Conquer Club

So what do you guys think? of this redesign do you think Alexander Hamilton should be demoted? which women should be added?
Now agree that a women should be on the bill.. however I really think Andrew Jackson on the 20 should be demoted he did not even like paper currency he also destroyed the national bank. Where as Hamilton created our economy and set up the foundation for a good economy. so what do you guys think?

Jackson was actually a President, you don't demote a President if there's someone you can demote instead.

Jefferson has both the 5-cent coin and the $2 bill. Why couldn't a woman have had both sides of one of those.

Jackson seems to garner the most negativity, and I think Hamilton is such an integral figure in America's history no way should he be taken off the 10$ bill. If anything, like Mets said about Jefferson and the 2$ bill, we could do that. The 2$ bill is kind of a novelty, but the iconography on the 2$ is also very important. I knew a guy who always took his pay in 2$ bills so he could spend them and people would want to talk about them and what it represented. However upon changes to our currency I think the colorizing of our bills was bad enough as well as what it meant (death of the greenback). How about we just stick to the coins?

Overall, this 'woman!' stuff is hardcore PC. Yes women have been an continue to be important, but it doesn't mean that we change the world and it's nature at the time of our founders. Changing our past and where we come from even as part of humanity as a whole is to lose sight of the very reasons and purpose for our existence.

We already have women on money, even though many young people seem to act like we don't and 'it's time that we do!' I don't know what more is supposed to accomplish. However, one woman in particular who is highly deserving of the honor is Abigal Adams. And so long as the American trinity value system is still displayed on every piece of money...
Liberty
In God We Trust
E.Pluribus Unum

i think that greenbacks will always be used as there more of a convenice to use if i agree abigial adams is under aprecated as a founding person. I really just want Jackson gone good for him being presdient thats about where his accomplishments stop. he created the trail of tears in definace to the courts. also the 2 dollar bill is not used enough to keep everyone happy it would be like the 2 coins you posted above.. they just where not used. Jackson needs to go

Martha Stewart or Martha Washington. Both those bitches were straight up gangsters.

Phatscotty wrote:Overall, this 'woman!' stuff is hardcore PC. Yes women have been an continue to be important, but it doesn't mean that we change the world and it's nature at the time of our founders. Changing our past and where we come from even as part of humanity as a whole is to lose sight of the very reasons and purpose for our existence.

You know, the reason why none of the Founding Fathers are women isn't that women were stupid in the 1780s, it is that women weren't allowed to participate in politics (by men). Being reminded of this status by a slate of men on our money should be an embarrassment, not something to be proud of; we should never revel in the fact that there was a time when women were expected to be nothing more than housewives.

I mean, if you think that the purpose for our existence includes men doing great things and women cleaning up after them, I suppose at least you're being consistent. But if you believe that in principle a woman who has the same set of skills and talents as a man should be permitted to do anything the man is permitted to do, then we should not glorify this aspect of the past. The alternative is to argue that it was a good thing that, once upon a time, men forcibly restricted women from doing things they were perfectly capable of doing, purely because of social norms. Are you taking the position that it was a good thing, because if we didn't do that, we might not have developed as a society?

Phatscotty wrote:Jackson seems to garner the most negativity, and I think Hamilton is such an integral figure in America's history no way should he be taken off the 10$ bill. If anything, like Mets said about Jefferson and the 2$ bill, we could do that. The 2$ bill is kind of a novelty, but the iconography on the 2$ is also very important.

My solution would just be to print a crapload of $2 bills. There's no particularly good reason that we don't use them often, and if the Treasury printed (say) half as much money in $2 bills as in $1 bills, people would just get used to them.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Overall, this 'woman!' stuff is hardcore PC. Yes women have been an continue to be important, but it doesn't mean that we change the world and it's nature at the time of our founders. Changing our past and where we come from even as part of humanity as a whole is to lose sight of the very reasons and purpose for our existence.

You know, the reason why none of the Founding Fathers are women isn't that women were stupid in the 1780s, it is that women weren't allowed to participate in politics (by men). Being reminded of this status by a slate of men on our money should be an embarrassment, not something to be proud of; we should never revel in the fact that there was a time when women were expected to be nothing more than housewives.

I mean, if you think that the purpose for our existence includes men doing great things and women cleaning up after them, I suppose at least you're being consistent. But if you believe that in principle a woman who has the same set of skills and talents as a man should be permitted to do anything the man is permitted to do, then we should not glorify this aspect of the past. The alternative is to argue that it was a good thing that, once upon a time, men forcibly restricted women from doing things they were perfectly capable of doing, purely because of social norms. Are you taking the position that it was a good thing, because if we didn't do that, we might not have developed as a society?

Who said women were stupid? Oh, you implied that. Anyways, I think there is more to it than 'men banned women!' There is also the fact that more families had more children back then. I believe John Adams had at least 5 children. Mothers mostly stayed home to raise their children, but they did far more than just be a 'housewife' They educated their children, not only in the schoolbook sense but also about agriculture and firearms and the Bible as well as many more thousands of things. There is also the fact that 2 working parents were not regularly needed to make ends meet, and usually 1 working person could sustain a large family. So, it's a good thing you say that now it takes twice as much work by twice as many people just to make ends meet in modern times? Obviously, children are suffering in modern times and they normally spend more time with a public school teacher or babysitter than they do their own parents. That's not really such a good thing. But of course and as always I will point out the mistake of judging a century prior by today's standards. In the 1700's, there were no machines, no computers, no telephones, no MRI's etc. Women were born into and adhered to the gender roles that were necessary for survival in the old world, and nobody knew any better or worse because that's the way it's always been since the man went out hunting for food the family could survive on and the woman stayed with the children because there was no other way to go about it. Men are evolved to be better hunters and more strength, and women are evolved to be better with children and share love and learning.

Nobody I know is glorifying these things. You Mets are the only one I have ever heard say anything like that. Rather in my own words I would say these things at least need to be respected and understood. And must be pointed out when you and many others actually do take the tone that the old world was unfair for women and even go so far as to demonize men and a 'patriarchal' society, and implying men are bad for making it unfair and now we need to make it up by putting another female on our currency.

That's nature, that's humanity, that's evolution, that's gender duality.

targetman377 wrote:i think that greenbacks will always be used as there more of a convenice to use if i agree abigial adams is under aprecated as a founding person. I really just want Jackson gone good for him being presdient thats about where his accomplishments stop. he created the trail of tears in definace to the courts. also the 2 dollar bill is not used enough to keep everyone happy it would be like the 2 coins you posted above.. they just where not used. Jackson needs to go

Many casinos around here (you may know) don't take $20's or at least keep them face down. However, Jackson and his accomplishments while tarnished by his actions elsewhere do include great feats indeed. Andrew Jackson is the only president in US history to have an era named after him, there are many reasons for that but probably none bigger than defeating the central bank.

Phatscotty wrote:Who said women were stupid? Oh, you implied that. Anyways, I think there is more to it than 'men banned women!' There is also the fact that more families had more children back then. I believe John Adams had at least 5 children. Mothers mostly stayed home to raise their children, but they did far more than just be a 'housewife' They educated their children, not only in the schoolbook sense but also about agriculture and firearms and the Bible as well as many more thousands of things. There is also the fact that 2 working parents were not regularly needed to make ends meet, and usually 1 working person could sustain a large family.

And the reason that the person who stayed home and educated the children had to be the woman was...? We're not talking about Stone Age circumstances here. We're talking about women whose husbands were in many cases themselves politicians, or accountants, or lawyers -- not exactly jobs that require a lot of he-man strength. Why couldn't some men have stayed home and raised the kids, and some women have been the breadwinners at jobs whose titles weren't "seamstress?" Rhetorical question: the answer is because they weren't allowed to. Even if both people in the marriage wanted that, it wouldn't have been condoned by the society of the time; and most of the time, they didn't both want that, because they had been trained to think that women did one thing and men did another thing.

Your response is that both things were important to helping society advance. My response is, what if you are born a woman who doesn't want to help society advance in the way that society tells you that you have to? Doesn't freedom have any meaning? And why did it have to be women who always did one thing and men who did the other, as long as it got done? By the late 1700s, there were plenty of ways to be gainfully employed that didn't involve chopping down trees.

Caitlyn Jenner...roflmao jk
Who really cares it will all spend the same.

As long as it's not Hillary

In Great Britain they only have women on their currency.

I like the countries whose money has stuff like fruit and animals on it.

mrswdk wrote:I like the countries whose money has stuff like fruit and animals on it.

Belize?

mrswdk wrote:I like the countries whose money has stuff like fruit on it.

Are you talking about Sweden?



I guess it's possible he's gay, I just assumed it was the style or something.

-----SALLY ST.CLAIRE..America's own MULAN..THE FIRST AMERICAN WOMAN SOLDIER(dressed like a man)...TO DIE FOR OUR FREEDOM....IN BATTLE..(Battle of Savannah,1778)..WE know about Patriots like Nathan Hale....But a real hero to die in battle,a woman no less...Back then she kept being a man a secret. Found out, on account of her death... She has remained hidden in American History books....SURPRISE...ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

saxitoxin wrote:

mrswdk wrote:I like the countries whose money has stuff like fruit on it.

Are you talking about Sweden?



I guess it's possible he's gay, I just assumed it was the style or something.

No.

Hong Kong* and Uganda were the ones that sprang to mind.







I'm sure I've seen other places that had person-less money as well though.

*okay, not a country, but has its own money

mrswdk wrote:

Look at their little winkies!

mrswdk wrote:

Look at their little winkies!

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Who said women were stupid? Oh, you implied that. Anyways, I think there is more to it than 'men banned women!' There is also the fact that more families had more children back then. I believe John Adams had at least 5 children. Mothers mostly stayed home to raise their children, but they did far more than just be a 'housewife' They educated their children, not only in the schoolbook sense but also about agriculture and firearms and the Bible as well as many more thousands of things. There is also the fact that 2 working parents were not regularly needed to make ends meet, and usually 1 working person could sustain a large family.

And the reason that the person who stayed home and educated the children had to be the woman was...? We're not talking about Stone Age circumstances here. We're talking about women whose husbands were in many cases themselves politicians, or accountants, or lawyers -- not exactly jobs that require a lot of he-man strength. Why couldn't some men have stayed home and raised the kids, and some women have been the breadwinners at jobs whose titles weren't "seamstress?" Rhetorical question: the answer is because they weren't allowed to. Even if both people in the marriage wanted that, it wouldn't have been condoned by the society of the time; and most of the time, they didn't both want that, because they had been trained to think that women did one thing and men did another thing.

Your response is that both things were important to helping society advance. My response is, what if you are born a woman who doesn't want to help society advance in the way that society tells you that you have to? Doesn't freedom have any meaning? And why did it have to be women who always did one thing and men who did the other, as long as it got done? By the late 1700s, there were plenty of ways to be gainfully employed that didn't involve chopping down trees.

I'd say because of testosterone which goes to many things. A man was and is more able to fend off/scare would-be cheats and thieves, and more able to stand their ground when it came to dealing with other men. I don't totally disagree with you here, just wanted to point out other reasons. Much of this rests on the fact that civilization has not always been so civil. Sure, many/most things a woman can do as well, but that isn't the only thing to consider. A woman may be able to work some certain job a man normally did, but what about when it comes payday, and that woman has money in her pocket and leaves to go wherever they go.... Other people see that, some of them see an easy/easier target to rob, granted it's likely they can be overpowered by men almost any time men felt like it. There was a reason women did not walk alone, and it's the same reason why when a rape occurs it's almost always a man raping a woman. Men are generally stronger. Not always, but almost always.


The late 1700's in Europe and the late 1700's in New England or anywhere else are very different things. However, for a woman who didn't want to help society advance in the way society progressed, there's a reason prostitution is the world's oldest profession.


Overall I'm just more of a 'happy for how far we have come' kind of person, I don't get into the negativity and blame and the daily reminders of how racism/sexism still exists. I'm not about to start complaining because a woman can get laid whenever they want and it's unfair that's dudes can't. So long as there are human beings, racism and sexism will exist, one way or another. What we know as sexism today is a luxury in the whole of human history. I agree there are many areas and many ways things can and should be leveled, but I also agree things can and usually are blown out of proportion and taken too far.

-----Let's remove the Slave Owner WASHINGTON(Should have freed his slaves in 1776. If he believed in what he was fighting for.)(Maybe that would have sparked others and we could have avoided The Civil War)... The drunk/promoter of genocide for gold...GRANT(Chose gold and trying to please the popular kids,like a teenage girl,...over humanity...)...They made their choices and are rewarded greatly for them...You think they would offend all the PCs out there. Then again most Americans,don't know or care about their history... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...Washington is the first elected Pres. Our real first leader/pres. Was John Hancock... He was head of the country(Pres. of The Cont. Cong.) the day we declared our Independence. So Hancock is our first real president....Just like our youngest is Teddy Roos. ...Kennedy is our youngest elected pres.