Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
One of the reasons why we don't rotate historical figures and more often is because the cost of printing the money costs more then the money you print is worth.....kind of counter productive right? As far as changing them on a rotating basis when the bill is actually do for an update? yeah go for it, But allow the citizens to vote on persons based on historical significance not based on their gender.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't honoring someone specifically because of their race/gender basically racism/sexism?

Yes, of course, but those are not the reasons that the people proposed for the new $10 bill have been nominated, even though a lot of them happen to be women and/or black.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
So, wow, they're talking of replacing two individuals from our money because "reasons"? feth that. Keep the damn traditions.

If America was about doing that, you'd already have a woman on your money, bruh-bruh:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
One of the reasons why we don't rotate historical figures and more often is because the cost of printing the money costs more then the money you print is worth.....kind of counter productive right? As far as changing them on a rotating basis when the bill is actually do for an update? yeah go for it, But allow the citizens to vote on persons based on historical significance not based on their gender.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't honoring someone specifically because of their race/gender basically racism/sexism?

Yes, of course, but those are not the reasons that the people proposed for the new $10 bill have been nominated, even though a lot of them happen to be women and/or black.

So what criteria was used to choose these nominees? Because it apparently has to be a woman who has some sort of historical significance. so if were basing the nomination on the equipment between your legs wouldn't that be sexism?

Considering the amount of females on currency at the moment, I want to say no.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
One of the reasons why we don't rotate historical figures and more often is because the cost of printing the money costs more then the money you print is worth.....kind of counter productive right? As far as changing them on a rotating basis when the bill is actually do for an update? yeah go for it, But allow the citizens to vote on persons based on historical significance not based on their gender.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't honoring someone specifically because of their race/gender basically racism/sexism?

Yes, of course, but those are not the reasons that the people proposed for the new $10 bill have been nominated, even though a lot of them happen to be women and/or black.

So what criteria was used to choose these nominees? Because it apparently has to be a woman who has some sort of historical significance. so if were basing the nomination on the equipment between your legs wouldn't that be sexism?

That is the very definition of sexism yes.

The article states that is will be a women put on the bill and you Americans must decide on which women.

HOWEVER if every bill had a male and a female on there, it would just be like the Olympics. The Genders will be judged and competing among themselves so this means that the women selected aren't chosen over people who had bigger impact on the past.

Since the bill has both a man and a women on there I would say that it isn't really sexist. Just like having a female running record and male running record isn't sexist. Because I am very certain that based on qualifications alone it would all be men on those bills.

better make everything equal regardless of facts then, that way everyone can have a warm fuzzy right?

 Ghazkuul wrote:
better make everything equal regardless of facts then, that way everyone can have a warm fuzzy right?

I agree with you, thats what my post was about.

But having both genders on the bill gives women a chance to be selected to appear on there based on qualifications. It's the same with the Olympic records etc, if we just had one record then women wouldn't have a chance, same with money. I suppose they are doing the same thing with your notes.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
so if were basing the nomination on the equipment between your legs wouldn't that be sexism?

No, because calling it sexism is based on the assumption that the current situation isn't sexist. Pointing out that women are under-represented* in US money and trying to do something about the problem is only sexist if it crosses the line into over-representing women. Right now the argument is that women are X% of the people who are worthy of being put on our money, so we should give them at least Y% of the slots where X > Y. We know that if we can't even manage Y% it's because the selection process is biased against women and "pick them by merit alone without looking at gender" actually means "pick men". And if that's the case then we have to make a deliberate effort to remove that bias if we want to honestly claim that we aren't sexist.

*Unless you want to make the obviously absurd claim that there are no important women that could legitimately go on the money.

 d-usa wrote:
People that have been featured on the $10:


- a bison

The guy from Streetfighter ?!

You wacky people you !

 reds8n wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
People that have been featured on the $10:


- a bison

The guy from Streetfighter ?!

You wacky people you !

But when any one campaigns for Chun-Li to appear on a note they are the crazy ones.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
People that have been featured on the $10:


- a bison

The guy from Streetfighter ?!

You wacky people you !

But when any one campaigns for Chun-Li to appear on a note they are the crazy ones.

Of course. Bison has had a much larger influence on the Street Fighter universe.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
so if were basing the nomination on the equipment between your legs wouldn't that be sexism?

No, because calling it sexism is based on the assumption that the current situation isn't sexist. Pointing out that women are under-represented* in US money and trying to do something about the problem is only sexist if it crosses the line into over-representing women. Right now the argument is that women are X% of the people who are worthy of being put on our money, so we should give them at least Y% of the slots where X > Y. We know that if we can't even manage Y% it's because the selection process is biased against women and "pick them by merit alone without looking at gender" actually means "pick men". And if that's the case then we have to make a deliberate effort to remove that bias if we want to honestly claim that we aren't sexist.

*Unless you want to make the obviously absurd claim that there are no important women that could legitimately go on the money.

Its sexist to put a women on a bill because she's a women, just like its sexist to put a man on a bill because he's a man.

Nobody got put on any of our currency because of their gender, and it should stay that way. People with the biggest influence should get put on bills, and not because of their sex.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
so if were basing the nomination on the equipment between your legs wouldn't that be sexism?

No, because calling it sexism is based on the assumption that the current situation isn't sexist. Pointing out that women are under-represented* in US money and trying to do something about the problem is only sexist if it crosses the line into over-representing women. Right now the argument is that women are X% of the people who are worthy of being put on our money, so we should give them at least Y% of the slots where X > Y. We know that if we can't even manage Y% it's because the selection process is biased against women and "pick them by merit alone without looking at gender" actually means "pick men". And if that's the case then we have to make a deliberate effort to remove that bias if we want to honestly claim that we aren't sexist.

*Unless you want to make the obviously absurd claim that there are no important women that could legitimately go on the money.

Its sexist to put a women on a bill because she's a women, just like its sexist to put a man on a bill because he's a man.

Nobody got put on any of our currency because of their gender, and it should stay that way. People with the biggest influence should get put on bills, and not because of their sex.

Yes they did. They absolutely got put on their because of their gender. How many women were allowed to help draft our constitution. How many founding mothers did we have and why exactly are there none?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
so if were basing the nomination on the equipment between your legs wouldn't that be sexism?

No, because calling it sexism is based on the assumption that the current situation isn't sexist. Pointing out that women are under-represented* in US money and trying to do something about the problem is only sexist if it crosses the line into over-representing women. Right now the argument is that women are X% of the people who are worthy of being put on our money, so we should give them at least Y% of the slots where X > Y. We know that if we can't even manage Y% it's because the selection process is biased against women and "pick them by merit alone without looking at gender" actually means "pick men". And if that's the case then we have to make a deliberate effort to remove that bias if we want to honestly claim that we aren't sexist.

*Unless you want to make the obviously absurd claim that there are no important women that could legitimately go on the money.

Its sexist to put a women on a bill because she's a women, just like its sexist to put a man on a bill because he's a man.

Nobody got put on any of our currency because of their gender, and it should stay that way. People with the biggest influence should get put on bills, and not because of their sex.

Yes they did. They absolutely got put on their because of their gender. How many women were allowed to help draft our constitution. How many founding mothers did we have and why exactly are there none?

How many women wanted to help draft the Constitution? You can't force modern values onto people that lived hundreds of years ago and say they were sexist because they didn't invite women to help draft it. It would have been sexist if they had invited women to have an input just for being women.

They got put on the bills because they were the founders, they just so happened to all be men because politics at that time was a male centered profession. Its not sexist to want to honor what they did and not take that away. And it is most definitely sexist to demand women get anything just because they are women. Everyone has to be treated equally, which means you have to perform equally worthy deeds to be worth putting on the bill.

Nobody is taking it away. I know we are having issues grasping this, but Hamilton will still be on the bills. There will just be two different bills.

Also, it is not sexist to ask a woman to help just because she is a woman. Different perspectives are very important when doing pretty much anything and an educated woman would have brought a new perspective to the table. Maybe she would have suggested giving equal rights to women. A little representation would have been nice.

Women have had equal achievements, you just refuse to admit it. Remember when they fought for nearly 100 years to have the right to vote and finally got it?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Nobody is taking it away. I know we are having issues grasping this, but Hamilton will still be on the bills. There will just be two different bills.

Also, it is not sexist to ask a woman to help just because she is a woman. Different perspectives are very important when doing pretty much anything and an educated woman would have brought a new perspective to the table. Maybe she would have suggested giving equal rights to women. A little representation would have been nice.

Women have had equal achievements, you just refuse to admit it. Remember when they fought for nearly 100 years to have the right to vote and finally got it?

You are projecting 21st Century culture and values on 18th Century people. That is one of the biggest mistakes an historian can make. There is a huge difference between American culture and values of the late 18th Century and American culture of the early 21st Century. Even if they had invited a woman to help draft the constitution there would have been no "equal rights for women" because the people of that time (women included) viewed men and women as meant for different roles in society and therefore needing different rights.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Nobody is taking it away. I know we are having issues grasping this, but Hamilton will still be on the bills. There will just be two different bills.

Also, it is not sexist to ask a woman to help just because she is a woman. Different perspectives are very important when doing pretty much anything and an educated woman would have brought a new perspective to the table. Maybe she would have suggested giving equal rights to women. A little representation would have been nice.

Women have had equal achievements, you just refuse to admit it. Remember when they fought for nearly 100 years to have the right to vote and finally got it?

You are projecting 21st Century culture and values on 18th Century people. That is one of the biggest mistakes an historian can make. There is a huge difference between American culture and values of the late 18th Century and American culture of the early 21st Century. Even if they had invited a woman to help draft the constitution there would have been no "equal rights for women" because the people of that time (women included) viewed men and women as meant for different roles in society and therefore needing different rights.

I didn't, i just pointed out that it is not sexist to ask a woman for her perspective given her different role in the world at the time. I also never said there would have been equal rights if a woman had been present, I said it may have been suggested.

Now, since we have no founding mothers, we have to look to other areas where women have made an impact. A major achievement in this country was suffrage, it was spearheaded by fearless women who faced opposition at every turn and bravely fought on despite it. Maybe one of these brave souls deserves recognition. Probably a little more than a May who wanted to make the President in to a lifetime appointment.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Everyone has to be treated equally, which means you have to perform equally worthy deeds to be worth putting on the bill.

The point is that women have done worthy things, so the absence of women on US money is a sign of bias in the selection process. And if you have a biased system denying the problem and continuing to do what you've been doing is not the answer.

Its not sexist to want to honor what they did and not take that away.

It's only "taking it away" if you make the absurd assumption that once you're put on a bill you're entitled to be there forever.

I tink once on a bill you do have the right to remain there forever. Its far from absurd.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I tink once on a bill you do have the right to remain there forever. Its far from absurd.

Alright, nobody is taking him off the bill. What is your problem?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I tink once on a bill you do have the right to remain there forever. Its far from absurd.

Alright, nobody is taking him off the bill. What is your problem?

Reducing him to a security feature might as well be removing him.

To tell the truth, I don't have money in my wallet that often enough to care whose face is on a bill. Hell, even a picture of Obama staring at himself in a mirror could be on one and I wouldn't care.

As long as it still counts as $10 I could care less.

Throwing tantrums about putting a woman on a bill seems a bit silly but I guess people need to be angry about something.

I would, on the other hand, be excited if we used Street Fighter characters on the money. Ryu needs to be on the $1 bill.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I tink once on a bill you do have the right to remain there forever. Its far from absurd.

Except, as listed before, many people have been removed from money and other people put on to take their place.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I tink once on a bill you do have the right to remain there forever. Its far from absurd.

Except, as listed before, many people have been removed from money and other people put on to take their place.

Yeah, seriously. Our money changes all the time (speaking in relative terms of course). Saying "we should keep him on because he was there" is not, and never has been, an argument.

There are actual arguments you can use, just not that one.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I tink once on a bill you do have the right to remain there forever. Its far from absurd.

So, you believe in a right that the US government doesn't agree with? Even if you ignore all of the other countries that regularly change who is on their money the US has made its own changes in the past. This "right" simply does not exist in the real world.

It might have already been noted, but we have had two women on U.S. paper money already, Martha Washington and Pochahontas:

http://www.wisegeek.com/how-many-women-have-appeared-on-us-paper-money.htm

You know they could drop Grant, if you think about it. He was a general on the winning side but in no way implemented a strategy that was inventive or even good to be honest. It was just feeds bodies in grinder, collect victory. As a president he was even worse, possibly even a failure as a president. His presidency was plagued by ineffectual nepotism.

So if you want to go with replacing somebody with equal achievements then Grant shouldn't be too hard. As the monetary value of the bill isn't relative to importance to America history, then reasonably a woman could be placed there. An individual not really worth their position on money would be replaced and everybody could be happy.

Most countries renew their coinage and bank notes fairly regularly for various reasons, including security. The new designs normally include different pictures for renewal of security.

You folks who want to live in the good old days where white men had no fear of what women might be on your money had your day. It is completely irrelevant who or what you want on your paper bills. The question is, who will VISA put on their card next? Mine has a nice neutral blue design with some shiney bits.

And yeah Grant was a pretty crappy person to pick to put on a bill. He was a drunk who could follow a straight line. A fascinating man for both his circumstances and his ability to evade them, but not exactly a paragon of heroism or valor or ingenuity or somebody one would want their son or daughter to look up to. Hell, the turncoat Lee would be a be a better pick. But damn if he didn't have a great heroic name. "Ulysses S. Grant" sounds like a space marine name.