choice, but I don't think she was American in any way.Quote: AyecarumbaMarie Curie
Quote: MrVThe subject is paper money.
We already have a "famous American woman" on a coin: Susan B. Anthony.
I bet if you asked millennials who SBA was, most wouldn't know.
An exceedingly unpopular bit of coinage.
People can spin it all they want; the fact remains that women have not accomplished much in American history.
'Til now, it's pretty much been a man's world.
Shes the broad that killed her kid and went off partying after duh
Hold on i need to take a selfie
The feminists said Andrew Jackson was too mean to the Native Americans so he needed to be replaced by a woman, of course not recognizing the fact that proportionally to the time period, he was one of the most feminist Presidents ever...
But what on earth is their object to Hamilton? Do they think he was too masculine because he was an aggressive person? Or do they just not like his views on Centralization?
This is getting absurd, people feeling the need to correct for history by replacing people of alleged immoral character on bills. This is masochism gone astray, this rampant self-hating among psuedo-progressives who want America to feel bad about things that we have done wrong...
Quote: GandlerThis is madness. They are getting rid of some of the most relevant historical figures, and replacing them with some token woman...
The feminists said Andrew Jackson was too mean to the Native Americans so he needed to be replaced by a woman, of course not recognizing the fact that proportionally to the time period, he was one of the most feminist Presidents ever...
But what on earth is their object to Hamilton? Do they think he was too masculine because he was an aggressive person? Or do they just not like his views on Centralization?
This is getting absurd, people feeling the need to correct for history by replacing people of alleged immoral character on bills. This is masochism gone astray, this rampant self-hating among psuedo-progressives who want America to feel bad about things that we have done wrong...
+1
Just another sign of a collapsing society. Great societies do not do this "cleansing" of history that a minority of the population does not like.
I have nothing against the principle of a woman on currency, but I do have something against giving them lower bars to reach for. We have had a few women who helped shape time periods, but to say that any of them challenge Hamilton's prestige in the shaping of this country is sadly, sadly mistaken. It saddens me that political correctness has gone that far in this country.
But other than the 3 I've mentioned....yeah, I agree with MrV: It's a PC thing (probably made up by either the Feminists and/or Lesbians).
And while not directly involved with politics, she caused political upheaval and reform.
Most people know who she is and I think having at least one person of African American heritage on the bill would say a lot for a country with our history.
EDIT: looks like Harriet Tubman is being considered so that also gets my vote for the same reasons
Quote: AZDuffman+1
Just another sign of a collapsing society. Great societies do not do this "cleansing" of history that a minority of the population does not like.
People will discard some of the greatest thinkers or revolutionaries because they had slaves or fought with certain Native Americans.
And, are so eager to put a woman who is a great person in some cases, but historically insignificant compared so many men who are getting discounted because of their (often alleged) personal life. But when you have a certain reproductive organ, the bar is far lower for demanded respect and reconition...
Don't get me wrong, I have great respect got Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks, but does anyone seriously think they had a more major impact on the United States Government than Alexander Hamilton or Andrew Jackson? If anyone says yes, they are lying through their teeth...
There is simply a lower bar for women to achieve historical fame, especially if they lived in time periods where they were one of the few women of note...
Quote: GandlerPeople will discard some of the greatest thinkers or revolutionaries because they had slaves or fought with certain Native Americans.
And, are so eager to put a woman who is a great person in some cases, but historically insignificant compared so many men who are getting discounted because of their (often alleged) personal life. But when you have a certain reproductive organ, the bar is far lower for demanded respect and reconition...
Don't get me wrong, I have great respect got Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks, but does anyone seriously think they had a more major impact on the United States Government than Alexander Hamilton or Andrew Jackson? If anyone says yes, they are lying through their teeth...
There is simply a lower bar for women to achieve historical fame, especially if they lived in time periods where they were one of the few women of note...
If you really want to put it in perspective, give someone like Tubman a 10 year run on the 10 dollar bill then restore the original bill.
When someone more monumental comes along -- then they can get a shot on a bill.
But frankly, in today's investigative tabloid destroy everyone atmosphere, I find it more unlikely than ever anyone will measure up again, at least if it comes to a vote. At least on our major bills. We'll always have mint specials and dedications.
In that light, all the guys residing on them might have difficulty too were they born today.
Quote: Gandler
Don't get me wrong, I have great respect got Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks, but does anyone seriously think they had a more major impact on the United States Government than Alexander Hamilton or Andrew Jackson? If anyone says yes, they are lying through their teeth...
Why must it be based on impact on US Government and not other important parts of America and American histroy? Harriet Tubman was anti-government, shouldn't that count for something?
Quote: TomGWhy must it be based on impact on US Government and not other important parts of America and American histroy? Harriet Tubman was anti-government, shouldn't that count for something?
Non-Governmental is good. But let's making it gambling-related here.....
I'm Thinking Jackie Siegel, "The Queen of Versailles", and wife of David Siegel, of Westgate fame. Luck be a Lady until the Real Estate Bubble popped.....
Or Caitlyn Jenner, American Olympian Athlete and Gold Medal Winner, to be politically correct. There we go.....Trump doesn't have a thing on either, and he's a candidate.
Perfect for any casino or Gambling Hall buy-in.
Edit: The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't matter whose face is on a note; it matters if it holds its value, that we've worked so hard for. In fact, bills with no people on it are fine with me, female, male or otherwise.
Edit 2: This is getting so ridiculous, have we considered Pam Grier?. What better replacement than to have the slave owning Andrew Jackson removed if we're going to think like that, - that'll get him spinning in his grave....fine sister....Awesome....
Quote: TomGWhy must it be based on impact on US Government and not other important parts of America and American histroy? Harriet Tubman was anti-government, shouldn't that count for something?
It should, but in that case I doubt that she would be interested in being on a Federal currency bill.
But the point I was making was the bar for women is always lower than for men.
Men can do something for decades (sometimes centuries) and the first time a women does it everyone acts like she is some great revolutionary. Females are often famous for doing something that countless men have already done....
Men have been soldiers, astronauts, pilots, etc... for decades, centuries, but the first women in those fields are regarded as great figures, while millions of men who have been doing that for countless years get forgotten.
There is a lower bar, and there is lower standards, this is not a sexist statement, it is simply reality.
Look at the rankings of a Grand-Master Chess tournament, of in musical composition stemming back to Johannes Sebastian Bach, or physics, or any discipline. Even in cooking meals, the Chefs are Wolfgang Puck and Charlie Palmer, etc. (I will grant Mrs. Fields her cookies.)
Keep in mind that the females of the species always had direct access to our tools, our notes, our kitchens, and our marital beds, and for all time eternal. It is harder to oppress those we grew up with in our homes, were raised by, sleep with, and the children we raise - as our mothers, our wives, our sisters, and our daughters. Conspiracy could not have been done without us being read the riot act from females (and generally, if we are married, we ARE generally read the riot act over something....)
Females do not look to achieve as an act of aggression. They look to a Male to achieve, often as an act of aggression, and bear kids in a big house that was a result of that.....
Big Brains, Big muscles, and Big money are sexy to women for a reason. It is for the Male to be producer. As my wife says, "I want a house, - not a condo, even the Panorama - and you will get it for me!!" The male drives himself in business outside the house, and the female drives him for the house, for inside the family.
Men don't have always it together. But we have some sh][t going, one way or another....
Edit: If you think I am Lying, - This is The Closest thing to a Female Mick Jagger.
My advice is to place an American institution like Pam Grier...on a ten dollar note, or stop placing people's facing on currency altogether. Actually, that might increase confidence in the currency......
Quote:Men have been soldiers, astronauts, pilots, etc... for decades, centuries, but the first women in those fields are regarded as great figures, while millions of men who have been doing that for countless years get forgotten.
There is a lower bar, and there is lower standards, this is not a sexist statement, it is simply reality.
Given the opportunity, I doubt is there is that much they couldn't be first at. And the following isn't a lower bar.
Quote:Grace Murray Hopper (December 9, 1906 – January 1, 1992) was an American computer scientist and United States Navy rear admiral.[1] She was one of the first programmers of the Harvard Mark I computer in 1944,[2] and invented the first compiler for a computer programming language,[3][4][5][6][7] and was one of those who popularized the idea of machine-independent programming languages, which led to the development of COBOL, one of the first high-level programming languages. She is credited with popularizing the term "debugging" for fixing computer glitches (inspired by an actual moth removed from the computer). Owing to her accomplishments and her naval rank, she is sometimes referred to as "Amazing Grace
Quote: rxwineGiven the opportunity, I doubt is there is that much they couldn't be first at. And the following isn't a lower bar.
Quote:Grace Murray Hopper (December 9, 1906 – January 1, 1992) was an American computer scientist and United States Navy rear admiral.[1] She was one of the first programmers of the Harvard Mark I computer in 1944,[2] and invented the first compiler for a computer programming language,[3][4][5][6][7] and was one of those who popularized the idea of machine-independent programming languages, which led to the development of COBOL, one of the first high-level programming languages. She is credited with popularizing the term "debugging" for fixing computer glitches (inspired by an actual moth removed from the computer). Owing to her accomplishments and her naval rank, she is sometimes referred to as "Amazing Grace
Saying "We need women on currency" is by default a lower bar. Or saying "we need more women in congress" is also by default a lower bar.
How about say we need more "people" in (whatever issue you are talking about).
If 99% of the people in congress are men, great, if 99% of the people in congress are women, great. People should be judged purely on their merits. The idea that we need to hunt out women who may have done something revolutionary to balance the scales.
I hate all of this 50/50 talk that goes on now, that half of any given field needs to be women. If somebody wants to be recognized in a particular field regardless of their gender, they should excel at that field and dedicate their life to working their butt off 24/7. The idea that somebody is revolutionary simply by being the first women doing something that countless men have already done is the "sexism of low expectations".
Nobody should be guaranteed a slot on a bill, in congress, on a job, or anywhere else simply because they are a woman.
Quote: GandlerNobody should be guaranteed a slot on a bill, in congress, on a job, or anywhere else simply because they are a woman.
The majority of men were guaranteed a CHANCE in the US long before women were. That is a lowered bar. If it's not a fair contest it is bunk to measure as one.
Quote: rxwineThe majority of men were guaranteed a CHANCE in the US long before women were. That is a lowered bar. If it's not a fair contest it is bunk to measure as one.
So? We should be forced to pretend to respect a plethora of under-qualified and under-educated women in positions of power and management because of historical inequalities?
History is not fair to many peoples and groups, at some point everyone has been discriminated against somewhere. Trying to correcting for ancient history is suicidal and counter-productive.
Quote: GandlerSo? We should be forced to pretend to respect a plethora of under-qualified and under-educated women in positions of power and management because of historical inequalities?
History is not fair to many peoples and groups, at some point everyone has been discriminated against somewhere. Trying to correcting for ancient history is suicidal and counter-productive.
Well, I was going to agree with you that we don't need 1 woman for every man on the bills. But we are talking about 1 spot, as far as I know.
We also are not going to rewrite the history of the woman picked to be greater than it is. It will still be there for people to judge.
I don't see any great wrongs being done here.
And I'm still going with my analogy, is just because we have a successful pilot, it's just as essential he had to have a successful crew so his plane didn't fall out of mid air on the way to the heroic battle. It's hard to believe some of that isn't lost to history of some of the women behind the men who are on the bills and women doing things elsewhere.
I don't feel like this is one big farce at all.
