Moderator: Community Team
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.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.
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 $1 bills, people would just get used to them.Phatscotty wrote:Jackson seems to garner the most negativity, and I think Hamilton is such an integral figure in America's history no way should he be taken off the 10$ 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.
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.Metsfanmax wrote: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.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.
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?
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.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
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.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.
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 0#p5349880
Belize?mrswdk wrote:I like the countries whose money has stuff like fruit and animals on it.
Are you talking about Sweden?mrswdk wrote:I like the countries whose money has stuff like fruit on it.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 0#p5349880
No.saxitoxin wrote:Are you talking about Sweden?mrswdk wrote:I like the countries whose money has stuff like fruit on it.
I guess it's possible he's gay, I just assumed it was the style or something.
Look at their little winkies!mrswdk wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:This thread is now about my large penis
Look at their little winkies!mrswdk wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:This thread is now about my large penis
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.Metsfanmax wrote: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.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.
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.
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. 
