Feminists anger over bank notes

Original post by manderton

I think the whole thing is ridiculous.

Look at the list from the independent: click

The only two I recognise and could point out what's remarkable about them are Emmeline Pankhurst & Agatha Christie - Can anyone else honestly say quickly glancing at the names say they know exactly what everyone did?

I think it's about time the vocal minority of feminists piped down and realised they've got it pretty good as it is without worrying about petty things like pictures on a banknote - Pankhurst would be turning in her grave.

Feminism was about dealing with genuine injustices. This is a joke.

Reply 245

Original post by manderton

I think the whole thing is ridiculous.

Look at the list from the independent: click

The only two I recognise and could point out what's remarkable about them are Emmeline Pankhurst & Agatha Christie - Can anyone else honestly say quickly glancing at the names say they know exactly what everyone did?

I think it's about time the vocal minority of feminists piped down and realised they've got it pretty good as it is without worrying about petty things like pictures on a banknote - Pankhurst would be turning in her grave.

On a side note, how have you never heard of Vivienne Westwood? :smile:

And I've heard of 9 or 10 of them, though through my own research not academic purposes. Perhaps there's a flaw in education.

It's also not the fact that that a woman's being replaced, it's the fact that there will be NO women on the banknotes now. And if I'm right in thinking, there's only ever been two of them since this whole historical figure thing on notes started anyway.

Why does that matter?

This matters.

It matters because young women growing up see a parliament that is 57th equal in the world when it comes to female representation; a media where only 1 in 5 experts is a woman; and a business world where female directors represent only 16.7% of the total.

Currency, as its name suggests, is fundamental to our daily lives. These notes will change hands every hour, every minute, every second. And every time they do, the message will drive a little deeper home: women do not belong in public life - they never have, and they never will.

Imagine explaining to a daughter or any young woman, "I've never seen a woman on a banknote before, why?"

"Oh well that's because women aren't important enough dear."

Reply 246

The queen is on the other side.

Reply 247

Original post by Jizzle88

The queen is on the other side.

The queen would be there even if she'd done absolutely nothing, she got to her position through being born into the right family. Everyone else has achieved something worthwhile and earned their place on the banknotes.

What happens when she dies and is replaced by a king?

Pointless argument.

Reply 248

Original post by SciFiRory

I imagine people are upset because Churchill was incredibly bigoted (Racist, Homophobic, Sexist, etc...)

Yeah, **** Churchill for not introducing gay marriage and gay rights in the 1920s. Maybe we should **** all the other people in history who aren't as liberal as we are now.

What next? **** Gandhi for hating black people? **** Nelson Mandela for his involvement in terrorism?

As for the bank notes, they're about individuals, they're not about representing dumb arbitrary groups for other people to leech off, like gender. Maybe I belong to a category of people with particular genes which deserves to be put on notes.

It's not as if they're deliberately avoiding women, though I agree that we should put lesser known people on notes, Churchill is famous enough.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 249

Original post by ironandwine

The queen would be there even if she'd done absolutely nothing, she got to her position through being born into the right family. Everyone else has achieved something worthwhile and earned their place on the banknotes.

What happens when she dies and is replaced by a king?

Pointless argument.

But it would be unfair to men to have a woman on both sides. I would have to assemble the masculinism brigade.

Reply 250

Original post by Jizzle88

But it would be unfair to men to have a woman on both sides. I would have to assemble the masculinism brigade.

Quit trolling.

Feminism isn't women trying to get one over on men, it's a movement for the equality of gender. No matter who the monarch is, male or female, they will always be on one side of a note; they were born into that privilege of today, so it's absolutely pathetic to say such a thing.

Currently there are five males on banknotes and one female, disregarding the queen (since she was born into the position). Elizabeth Fry is going to be replaced by a male, meaning no woman will feature on any note having earned her place/done something completely worthwhile... when there are plenty of women who have done so. What kind of message does that send out?

Reply 251

anarchism101

I propose not having any faces on banknotes at all.

Reply 252

Original post by ironandwine

What kind of message does that send out?

What about how that they have people on them that aren't even English? What message does that send out? That we're not entitled to our own little anal licking like Scotland and Northern Ireland?

I also think we should have a quota on the amount of black people we allow to represent GB in the Olympics in fields they are overrepresented in, because what sort of message does that send out to the white native majority of this country who can't see further than their own little arbitrary group?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 253

Apocrypha

Original post by ironandwine

Quit trolling.

Feminism isn't women trying to get one over on men, it's a movement for the equality of gender. No matter who the monarch is, male or female, they will always be on one side of a note; they were born into that privilege of today, so it's absolutely pathetic to say such a thing.

Currently there are five males on banknotes and one female, disregarding the queen (since she was born into the position). Elizabeth Fry is going to be replaced by a male, meaning no woman will feature on any note having earned her place/done something completely worthwhile... when there are plenty of women who have done so. What kind of message does that send out?

Perhaps Smithy well be removed from the 20 if the Scots get their independence.

Personally i don't like this whole argument, one would be disregarding Churchill purely because there aren't no women on banknotes which i believe is entirely wrong.

I dont really agree with Emmeline Pankhurst being a nominee on a banknote, I see the Suffragists as the more legitimate representatives of women's rights, I also believe All women got the vote only something like 8 years after all men got the vote?

Any women truly deserving of being on the banknotes would be Maggie Thatcher, however she offers a dilemma to many people.

Reply 254

Original post by ironandwine

Quit trolling.

Feminism isn't women trying to get one over on men, it's a movement for the equality of gender. No matter who the monarch is, male or female, they will always be on one side of a note; they were born into that privilege of today, so it's absolutely pathetic to say such a thing.

Currently there are five males on banknotes and one female, disregarding the queen (since she was born into the position). Elizabeth Fry is going to be replaced by a male, meaning no woman will feature on any note having earned her place/done something completely worthwhile... when there are plenty of women who have done so. What kind of message does that send out?

Ok. I was raised by a single feminist mother. I understand the plight of womankind. I am entitled to the opinion that this 'issue' is not worth the hassle, quite pointless and damaging to cause of feminism.

I think i immediate jump on the feminist bandwagon that it is a product of masculine hegemony or product of the social subjugation of women. There is a distinct possibility that men and women are quite different, beyond the 'cultural conceptions' of identity and gender. Iit is hardwired into a portion of masculine minds to seek a dominant position and therefore represented by the amount of males who reach the upper echelons of business and high office. there I believe that it is a redundant position to argue that the unequal representation of genders in offices in power, is solely a product of a masculine hegemony in culture, it also is a product of an entire range of factors including biology, psychology and genetic predisposition.

Men and women are not the same, we never will be. However i agree that it is important that women are afforded every opportunity to advance in life as men, this should be reflected legally and culturally. Inequality in representation of gender on currency is in my opinion, petty, however if it causing a genuine grievance to alot of women, fair enough have it over turned!!!

Reply 255

Original post by Apocrypha

I also believe All women got the vote only something like 8 years after all men got the vote?

Ya those mere 8 years were enough to persecute women into needing quotas these days. **** all men who didn't have equal rights, right?

Reply 256

I think i is over eager to immediately jump on the feminist bandwagon that it is a product of masculine hegemony or product of the social subjugation of women

Edit

Reply 257

james22

16

Unless there is evidence of this being deliberate, whats the issue? Surely the whole thing should be irrelevent of gender. Saying that there should be a women on a bank note instead of a man just because there are no women there is like quotas and is positive discrimination (which is, itself, sexist).

Reply 258

Original post by Apocrypha

Perhaps Smithy well be removed from the 20 if the Scots get their independence.

Personally i don't like this whole argument, one would be disregarding Churchill purely because there aren't no women on banknotes which i believe is entirely wrong.

I dont really agree with Emmeline Pankhurst being a nominee on a banknote, I see the Suffragists as the more legitimate representatives of women's rights, I also believe All women got the vote only something like 8 years after all men got the vote?

Any women truly deserving of being on the banknotes would be Maggie Thatcher, however she offers a dilemma to many people.

I'm not too sure why you've quoted me, but it's not the fact that Churchill is going onto the notes, I think anyone will agree he's achieved a lot. It could be any male and there would still be this uproar that there are going to be no females left to feature on a note.

I never mentioned Emmeline Pankhurst so I'm going to assume you're not talking to me about that point.

Though I was never her biggest fan, Thatcher would be a good candidate since she was the first female PM, but obviously, like you said, it would probably cause even more uproar.

Original post by Snagprophet

What about how that they have people on them that aren't even English? What message does that send out? That we're not entitled to our own little anal licking like Scotland and Northern Ireland?

As far as I can see, all are currently English bar two who are Scottish, but I don't really see how that's an important issue? Even though we have different banknotes etc, we're still all part of the UK. I think a more striking progression, as well as including females, would be to have a black or asian Briton on our banknotes.

Reply 259