5 ms·

Assuming you haven't read about this story previously, it is true that the current monarch, who is indeed a woman, appears on all currency. However, there is a

Assuming you haven't read about this story previously, it is true that the current monarch, who is indeed a woman, appears on all currency. However, there is also a set of other people, who rotate over time and is changed. This set ended up with no women in it, and many people (including myself) considered this unacceptable.

yummyfajitas 13y ago
Yes, there clearly is some substance to the complaints, it's merely the Jezabel writer who is clueless. As for the money thing, Elizabeth Fry (who?) was replaced by Winston Churchill. I don't know the criteria, but that hardly seems to be an unreasonable choice. Could you explain why it's unacceptable? Last I checked no individual (besides the Monarch) has any right to be on the money, so I don't see why any group of individuals would have the right for one of their members to be on the money. (I also freely admit I find the whole royalty thing ridiculous. But I'm a Yankee, so when I see the British hereditary monarch visiting other hereditary monarchs, typically Arab dictators, I just don't get it.)
- drcongo 13y ago
  It may surprise you to know that roughly half the population of the UK is female. So doesn't it strike you as odd that off the people featured on the reverse of UK bank notes, we had a period where 100% of them were male? Surely I shouldn't need to explain this to someone in 2014.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    I don't understand. There are many "odd" facts (by which I assume you mean "improbable"?), but I see no compelling reason to alter them. For example, suppose there was no one on a banknote with a last name starting with a letter from N-Z. The population of people with such last names might also be 50% of the UK. Would this situation also require changing? (Incidentally, I find it less than odd, because I'm choosing a more accurate reference class. The notable enough to be put on a banknote population of the UK is probably far less than 50% female - for example, Thatcher is the only female PM. Scientists like Newton/Darwin go on money, but there are no females of their caliber.)
    - aaren 13y ago
      You mistake the population of women for some arbitrary selection. I don't think that your N-Z population will be suffering from systemic oppression. Perhaps your interpretation of uk history under represents the achievements of women? We are in a transition between a past where women are under-represented and a future in which women are well-represented equal members of society. This transition is not guaranteed to happen. Small things like ensuring the representation of women on bank notes are seen as helping this transition to occur.
      - yummyfajitas 13y ago
        I don't "mistake" women for some arbitrary selection, I don't know what principle to use to distinguish between women and other subsets of Britain. Can you explain this principle? I'm not sure what "systemic oppression" is. If "systemic oppression" simply refers to individual bad acts that apply to some subpopulation at a disproportionate rate, here is a recipe for cooking up other "systemically oppressed" subsets: choose a group of 90% people who have suffered individual bad acts, throw in 10-20% more random people. You now have a group who has suffered individual bad acts at a disproportionate rate. How does your morality/political philosophy distinguish women from other statistically similar subsets? (Note that if it does not distinguish between such groups, you get an intractible ideology - there are more subsets of Britain like the one I described than there are atoms in the universe.)
        dkoston 13y ago
        It's been clearly documented that women are subject to lower wages(1) then men and while I don't have statistics about online harassment, women accounted for 84% of potential workplace harassment victims in 2007(2) which may or may not be similar to the online harassment gap. USC also did a study noting that men are less empathetic to discrimination(3) which can cause even more harm. You argue that choosing any subset is arbitrary but it is clearly not if we choose that subset based on a set of data that shows behavior which society disapproves of (attaching criteria to our subset inherently makes it non-arbitrary). Now, you could argue that choosing women as a subset is arbitrary because you don't think that the representation of people on money should be correlated to population statistics. However, why are you arguing against correlation for pictures on money but not also arguing that nothing should be correlated to population statistics at all (or perhaps your comment wasn't perfectly written? same as the article?). In general, it seems that you are also choosing to be arbitrary as well. In addition, you seem to lack compassion for other people who are expressing their concerns about their right to live a happy life, free from harassment. Whether or not you agree with the small details in the article or whether or not they are 100% accurate is not important. If you can't read the article for the overall concept it purveys, and feel some sympathy for the author, I feel sorry for you. (1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21698522 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21698522 (2) http://www.workharassment.net/index.php/sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace.html http://www.workharassment.net/index.php/sexual-harassment-in... (3) http://www.livescience.com/2428-men-discrimination-women.html http://www.livescience.com/2428-men-discrimination-women.htm...
- barry-cotter 13y ago
  <pedant>You're not a Yankee, you're a Yank. Unless you're from New England, in which case within the US you may be a Yankee. Outside the US but in the Anglosphere you're definitely a Yank. In the Hispanophonie and possibly the Lusophonie you're a Yanqui (Yang-QUEE) or more likly a gringo. </pedant>

yummyfajitas 13y ago

Yes, there clearly is some substance to the complaints, it's merely the Jezabel writer who is clueless. As for the money thing, Elizabeth Fry (who?) was replaced by Winston Churchill. I don't know the criteria, but that hardly seems to be an unreasonable choice. Could you explain why it's unacceptable? Last I checked no individual (besides the Monarch) has any right to be on the money, so I don't see why any group of individuals would have the right for one of their members to be on the money. (I also freely admit I find the whole royalty thing ridiculous. But I'm a Yankee, so when I see the British hereditary monarch visiting other hereditary monarchs, typically Arab dictators, I just don't get it.)

drcongo 13y ago
It may surprise you to know that roughly half the population of the UK is female. So doesn't it strike you as odd that off the people featured on the reverse of UK bank notes, we had a period where 100% of them were male? Surely I shouldn't need to explain this to someone in 2014.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  I don't understand. There are many "odd" facts (by which I assume you mean "improbable"?), but I see no compelling reason to alter them. For example, suppose there was no one on a banknote with a last name starting with a letter from N-Z. The population of people with such last names might also be 50% of the UK. Would this situation also require changing? (Incidentally, I find it less than odd, because I'm choosing a more accurate reference class. The notable enough to be put on a banknote population of the UK is probably far less than 50% female - for example, Thatcher is the only female PM. Scientists like Newton/Darwin go on money, but there are no females of their caliber.)
  - aaren 13y ago
    You mistake the population of women for some arbitrary selection. I don't think that your N-Z population will be suffering from systemic oppression. Perhaps your interpretation of uk history under represents the achievements of women? We are in a transition between a past where women are under-represented and a future in which women are well-represented equal members of society. This transition is not guaranteed to happen. Small things like ensuring the representation of women on bank notes are seen as helping this transition to occur.
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      I don't "mistake" women for some arbitrary selection, I don't know what principle to use to distinguish between women and other subsets of Britain. Can you explain this principle? I'm not sure what "systemic oppression" is. If "systemic oppression" simply refers to individual bad acts that apply to some subpopulation at a disproportionate rate, here is a recipe for cooking up other "systemically oppressed" subsets: choose a group of 90% people who have suffered individual bad acts, throw in 10-20% more random people. You now have a group who has suffered individual bad acts at a disproportionate rate. How does your morality/political philosophy distinguish women from other statistically similar subsets? (Note that if it does not distinguish between such groups, you get an intractible ideology - there are more subsets of Britain like the one I described than there are atoms in the universe.)
      - dkoston 13y ago
        It's been clearly documented that women are subject to lower wages(1) then men and while I don't have statistics about online harassment, women accounted for 84% of potential workplace harassment victims in 2007(2) which may or may not be similar to the online harassment gap. USC also did a study noting that men are less empathetic to discrimination(3) which can cause even more harm. You argue that choosing any subset is arbitrary but it is clearly not if we choose that subset based on a set of data that shows behavior which society disapproves of (attaching criteria to our subset inherently makes it non-arbitrary). Now, you could argue that choosing women as a subset is arbitrary because you don't think that the representation of people on money should be correlated to population statistics. However, why are you arguing against correlation for pictures on money but not also arguing that nothing should be correlated to population statistics at all (or perhaps your comment wasn't perfectly written? same as the article?). In general, it seems that you are also choosing to be arbitrary as well. In addition, you seem to lack compassion for other people who are expressing their concerns about their right to live a happy life, free from harassment. Whether or not you agree with the small details in the article or whether or not they are 100% accurate is not important. If you can't read the article for the overall concept it purveys, and feel some sympathy for the author, I feel sorry for you. (1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21698522 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21698522 (2) http://www.workharassment.net/index.php/sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace.html http://www.workharassment.net/index.php/sexual-harassment-in... (3) http://www.livescience.com/2428-men-discrimination-women.html http://www.livescience.com/2428-men-discrimination-women.htm...
barry-cotter 13y ago
<pedant>You're not a Yankee, you're a Yank. Unless you're from New England, in which case within the US you may be a Yankee. Outside the US but in the Anglosphere you're definitely a Yank. In the Hispanophonie and possibly the Lusophonie you're a Yanqui (Yang-QUEE) or more likly a gringo. </pedant>