Jane Austin to replace Charles Darwin on the £10 note.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Pinkhead
You could say that about anything that isn't literature or art. That isn't the point. The discovery was a great one given the non-existent understanding of genetics, and, as knowledge, much more valuable to our species, therefore it is hailed as such.
>much more valuable
depends how you define valuable
I actually agree with you, but it's not a clear-cut issue.
"value" in this case is subjective
Original post by randomd_love
I agree imagine being told you got something because of things out of your control (race,gender) you would be offended that your life's work came second to genetics.
By the way EL James is nowhere near the same class of writer as Austin.
By the way EL James is nowhere near the same class of writer as Austin.
I'd rather come second to work on genetics/evolution than beat it because of my gender
And they're different writers from different times. It was a humorous comment drawing parallels between writers in a similar genre, regardless of individual talent
not so funny now 
Science is more important than Arts
What would you rather have, the theory (fact) of evolution or a Jane Auestin book?
What would you rather have, the theory (fact) of evolution or a Jane Auestin book?
(edited 10 years ago)
In the words of Boris Johnson (who was admittedly talking about someone else), 'I object to the award on purely literary grounds'.
Jane Austen was also an insufferable snob. She said of her home in Steventon: “People get so horribly poor and economical in this part of the world that I have no patience with them. Kent is the only place for happiness: everybody is rich there.”
Jane Austen was also an insufferable snob. She said of her home in Steventon: “People get so horribly poor and economical in this part of the world that I have no patience with them. Kent is the only place for happiness: everybody is rich there.”
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Artymess
I'd rather come second to work on genetics/evolution than beat it because of my gender
And they're different writers from different times. It was a humorous comment drawing parallels between writers in a similar genre, regardless of individual talent not so funny now
And they're different writers from different times. It was a humorous comment drawing parallels between writers in a similar genre, regardless of individual talent
not so funny now I got the humour, but i just know someone on here would seriously suggest EL as a great author of our time.
Jane Austen wanted women to be intelligent and assertive in order to get what they wanted in a patriarchal society, what she didn't want was women being given recognition for just being women. I think her being on money because she's female is not in the spirit of her work.
However the news report said he (darwin) was going to be replaced anyway but finding his replacement should have been all about their achievement not about pleasing certain parts of society.
Original post by JordanR
incomparable.
The theory of evolution (like all science) would have been discovered by someone else if given enough time. There were muslim scholars hundreds of years ago talking about ideas similar. Even if given a million years, no one would have been able to write the same novels that Jane Austen did.
The theory of evolution (like all science) would have been discovered by someone else if given enough time. There were muslim scholars hundreds of years ago talking about ideas similar. Even if given a million years, no one would have been able to write the same novels that Jane Austen did.
Except for the fact that science is much, much more important than literary fiction. Darwin's theories completely changed humanities view on existence and reality from one of fictional, religious delusion to factual, scientific evidence..
Austen on the other hand, has hardly shaped the way humanity thinks.
Original post by Plainview
In the words of Boris Johnson (who was admittedly talking about someone else), 'I object to the award on purely literary grounds'.
Talking about Salman Rushdie on Question Time?
I was just about to make this thread.
I am not against women on banknotes but I believe that the Bank of England should never have caved in to the campaign. If the man is the better candidate, the man is the better candidate. Gender should not come into it. Jane Austen as great as she is is clearly a token addition, She has clearly been chosen over Darwin purely because she is a woman, no one can deny this. Yes, it was because of sexism throughout the ages but the fact still stands that British men have achieved far more than British women have up until the present day and this is why it's mostly men on banknotes and not because of some big misogynistic conspiracy. Why must we denigrate the achievements of Darwin because "a woman might have been able to do what he did had she been given the chance"? Darwin did it so he should get the credit.
The feminists have shot themselves in the foot on this one, all they have achieved is a token woman on some banknotes. For the aforementioned reasons once people like Ada Lovelace and Rosalind Franklin etc has been used up then the Bank of England, still feeling pressured to have at least one woman will start scraping the barrel and the tokenism will become obvious. The feminists should have kept their mouths shut, let more and more women over time achieve leading to more and more women on banknotes. But instead they have decided to awkwardly force things.
I am not against women on banknotes but I believe that the Bank of England should never have caved in to the campaign. If the man is the better candidate, the man is the better candidate. Gender should not come into it. Jane Austen as great as she is is clearly a token addition, She has clearly been chosen over Darwin purely because she is a woman, no one can deny this. Yes, it was because of sexism throughout the ages but the fact still stands that British men have achieved far more than British women have up until the present day and this is why it's mostly men on banknotes and not because of some big misogynistic conspiracy. Why must we denigrate the achievements of Darwin because "a woman might have been able to do what he did had she been given the chance"? Darwin did it so he should get the credit.
The feminists have shot themselves in the foot on this one, all they have achieved is a token woman on some banknotes. For the aforementioned reasons once people like Ada Lovelace and Rosalind Franklin etc has been used up then the Bank of England, still feeling pressured to have at least one woman will start scraping the barrel and the tokenism will become obvious. The feminists should have kept their mouths shut, let more and more women over time achieve leading to more and more women on banknotes. But instead they have decided to awkwardly force things.
Banknotes are changed every ~10 years, so I don't see what's the fuss.
Replacing Charles Darwin? Well, many greats were replaced in the past about 20 years ago. Michael Faraday was replaced by Edward Elgar in 2001... where was the outroar over that?
Newton hasn't been on one since the £1 was withdrawn in 1988... surely he deserves to be on one more than anyone else?
Fact is, the 'great' British people of our time appear on our banknotes now and then. I don't think it's about ranking who is more important than who. I mean, who would say that Austen didn't have a profound effect on writing?
Replacing Charles Darwin? Well, many greats were replaced in the past about 20 years ago. Michael Faraday was replaced by Edward Elgar in 2001... where was the outroar over that?
Newton hasn't been on one since the £1 was withdrawn in 1988... surely he deserves to be on one more than anyone else?
Fact is, the 'great' British people of our time appear on our banknotes now and then. I don't think it's about ranking who is more important than who. I mean, who would say that Austen didn't have a profound effect on writing?
Original post by fallen_acorns
Dupilcate thread... please do a search before starting a new one, in the future 
+ its austen*
+ its austen*
Well if you look at the first posts of the 2 threads, they were both posted at approximately the same time - roughly 4 hours ago, and at that time the news was just flashing up on the BBC news webpage as breaking news, unless I myself was present at the Bank of England at the time, I fail to see how I could have found anything if had I done some research anyway.
Original post by TheHistoryStudent
Well if you look at the first posts of the 2 threads, they were both posted at approximately the same time - roughly 4 hours ago, and at that time the news was just flashing up on the BBC news webpage as breaking news, unless I myself was present at the Bank of England at the time, I fail to see how I could have found anything if had I done some research anyway.
doesnt matter now - as people are only talking in one thread
so its all fine.. - its just a bit annoying when this happens, and you get two identical threads talking about the same thing/posters posting in both.. No worries/harm done
Pretty silly decision.
Original post by TheHistoryStudent
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23424289
Thoughts?
Call me sceptical, but it seems to me that this is only being done because of the moaning of some people about her being pipped to the post by Churchill to appear on the £5.
And before you load your neg gun, I honestly think she would have been better on the £5 than Churchill anyway, as I think that we should celebrate the people who made great contributions to various fields (in her case literature, in Darwin's case, science) over the achievements of a politician, considerable, at least in wartime, though they were.
That's just my thoughts anyway... what do you think?
Thoughts?
Call me sceptical, but it seems to me that this is only being done because of the moaning of some people about her being pipped to the post by Churchill to appear on the £5.
And before you load your neg gun, I honestly think she would have been better on the £5 than Churchill anyway, as I think that we should celebrate the people who made great contributions to various fields (in her case literature, in Darwin's case, science) over the achievements of a politician, considerable, at least in wartime, though they were.
That's just my thoughts anyway... what do you think?
Darwin has changed the face of Biology. Austen, sure she wrote some books which are classics, but why her specifically? What makes her the best of English literature?
This is ****ing bull****. It should be based on merit, not your gender!
Darwin should be spinning in his grave over his. I'm disgusted over this announcement.
Let's be honest here, the only reason Jane Austen was chosen is because she's a woman, it should have been Alan Turing.
Original post by JordanR
yeah and Jane Austen was only one of the most influential romantic novelists of all time, what'd she ever do?
Please, Darwin has contributed more to the field of science (and to the world) than Austen has ever done.
At this rate we'll see bloody J K Rowling on the tenner in a hundred years or so. Disgusts me.
Original post by randomd_love
I got the humour, but i just know someone on here would seriously suggest EL as a great author of our time.
Jane Austen wanted women to be intelligent and assertive in order to get what they wanted in a patriarchal society, what she didn't want was women being given recognition for just being women. I think her being on money because she's female is not in the spirit of her work.
However the news report said he (darwin) was going to be replaced anyway but finding his replacement should have been all about their achievement not about pleasing certain parts of society.
Jane Austen wanted women to be intelligent and assertive in order to get what they wanted in a patriarchal society, what she didn't want was women being given recognition for just being women. I think her being on money because she's female is not in the spirit of her work.
However the news report said he (darwin) was going to be replaced anyway but finding his replacement should have been all about their achievement not about pleasing certain parts of society.
Where did she say that?
In light of that comment, she should not be on the tenner.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Biologist Meike Stoverock proves female hypergamy
- Durham English Exchange
- Jane Eyre grade 9
- Devonshire Halls Leeds
- Jekyll and Hyde essay plan
- A level eng lit coursework
- study of a novel: access course
- The Coronation of His Majesty the King [TV Discussion Thread]
- Which historical figure would you teach the macarena to?
- Things to read over the summer
- I lost 10 pounds...
- The G20 Leaders Hurt/Heal Game
- The Cambridge College Hurt/Heal Game [part 2]
- Hurt or Heal (Actors edition)
- Aqa english literature gcse predictions?
- which college to apply to?
- Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde Quotations
- As-Level Jane Eyre
- id like to know if this paragraph is well structured or not
- Is a BSc (Hons) in Environmental Science good for a MSc in Astrobiology?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
