Which Woman Should Go on the $10 Bill?

Recently, a campaign called Women On 20s called for the US Treasury to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with a woman. The campaign got a lot of attention and its petition received enough signatures to make it to the White House. And last week, the Treasury announced that it would happen.


The decision wasn’t exactlyDT31 - P what the campaign organizers had hoped for. They wanted a woman on the $20 to replace the crusty old Native American-hating, pro-slavery Andrew Jackson. Instead, the Treasury decided a woman would replace the under-appreciated Alexander Hamilton on the less prestigious, less common $10 bill. And while the new bill will be unveiled in 2020, it won’t actually make it into circulation until a few years later.

Still, a huge victory for the campaign and an important step forward for America.

The campaign also took votes on who the woman should be. The only rule, by law, is that the person has to be dead. Here were the first-round results:

Screen Shot 2015-06-28 at 2.39.25 PM

In the campaign’s final round vote, Harriet Tubman edged out Eleanor Roosevelt for the win.

This is only unofficial, though. The actual decision will be made by the Treasury.

So let’s see what WBW readers think. Who should appear on the $10 bill? And why? (Don’t need to limit it only to the women that were part of the vote above)

You can sign up for the Dinner Table email list here to be notified about the new topic each week, and remember to submit future topic suggestions to table@waitbutwhy.com.

  • Joe Barra

    Eleanor Roosevelt and it’s not close, but I hope we move Hamilton to the fifty

  • SaraNoH

    I’m good with Harriet Tubman. But I think this list is a pretty great resource for young women to study. There are at least a couple names on there I don’t know.

    • Blrp

      As a person allergic to group think, I don’t see why men have less reason than women to know about great women.

      *cough*

      • SaraNoH

        Sorry to offend, dude. I’m cool with men knowing them too. It’s just extra empowering for young women to have lots of examples to follow.

  • Reyna

    I would love to see Rosa Parks or Eleanor Roosevelt on the bill, such iconic and influential women. I wish it could be on the twenty, because Andrew Jackson is a disgrace. (how did he make it on currency in the first place?!)

    I am however appalled that Margaret Sanger would even be considered for it. She is known for her contributions towards women’s reproductive freedom, however she is also known as an extreme racist and Eugenist… People need to be more informed about these women, we don’t need another Jackson like bill.

  • Anthony Churko

    Caitlyn Jenner.

  • TheLadyBee

    I’m surprised not to see Jeannette Rankin on this list.

  • GizmoJones

    Frances Perkins

  • Grant A Cole

    Harriet Tubman is a no-brainer. The General was someone to respect and follow.

  • Jack Claudiu

    Sasha Grey!

    • Bill

      Nah, Riley Reid.

  • Jonathan

    Harriet Tubman gets my vote… although I would be happy with all three at the top.

  • B_Fli

    I find it funny that they are keeping Andrew Jackson, but putting a black woman on the bill that is directly below the $20 bill. Almost a slap in the face to Jackson. I know Harriet Tubman isn’t for sure, but still funny.

  • I find the notion of putting Harriet Tubman on the currency that bought and sold her troubling. I vote for Rosa Parks.

  • Trevor du Buisson

    Rosa Parks. She represents a major change for the better. It’s about time a person of colour appeared in the US currency.

  • JacksonKG

    I’m surprised Abigail Adams didn’t make the list

  • Megan Keller

    Certainly all the nominees are worthy, but I’ve been dismayed that no one’s even mentioned reformer and Nobel laureate Jane Addams. She’s always been a heroine to me. Here’s a brief bio from Wikipedia:

    “Jane Addams (September 6, 1860 – May 21, 1935) was a pioneer American settlement social worker, public philosopher, sociologist, author, and leader in women’s suffrage and world peace. In an era when presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson identified themselves as reformers and social activists, Addams was one of the most prominent[1] reformers of the Progressive Era. She helped turn America to issues of concern to mothers, such as the needs of children, local public health, and world peace. She said that if women were to be responsible for cleaning up their communities and making them better places to live, they needed to be able to vote to do so effectively. Addams became a role model for middle-class women who volunteered to uplift their communities. She is increasingly being recognized as a member of the American pragmatist school of philosophy.[2] In 1889 she co-founded Hull House, and in 1920 she was a co-founder for the ACLU.[3] In 1931 she became the first American woman to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and is recognized as the founder of the social work profession in the United States.”

  • Erik Martin

    Aretha Franklin

  • Pedro

    Tim, I wish WBW could do a post reviewing the lives of these historically relevant women, in the way you did the review of former presidents’ lives. I am ashamed to say I don’t know who most of those women even were.

  • Personally (like Joe Barra, who’s already weighed in), I think that if any face should be removed from common-circulation American currency, it’s probably Grant’s face. Andrew Jackson, despite being a slave-owner and a manifest-destiny president, was one of the greatest generals and one of the greatest presidents America had during its toddler period. Grant, on the other hand, though a great general, was generally, by all accounts, an absolutely horrible president. And on the third hand, Hamilton, after Benjamin Franklin, is quite possibly the most important never-president figure who played an active role in the founding of the nation.

    And as far as I know, every face on American currency is that of a prominent figure during the nation’s birth (Category 1): Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton and Madison, a prominent president (Category 2): Lincoln, Jackson, McKinley, Cleveland and Wilson or a prominent figure during the Civil War (Category 3): Grant and Chase (Grant wasn’t a “prominent president” and Salmon P. Chase is on the $10,000 bill. He was a Chief Justice and was the Secretary of the Treasury during the Civil War…paper currency is his thing).

    With that in mind, a female figure should fit into one of those three categories, too (but, since America has never had a female president, I’m creating a new Category 2: women who had a significant role in social reform during the 19th and early 20th centuries).

    (Category 1) Prominent Founding Mothers: Anne Hutchinson, Mary Barrett Dyer, Abigail Adams and Sacajawea.

    (Category 2) Prominent women in social reform (outside abolition): Elizabeth Ann Seton, Sarah Josepha Hale, Dorothea Dix, Clara Barton, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Blackwell, Mary Harris “Mother” Jones and Jane Addams.

    (Category 3) Prominent women of the Civil War/abolition movement: Lucretia Mott, Sojourner Truth, Lucy Stone, Julia Ward Howe and Harriet Tubman.

    My top three choices would be: Anne Hutchinson, Mary Harris “Mother” Jones and Harriet Tubman.

    And, my secondary choices would be: Abigail Adams, Clara Barton and Sojourner Truth.

    Based on these six, the one I’d like to see on a bill most is: Mary Harris “Mother” Jones, and my runner up would be Anne Hutchinson (both of whom are notably absent from the “official” poll).

    (Side Note: Although Eleanor Roosevelt is no doubt a great American woman, as are Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, I think they would be all be poor choices for several reasons. Feel free to ask me why in the comments. My thoughts in this reply are already long-winded enough.)

    • Bill

      I have a really big soft spot for Grant. You’re right, he wasn’t a terribly effective president. While not personally involved in the scandals that plagued his administration, he appointed and/or trusted too many of his friends. On the other hand, he brought reforms to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and, at least for a time, ended the policy of slow genocide. He also wisely kept the nation on a gold standard after panic of 1873 brought pressure to issue more greenbacks and cause inflation, a policy which may have bought short term relief but long term hardship (see the disastrous results that followed FDR, and ultimately Richard Nixon took America off the gold standard.). This is hardly enough to justify him being memorialized on our currency, but dang it, the guy was a genuinely good, compassionate, and humble man, and, I feel, underappreciated.

      • I have a soft spot for Grant. too. Grant was no doubt a great man (and a good man). It’s just that, compared to the other choices, in my book, Grant unfortunately comes in last, certainly behind Hamilton. And despite Jackson’s policy of diplomacy, when it came to placating both the anti-slavery north and pro-slavery south, as well as the era of Native American relocation, that began during his tenure as president (many of which treaties Jackson negotiated personally with the various tribal chiefs), Grant falls behind Jackson, as well. Jackson’s pluses column is just far too long to dismiss him based on two entries in the negatives column.

        http://thehermitage.com/learn/andrew-jackson/

        http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/andrew-jackson

        • Though…as a side point…I’m not sure what “disastrous results that followed FDR” means. The Truman through the Kennedy years well into the Johnson and Nixon years marked one of the most prosperous economic periods America has ever seen…particularly Ike’s period, 53 through 60. (I don’t think Johnson or Nixon could have been half the corrupt clowns they were, without that period of unimaginable economic prosperity). Basically, I’m not sure what was disastrous.

          Though I will admit, unfortunately Carter (easily as nice a guy as Grant ever was) paid the price for that long period of economic prosperity, with the oil crisis and other cherries on top.

          • Two parenthetical remarks are ridiculous, but if it weren’t for Reagan, I don’t think Microsoft would have ever invented Powerpoint. Reagan and charts were that well linked. Google any President Reagan State of the Union Address to see what I mean.

      • And…a side point…”disastrous results that followed FDR.” The Truman through the Kennedy years well into Johnson and Nixon marked one of the most prosperous economic periods in America…particularly the late forties and the fifties (I don’t think Johnson of Nixon could have been half the corrupt clowns they were, without that period of unimaginable economic prosperity). Basically, I’m not sure what was disastrous.

        Though I will admit, unfortunately, Carter (as nice a guy as Grant) paid the price for that long period of economic prosperity, with the oil crisis and other cherries on top.

    • +1 on Anne Hutchinson – very surprised to see her not make the short list.

    • consanguinity

      Why do you think Roosevelt, Anthony and Stanton are poor choices? My thoughts are long-winded as well, by the way.

      • Good question consanguinity…I’m going to aim for a short answer…but I’ll probably miss.

        Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are both most famous for founding and leading the National Woman Suffrage Association (as well as for being temperance progressives…who led the charge towards Prohibition). Anthony, earlier in her life, as the daughter of a Quaker minister and northern abolitionist, worked with her family collecting petitions against slavery, and she eventually become the New York State agent for the American Anti-Slavery Society.

        Elizabeth Cady Stanton was also involved in the abolitionist movement, but between the two, Anthony had the larger role. And figuratively and literally, the two women nearly always worked together, Stanton supporting Anthony in the abolitionist movement and the two working together, as equals, in the temperance and suffrage movements.

        And although they were involved with the abolitionist movement and Underground Railroad, theirs were basically backseat roles compared to people like Harriett Tubman, Lucy Stone, Sojourner Truth and Lucretia Mott (by their own admission…according to their letters and journal entries). Additionally, the two ladies caused a lot of trouble in both the abolitionist and suffrage movements by opposing the 14th and 15th Amendments, as they were against providing legal protection and voting rights to African American men, without also giving the same rights and protections to both white and African American women (admirable though it is, it was completely unrealistic and counterproductive at the time, and their refusal to compromise caused serious schisms in both movements. Some might even argue that it took both causes as much as 40 years to partially recover their pre-schism political strength).

        My problem with these two ladies is two fold. First, you can’t say one was more important than the other (they’re a pair in the most literal way), and there were plenty of other people out their during their time, doing the same things, arguably better. Second, suffrage was their cause. All other causes were secondary to it; and though they did invaluable work in the name of that cause, I believe their focus was too narrow…compared to someone like Mary Harris “Mother” Jones, Jane Addams, Clara Barton, etc…all women for whom suffrage was secondary. Their path was, to my mind, also too rigid, putting them in a position where they could easily sabotage a cause inadvertently (either their primary or a contemporary secondary).

        As I missed on my short-answer aim, I’ll answer the Eleanor Roosevelt aspect of the question separately.

  • Bill

    I’m pleased with Harriet Tubman’s success, considering she’s quite the badass, but I’m pretty amazed that Jane Adams wasn’t even on the ballot. While all of these women are important figures, I think it’s fair to say that Jane Adams is of greater historical significance than, say, Clara Barton or Shirley Chisholm.

  • Jonathan

    BTW… Canada has a woman on ALL our money! 😀

  • Carol T

    Without a doubt, Eleanor Roosevelt. She did so much for EVERYONE in this country. Her wisdom, intelligence, and compassion for all walks of life during a difficult period in US history uplifted many people. My mother, who was a teenager during the depression, disliked FDR intensely, but she loved, admired, and respected Eleanor. Eleanor cared for everyone in the US and gave people hope when it was important to have hope just to get through each day. Eleanor Roosevelt is my vote.

  • Beebles

    Harriet Tubman deserves it the most, in my opinion. There are a lot of good choices though.

  • Innocent Bystander

    That list makes it shamefully clear that women were second class citizens for most of our country’s history. There are only a few that were really impactful. That women haven’t had the opportunity to help shape or lead in a meaningful way is disappointing.

  • Innocent Bystander

    I know money is limited to dead people, but I would make the case for Hillary Clinton. And before she even wins the presidency, she should be at the top of this list.

    • Jerry Bradbury

      Seconded. Our first female US president and the first US president to have sex with another US president (so she’s already been on a Bill). That’s precedent enough for me. 😀

    • Bill

      There are many noble, deeply influential, and honorable female politicians in America, past and present. Hillary Clinton is not one of them.

    • Adam

      [When she dies] I’d only think she should be on a bill if she wins the 2016 election [or another presidential election in the future]; a woman on a bill should be known in her own right, not for being married to Bill Clinton (and performing actions as the First Lady, a position inherently reliant on a man).

  • Chiel Wieringa

    Isis.

  • Savannah

    Amy Poehler? haha, but really though.

  • lldemats

    Billie Holliday, because she’s simply the greatest.

  • consanguinity

    I really think a woman of colour would be best to put on the bill… Highlighting the amazing achievements of black women and bringing awareness to racially motivated sexism in our society would really be awesome. What about Maya Angelou? An inspiration and an amazing woman. But Harriet Tubman would be magnificent as well…

  • whatsanenigma

    It’s a disgrace that they’re going to remove Hamilton. It’s not just that he’s under-appreciated as a founding father. NO OTHER person is as responsible for establishing our federal financial system. As Ben Bernanke recently put it – to understand just how important Hamilton’s contributions were, just look at the current problems of the fractious eurozone, which could have easily been our fate. By contrast, Jackson vehemently fought the national bank and would likely be mortified to be on a federal promissory note. You want to put a woman on a bill? Fine, sounds great. But not this way.

    By the way, come see Hamilton in New York this fall. You won’t regret it.

    • Eli Abidor

      Treasury Secretary Jack Lew guaranteed that Alexander Hamilton would stay on the ten dollar bill in some form or another, whether that would mean printing two bills or finding a way to have both figures on the same design. So don’t worry, your sentiment I’m sure is shared by the Secretary.

      Source (look at FAQ #4): https://thenew10.treasury.gov/faqs

  • Anonymous

    Whomever is selected, she will later be found lacking. Years from now. In a different world from ours. I hope future people will understand our selection was based on our current set of circumstances. The way we might think of Thomas Jefferson-“Without Thomas Jefferson and his Declaration of Independence, there would have been no American revolution that announced universal principles of liberty. Without his participation by the side of the unforgettable Marquis de Lafayette, there would have been no French proclamation of The Rights of Man. Without his brilliant negotiation of the Louisiana treaty, there would be no United States of America. Without Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, there would have been no Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, and no basis for the most precious clause of our most prized element of our imperishable Bill of Rights – the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Christopher Hitchens

    • Jefferson and Madison, in my book, will always belong on currency. Jackson, based on the current political climate, is controversial…though a democrat, and the founding president of the democratic party, I would wager…dollars to donuts, that if Jackson were alive today and ran on a republican ticket in 2016, he’d win…without being a hero-general during the War of 1812. (That’s how backwards political parties are by nature. 19th century democrat = 21st century republican and vice versa.)

      • Jerry Bradbury

        Hmm. Not a military veteran, I see. Generals above the rank of Brigadier must be part lawyer, part actor and almost wholly politician.

        • True, very true. (And to clarify, too, I’m in no way advocating that we hire generals or admirals as president—I like “hire” better than “elect,” by the way. I think it helps remind us that politicians work for us; they don’t lead us.)

          • Oh, and by the way, I understand that in order for an enlisted man to get into OCS, a letter of recommendation from a senator is now required. Officers have always been subject to the allure of politics, but if the OCS story’s true, now enlisted personnel are too.

  • anon

    I think if we’re going to talk feminism, Nellie Bly should at least be considered. She did loads for the feminist movement, and although her actions were not as impactful as say Harriet Tubman, but I think it would be nice to consider her, and she did pioneer investigative journalism, which,hey, was nice.

    I’m not sure, I’m not American. I don’t know what the Americans want or what they’re judging it by.

  • Diana

    I can’t believe no one has suggested Ayn Rand – with all that as dollar as the main symbol in Atlas Shrugged and so on.

    • Bill

      Individuality, freedom, and self-reliance are racist ideas!

  • Reno

    Betsy Ross

  • Zimm

    How about Sally Ride? She was the first American woman in space and had a distinguished career with NASA. She went on to teach collegiate physics and wrote many books for children, helping many young people become interested in science, space, and astronomy. She was also the first known LGBT astronaut, and in light of the recent decision on gay marriage, well, I think she would be a great candidate. Thoughts?

    • Bill

      😮 I wasn’t aware Sally Ride was gay.

      • Zimm

        I think I found out a few years ago when I was reading about her on wikipedia lol

    • Jerry Bradbury

      Oh hey, plus she has that cool song named after her, Ride Sally Ride by Wilson Picketfence or something.

  • Michael

    Lucretia Mott. A 19th century Quaker, abolitionist, and women’s rights advocate… which covers a lot of bases. She was also an early advocate for equal pay for women, which is somehow STILL a problem in our country.

  • Matt Faherty

    Why are all of the default picks political or philanthropic? How about businesswomen, scientists, or philosophers?

    My pick, though it will never happen, is Ayn Rand. She was a major literary force in the mid 20th century and still sells around her works still sell remarkably well to this day (around 100,000 copies of Atlas Shrugged each year). Though her non-fiction is wildly maligned in academia, she was an important 20th century philosopher and probably the most prominent American female philosopher of the century.

    • Bill

      What, you like Ayn Rand? You must hate poor people, minorities, and take pleasure in the suffering of others. You’re probably also a rapist. ….did I leave anything out?

      • Matt Faherty

        Yes, you did. I also worship serial killers, think smoking is good for me, and want everyone to do BDSM. Just read any Slate, Salon, or Huffington Post article on Ayn Rand for more details.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      You have to ask, “What did they contribute to the US?”

  • Rusty Shackleford

    My issue is that they should replace Jackson, not Hamilton.

  • girly freak

    Eating animal products is the slavery of our time. There would not be any sense in replacing Jackson with a not-vegan person. I don’t know who of them may be vegan, so I won’t decide.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      Please do not trivialize slavery. You believe there will be a revolution in the future, freeing all animals? Humans naturally crave meat. There is nothing natural about slavery.

      • girly freak

        As we have learned from the WBW-post “Meet Your Ancestors (All of Them)” ( https://waitbutwhy.com/2013/12/your-ancestor-is-jellyfish.html ) every animal on earth is a relative of us. What would you say, if it was your mother or father who is killed to be eaten?

        By the way it is very bad to argue that it is “natural”. Nothing we do is natural any more. We drive cars, we go to toilette, we wear cloths and – the fuck – we are ripping the animals off. They have to live in factory farming and die when they are even children or babies (in comparison to their life span in freedom) after they lived a life of injustice and harm. It is morally very reprehensible to do that to the animals just because of taste (vegetables taste good, too). There is nothing, you can justify this with.

        If there was a superintelligent species from another planet coming on earth, you’d wish they’re all vegan!

        There is a word for the way you (and most people) think: Carnism

        • Rusty Shackleford

          Humans have glutamate receptors in their tongues. It is one of the five basic tastes. Meat has a very high amount of glutamates. Please do not equate this with using toilets or driving cars, which are purely habitual.

          Why can’t I justify it? Humans are animals. Animals eat meat. End of story. But you are right, it is purely for the sake of my appetite. I am going to eat whatever I can get my hands on; I don’t discriminate.

          • girly freak

            What I wanted to say is that it would be natural to eat once a week maybe 100g meat of animals, who lived in freedom until you hunted and killed it. Today we don’t need meat any more because we have the possibility to get everything we need of vegetable food.

            People, by the way, consist of meat, too. Do you eat them?

            • Rusty Shackleford

              sure, if i had to. but i don’t have to. you don’t have to eat meat, and that’s fine. i don’t have to abstain from eating meat. until we figure out a financially viable way of artificially producing meat that doesn’t taste like a shoe, people will never stop eating it. there will never be a vegan revolution. that is what you are implying by equating it with slavery.

            • girly freak

              Ok, so you would eat people, if you had to. But you eat other sentient animals, although you don’t have to. You seem to have double moral standards.

              I am implying that this vegan revolution SHOULD come. That it (maybe) will not, is not a reason for stopping to convince people of my point of view (which is the right one 😛 ), far from it! It just says that it is even more important to do that. There was a time, when everyone talked the same way about slavery as you do now on eating animal products.

              The history of the Germans is nothing in comparison to the harm we produce by eating meat. Some numbers to show that:

              Deaths in WW2 in total: about 53 million

              Animal deaths EACH YEAR because of meat-eating people (just in germany, because I did not find the number of the worldwide deaths): 12 billion!!!

            • Humans are animals, we are a part of the food chain. All our humanoid ancestors ate meat, as we need the protein found in meat to survive. It is impossible to naturally eat something that wasn’t previously alive, as the point of eating is to collect energy from previous, energy-filled organisms. Think of lions killing gazelles in the savanna to feed on. What’s crueler, us killing an animal by shooting it, injecting it or slicing its throat, or to potentially eat it alive? Also there won’t be a vegan revolution, humans have already found a way to artificially create meat, and when it is mass produced, you can eat that instead. So any vegan revolution would be pointless as it would be short-lived.

            • Guavas

              Do you not know what the animals’ lives are like in the factories and slaughterhouses?

              I’d love to see Tim make a post about something like cases for and against consuming animal products (and the most common myths and all that), and then a civilised discussion in the comments.

            • girly freak

              First of all: Are you the real Barack Obama?^^

              Second (and far more important): Yes, humans are animals. But no, we are not longer a part of the food chain. We have devided from the need to kill to survive. So it does not matter, if our humanoid ancestors ate meat. We do really NOT need the proteins of meat. They contain cholesterol, which vegetable proteins don’t do. Actually the vegan nutrition is far healthier than the omnivorous. (some studies about that: http://www.provegan.info/eng/studies/ )

              “What’s crueler, us killing an animal by shooting it, injecting it or slicing its throat, or to potentially eat it alive?” – Us killing an animal by shooting it, is far more cruel the way we do it. As Guavas points out: Animals are treated worse in factory farming and slaughterhouses than any slave in history.

              Humans eating artificial meat – sounds good, very good. But as long as we kill animals, a vegan revolution is necessary. And for EACH animal, who is NOT killed because of one person living vegan, this makes a change. Remember you would be happy to be the surviving animal. This sounds not pointless to me.

            • Rusty Shackleford

              actually, that is where i draw the line. i do not eat sentient animals. currently that group only includes certain primates, cetaceans, and arguably elephants and a few bird species. but that is not the problem. the problem is that you equate every single death of any animal with the death of a person, and i do not.

            • girly freak

              Why do you think that just “primates, cetaceans, and arguably elephants and a few bird species” are sentient animals?

              “the problem is that you equate every single death of any animal with the death of a person, and i do not.” – I know. But why don’t you?

        • Taylor Shain

          wtf? Please take this conversation to another board… how did we get so sidetracked?

    • Jerry Bradbury

      How did we get sidetracked into the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals vs. People Eatin’ Them Tasty Animals controversy. There will be no winner there. Focus people!

    • Adam Collet

      Is there something specifically special about Animalia that makes it wrong to eat them? Are all animals wrong to eat? What about placozoa? Zooplankton? Is the dividing line sentience? You have mentioned cows being sentient … what are you using for your definition, what is your proof? Is a rat sentient? A worm? A grasshopper? What is the logically consistent determining factor for what is and is not OK to eat? What about the studies which show that plants feel “pain” (eg, they respond to anesthetics, activate defense mechanisms in responds to damaging events, etc.)? That they communicate (see here: http://www.wired.com/2013/12/secret-language-of-plants/)?

      Your brain naturally anthropomorphism things that move in a certain way or have certain basic facial characteristics. This leads you to draw magical lines in the sand that don’t actually have a consistent logical basis.

      Is animal cruelty right? Certainly not. Is there room for improvement in commercial food production? Definitely. But your claim that the eating of animals is akin to slavery is unfounded and untenable. Such ridiculous extremism is actually probably more likely to make people laugh and walk away – whereas a measured message discussing how things could reasonable be improved, and oh by the way you have the option of not eating meat too, that could actually be effective. I mean, just videos of slaughterhouses and feed mills will make a lot of people think twice.

      I’m willing to pay more for free-range chicken or cow meat. I’m not willing to stop eating it entirely, and no amount of bizarro humanization of animals is going to change that.

      • girly freak

        You bring one very interesting point in this discussion: Where begins sentience?

        I thought a lot about it and we are not able to answer that question yet. In doubt we need to assume that each animal is sentient because if a superintelligent alien visits us, we would hope, that they assume that, too, because we know, that we are sentient.

        The scientific point of view in large part agrees on at least mammals and birds (so our most common “food”!) being sentient. I can’t explain why, because even I don’t understand that yet.

        My personal point of view forbids to eat other animals, too, because we can not be sure, if they are sentient. To me it is likely that they are sentient but this is just my personal opinion. But we should not forget that there are many other reasons against eating meat.

        Without knowing it, you mentioned one of them: Plants. Imagine plants being sentient, which we can not exclude, you’re right (although the scientific point of view in large part agrees on that they are not, because they don’t have a central nervous system). Our comsumption of meat, milk and eggs is responsible for far more plant-deaths than eating the plants directly. The animals are fed with a lot of soy. About 99 % of the grown soy is used for feeding animals, which destroys the rain forest, too, because you need to grow it somewhere. Creating 100 gram meat needs about 1 kilo plants.

        And all that before talking about the consequences for our climate (consumption of animal products today causes about 51% of the CO2-output) or the consequences for our health.

        But that just needed to be mentioned.

        “I’m not willing to stop eating it entirely, and no amount of bizarro humanization of animals is going to change that.” – This is actually very biased. Till I read that, your text seemed quite reasonable. And by the way… Humanization of women and black people needed some time, too. Now nobody would say “humanization of women” or “humanization of black people” any more. (Difference of cause being – I know – that other animals de facto are not human, but this does not give us the right to do with them, what we want)

  • Sarah Loffler

    I like the idea of putting an artist on our currency. Someone like Willa Cather, Emily Dickinson, or
    Georgia O’Keefe would be nice. The French used to have a beautiful bill with Illustrations from Guy de Maupassant’s story, “Le Petite Prince.” There were excerpts from the story in microscopic lettering. It was beautiful to look at with a magnifying glass.

    • Ali

      Le Petit Prince is written by Antoine de Saint-Exupery.

      • Jerry Bradbury

        Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. Because his career as a night airmail pilot in an open cockpit was dark, windy and cold and gave him a lot of time to think about, you know, important shit, like Wind, Sand and Stars.

  • Mike Nemmers

    Leave the $10 bill alone, leave the $20 bill alone.

    Create a $25 bill.

  • Henri

    Jane Mansfield…Go figure / the woman was smart and played dumb for the camera…I bet she would see this campaign for what it is … Eh … I wonder how many slaves were in Egypt, or greek slaves in Rome. How many in England before abolition or better yet…how many slaves right now in the middle east or in the damn sex trade…why or rather WHEN will people use their heads and concentrate on something important . stop the grandstanding in this country…put my grandma on the bill….she worthy…adios

  • oh come on i dont want a name

    Girly freak it is one thing to kill the animals because you want to eat them, it is another thing to keep the animals for their unfertilized eggs or their milk. Animals live longer in captivity if they arent killed for food. The most important thing in their lives is survival, so they don’t care, they are happier in captivity.

  • oh come on i dont want a name

    oh yeah and we need meat to survive. meat has nutrients that you cant find anywhere else

    • girly freak

      First of all: Nobody needs meat to survive. Nobody who ate meat in the past ever survived 😀 They all died. And vegans have a longer and much healthier life. There is just one vitamine (B12) that we need to supplement. And we don’t have problems with cholesterin. In addition about 90% of all toxic is in animal products (this sentence sounds very stupid, I guess my grammar sucks a lot here, sorry for that, hope you understand it). I would send you sources but I just know the german ones. I guess they won’t help you, do they?

      Second: A cow living in freedom has an expectation of life of about 30 years. A milk bringing cow just of 4-5 years. So I really need to say, that you don’t seem to be informed very well.

      Third: We should not forget that a cow needs to get a baby first before it gives milk. What do you think happens with the male calfs? They are killed after their birth because they would drink the milk otherwise (the same by the way with male chicks). A milk cow has to be pregnant all the time to make them give milk all the time. Do you want to be pregnant all the time?? Would you call this happy? And after you born your baby, it is taken away from you and killed…. very happy life.

      And all this is happening in the “best” animal husbandry. You don’t even want to know the worst cases (talking about factory farming). If you think, that those animals are happy, then you should fill their shoes. Good luck.

      • Alex

        “vegans have a longer and much healthier life”

        you got a source for that claim?

        The whole point of eating vegan is to avoid using animal products because using animal products is morally wrong. Eating healthy while staying vegan is very difficult to do, and it is certainly not *more healthy* than consuming some animal products.

        • girly freak

          http://www.provegan.info/eng/studies/

          I have many other sources but they’re all german.

          • ScienceConquistador

            Lol. The site is literally called provegan. Talk about confirmation bias.

            • jonathan

              Hows this then?

              http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1627S.full

              “Vegan diets are usually higher in dietary fiber, magnesium, folic acid,
              vitamins C and E, iron, and phytochemicals, and they
              tend to be lower in calories, saturated fat and
              cholesterol, long-chain n–3 (omega-3) fatty acids, vitamin D, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B-12 (8). In general, vegetarians typically enjoy a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), obesity, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers (3)

              You can get all sorts of B-12 etc. by eating a few specially fortified Vegan hotdogs once in a while.

              Completely anecdotally, I’m vegan and my B-12 is perfect.

            • girly freak

              Each study, presented on the link, is documented with sources. If you had read, you’d know that.

      • Athena

        I used to be [mostly] vegan, by my dad’s choice (I’m still under 18), and my brother hated it, but I was all for it, and I enjoyed it, and believed it to be healthier. Then my dad, then I, read Natural Born Heroes, and discovered the Paleo (or Paleolithic) diet, and we’re transitioning to this. Basically, it’s the logic saying that our ancestors, the ones surviving in the wild, lived mostly on meat, and survived very well, and then came all our agriculture-our grains and sugars and carbohydrates, and this part of human history is so fractionally, incredibly small compared to the hunter-gatherer part where we ate almost no sugars or carbohydrates that our diets today and for the past 10,000 years or so are just very unhealthy for the human that had evolved over millions of years. Those humans back then were extremely healthy, strong, and survived, and what have we morphed into today?

        Ok, I’m not that good at explaining it. I would just recommend to anyone in the world to read Natural Born Heroes (and, kinda relatedly, Born to Run) both by Christopher McDougall. And I’m not trying to insult vegans or anything (I was one); just see the Paleo diet as something worth looking into.

        • girly freak

          Do you have studies that compare this paleo diet to vegan or maybe to omnivorous nutrition?

    • Jerry Bradbury

      How did we get sidetracked into the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals vs. People Eatin’ Them Tasty Animals controversy. There will be no winner there. Focus people!

  • dracnal

    The Statue of Liberty. She’s a woman and she symbolizes so much of what this country meant at different points.

  • Jack Torres

    H Tubbs for shiz!

  • Jerry Bradbury

    I’ve seen only one vote for Sacajawea so I’d like to change my vote from Hillary to the Shoshone woman who trekked with Lewis and Clark, saved their records and journals when a canoe capsized, interpreted for them, showed them Bozeman Pass through the Rockies, saved their lives by showing them edible roots when they were starving and all while carrying an infant on her back. Her most important contribution was her mere presence. Since no woman ever accompanied a war party, the dangerous tribes over whose territory they traveled were assured of the explorers’ peaceful intent. Not a bad reminder of courage, reliability and toughness every time you pull out a tenner.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      I think she’s still on the dollar coin. What we could do is push for greater circulation for it instead of using outdated dollar bills.

  • David

    I am a huge fan of the idea that authors, artists, inventors and explorers should be depicted on money.

    Therefore, my vote is for American artist, Georgia O’Keeffe. Bonus points if they put her artwork on the backside of the bill. (That is, if paper money is still around in the 2020s.)

  • Luisa

    No new topic? How about we discuss how Tim is really bad at keeping due dates.

    • dracnal

      There’s something ironic or prophetic about you making this post shortly before the post that went out yesterday on the main page.

      • Luisa

        I have a direct connection with Tim’s mind.
        Now that I think about it, I might actually be the monkey.

  • jonathan

    Hey, I recently got the Life Calendar. Has anyone else? I was wondering how you used it. I have school shaded in but what other ways have you found are interesting.

    Thanks!

    (Also: 100th post!)

  • Adam E.

    This is a comment for testing with a link in it. http://www.google.com

  • Cali Fornia Cat

    Abigail Adams

  • xstek99

    Madonna – Is there any other real choice?

  • Jim Mataczynski

    Golda Meir. Okay she was born in Kiow, but she was a US citizen from Milwaukee. She rose to become PM in Israel at a time when the vast majority of women were relegated to becoming teachers, secretaries or nurses at their best level (a miserably low ceiling at that time). Nowadays things have changed, but still need a ways to go. My attorney, physician and boss are women. A lot of the candidates in the national poll have a lot to do with civil rights of minorities. I have my reservation with Ms. Roosevelt as she did support many socialist views of her husband, but to her credit, she did put Franklin’s feet to the fire on more than one occasion. BTW why not a $200 bill?

  • James S.

    I know it sounds bigoted but I say scrap the idea. Why? Because, from the way I’m looking at it, it is degrading to women. They should put somebody on the dollar who deserves to be on the dollar. If it happens to be a man, so be it, if it happens to be a woman, so be it. But having to reserve a spot just for a woman to promote “equality” is in a way saying that women are not good enough to compete with their male counterparts. Now I am all for equality but this is the wrong way of going about with it.

  • gthog61

    There isn’t a woman worthy of replacing Alexander Hamilton. more tokenism run amuck

    unless we could borrow Margaret Thatcher or something

  • Brandon Lane

    Eleanor Roosevelt, first US representative in the UN, most active first lady ever, tireless campaigner of civil rights in a time when such issues were not popular yet, one of the few people openly resistant to the Japanese internment in WWII really who else.

  • 007

    1. Marie Curie
    2. Rosalind Franklin

  • Rebecca Tao

    Why can’t both be on the bill?

Home Archive