Post: #1

Feminists not happy about this. Elizabeth Fry (a prison reformer) has recently being removed from the £5 note and replaced by Winston Churchill.

So - the Independent newspaper has asked some women for suggestions as to which other British women should be remembered in this way.

Here is this list:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entert...36860.html

What stands out for me is the one of the suggestions is a woman who won the lottery (well actually The Pools - which is a lottery type game based around football results). Bloody hell!

Quote:Viv Nicholson (1936-present)

"People don't always experience money as neutral and dependable; it can be precarious, stressful – and, every so often, a cause for celebration. Viv Nicholson became famous overnight for a huge win on the Pools in 1961. On winning, she quipped that she was going to, 'Spend, spend, spend' – a phrase that's followed her to this day. She got criticism from all sides and the tabloids really went for her. To survive all she did is an achievement in itself."

The whole list is made up of people of dubious merit. I didn't realise women have to struggle so much to think of worthy historical figures.

Reminds me of when I ask chicks to name a female genius.

They always say the same name. Try and guess which one...

.


.


.


.


.


.


.

MARIE CURIE!

Post: #2

Why doesn't the queen count? If the fems just want women on the money regardless of merit, it seems that the queen should already satisfy them.

Post: #3

The only reason there aren't more women on bank notes is because of patriarchy. If it wasn't for the oppressive males every girl could grow up to achieve her full potential by winning the pools.

Personally this is just another non-issue, the bank of England isn't going to be pressured by some newspaper moaning. You could have a national poll of who should be on the bank notes and the only thing that would change is Stephen Fry would replace the queen's face.

Post: #4

Elizabeth Fry was a bulldog. Stories always portray her as compassionate and sometimes good looking...not the case. Sure she was all about prison reform but she also kicked her husband out and divorced him because he wasn't pulling his weight and married someone of higher status. I hope they put a picture of Winston boozing it up as a replacement...and yeah, isn't the QUEEN a woman? Every woman wants hot ice.

Post: #5

Isn't the Queen on the tenner?

Edit: not the first one to realize this.

Post: #6

Not only is their cause totally idiotic, but they made it even worse by nominating the woman whose achievement is winning the lottery. Seriously, gals?

p.s. I don't know if Marie Curie is a genius, but she made an important discovery and is properly honored for it already. It is disingenuous that feminists are mentioning her on every occasion in every country. Fuck, she is a Polish woman who lived in France, that surely doesn't have anything to do with UK!

Post: #7

How about Margaret Thatcher?

Worked in STEM.

PM

Kicked ass, took names.

Post: #8

(06-02-2013 10:14 AM)JimNortonFan Wrote:  How about Margaret Thatcher?

Worked in STEM.

PM

Kicked ass, took names.

Because most women dislike Margaret Thatcher, especially the types who would start or care about such a petition.

Post: #9

Thatcher expected people to take care of themselves vs a welfare state taking care of women who are then freed up to make their lives about chasing alphadick. Ok, get it.

Post: #10

margaret thatcher is reviled by feminists.

wasn't it the case she failed to appoint a single woman as a minister in her cabinet?

Post: #11

So I guess Angela Merkel is out of the question too?

Post: #12

Alot of interesting things about The Nobel Prize.

It was set up by a Swede by the name of Alfred Nobel who made his fortune by inventing dynamite.

Anyway - towards the end of his life his younger brother died. But a Parisian newspaper got mixed up and published an obituary of Alfred Noble.

This meant Alfred Noble was one of the few people to get to read his own obituary. After a plane crash in Cuba - Ernest Hemingway was once thought dead. And he too got to read his own obituaries. And it was reported that he was pretty depressed his greatness as a writer wasn't fully recognised.

This reminds me of a funny story involving a member of the House of Lords (they are the UK equivalent of The Senate - but are appointed and not elected) here in England. A newspaper published his obituary by mistake. After no doubt dropping his toast on his newspaper - the Lord phoned up the editor of the newspaper.

'You have published my obituary, and I'm not happy!' he complained.

'I see your Lordship', replied the editor. Before adding, 'Now just to be clear, could you tell me exactly where you are phoning from?'

Anyway - back to Alfred Nobel.

He was pretty distraught that the account of his career in chemistry and industry was focused on his invention of dynamite. And he didn't want to be remembered by history as the inventor of the most destructive explosive ever discovered (this was back in the nineteenth century) which would probably go on to cause distress and destruction to millions of people.

As such - he left his fortune to the Bank of Sweden and set up a number awards for the benefit of humanity.

The focus was on practical discoveries. Which is why theoretical physics is rarely rewarded (although that will change this year with the Higgs Boson). It also explains why Einstein never received the prize for his work in Relativity (instead he won the prize for his work on the photoelectric effect - no me neither).

It also explains why there is no award for Philosophy.

The focus on practical discoveries also explains why Mathematics doesn't have it's own Nobel Prize. Instead they have The Fields Medal (which is only awarded every other year).

Now - some of the awards of the Nobel Prize are a little odd.

In 1949 - the inventor of the lobotomy was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine. Something worth remembering the next time you feel like questioning scientific orthodoxy.

And in 1978 - the Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded for the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation. Although - there is a funny story behind this which Bill Bryson has described well (he is a favourite writer of mine). It turns out that the researchers who won the prize made the discovery by accident - and instead were convinced their equipment was playing havoc with them as a result of bird shit.

http://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index...everything

As for Marie Curie. She won two Nobel Prizes. One for Chemistry and one for Physics. However - her husband - Pierre - also won a Nobel Prize. And he is forgotten about today due to his not being a woman.

It is worth remembering that whilst Marie Curie discovered Radiation. She ended up dying from cancer which was induced by the experiments she did with Radiation. So - it is another example of an important discovery whose consequences were not fully understood at the time.

Alot of the awards for the Nobel Prize for Literature are pretty controversial. With a lot of greats being overlooked. And a lot of arguably poor writers being awarded the prize.

Lastly - lets look at some raw numbers...

Number of Nobel Prizes won by women - 41

Number of Nobel Prizes won by men - 772

So clearly men are better than women.

Anyway - most of the women won their prize in the Peace category or the Literature category. You don't have to be smart to win the peace category and the literature category is too subjective. Alot of shit people have won that prize - whilst most of the truly great writers have never won it. Seriously - as an experiment - name 10 great writers from the 20th century and I guarantee you that only 1/2 of them will have ever won the Nobel prize for literature.

So - if we kick out the anomalous cases - we are only left with 17 women who have won 'proper' Nobel Prizes.

Of course - we need to kick out all the men who have won the prizes for Literature and Peace as well. I am making a rough guess here - but I think we need to kick out about 160 men.

So that means men beat women in the 'proper' Nobel prizes by a score of 612 to 17.

Which means men win 97.3% of the 'proper' Nobel prizes.

At least that is my analysis. For a clear explanation of the reasons for the differences between the sexes. Check out the following written by a female philosopher:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_10.html#cronin

Post: #13

Quote:"An all-male line-up on our bank notes sends out the damaging message that no woman has done anything important enough to appear," she says. "It is not acceptable for an influential institution to overlook women in this way."

Shut up, dyke.

There's a problem with the list of suggestions. I'll write them out with a response the majority of Britain, men AND women, will say to it:

Quote:Bridget Riley (1931-present)

"Riley is a greater influence on contemporary art than we give her credit for."

British Public: Who?

Quote:Emmeline Pankhurst (1858-1928)

"Pankhurst is known for campaigning for women's rights"

British Public: Who?

Quote:Agatha Christie (1890-1976)

"Roughly four billion Agatha Christie novels have been sold worldwide, and it would be a crime not to have this phenomenally inspiring British woman on a £5 note.

British Public: "Who?" or "She sold books, so what?"

Quote:Octavia Hill (1838-1912)

"A great Victorian philanthropist, Hill was the original Big Society person."

British Public: Who?

Quote:Mary Seacole (1805-1881)

"She was a pioneer of modern nursing and an unsung hero of the Victorian age."

British Public: Who? And don't you mean "heroine" you stupid fucking dyke?

Quote:Viv Nicholson (1936-present)

"Viv Nicholson became famous overnight for a huge win on the Pools in 1961. She got criticism from all sides and the tabloids really went for her. To survive all she did is an achievement in itself."

British Public: What the fuck?

Quote:Jane Goodall (1934-present)

"She spent more than 40 years studying the social life of chimpanzees in Tanzania and her work was revolutionary.

British Public: Who?

Quote:Vivienne Westwood (1941-present)

"If you are going to celebrate women, you might as well choose a woman who celebrates other women. I love the idea of having the Queen of England on one side and the Queen of Punk on the other."

British Public: Who?

There's 3 more and I can't be arsed getting them up. These women didn't contribute to British society or anything to do with mankind. Let's have a look at the list of who are currently on the banknotes, shall we?

Charles Darwin - enough said.

The Queen - enough said (and there's your woman on it, bitches).

John Houblon - the first Governor of the Bank of England.

Adam Smith - "the father of Economics"

James Watt - enough said.

Matthew Boulton - business partner of James Watt.

So, up there with the guy who proposed the theory of evolution that gets taught in schools today, two men that helped shape the industrial revolution to put this country and human race into the next stage of evolution, the motherfucking Queen, and the first ever Governor of the bank that produces these notes, should be lined up alongside some woman that "is an influence on contemporary art", a woman that won big on gambling and went on to live a gluttonous lifestyle, or a feminist who campaigned for women's rights? Just to make women in this country happy?

Fucking hell, that's the issue? Not the state of the economy, but what fucking people are displayed on bank notes?

Christ on a bike.

Post: #14

The article is hilarious. It is one step away from being a story in 'The Onion'.

Post: #15

It's one of the most pointless things I've seen this year.

It's so typically female, too.

"Women discuss the economy" - "We want the banknotes to be all pretty and have women on them".

That is why they are not taken seriously.

Post: #16

Now - on a spearate issue...

I have a lot of respect for Aung San Suu Kyi who has fought for democracy and human rights in Burma for the past 25 years.

But is worth remembering (and this is never reported) that in Burman - she is not just an ordinary woman who decided to stand up against the ruling powers.

She is the daughter of the most important figure in Burmese history.

Aung San Suu Kyi's father - was a Burmese revolutionary, founder of the modern Burmese army and was responsible for negotiating independence from the British Empire. He ended up being assasinated six months before independence and is today considered the father of modern-day Burma.

So - what Aung San Suu Kyi has done is brilliant. Don't get me wrong. But alot of the story is left out when her importance (due to her father) in Burma is not reported. And it is only because of the widespread popularity of her father that the rulers of Burma have never assasinated/executed her.

Don't get me wrong. She is a legend. But - I think her story is manipulated in the western media in order to turn her into a feminist icon at the expense of a clear understanding of what is really going on in Burma.

Post: #17

I totally thought this was some troll thing, since June 1 was yesterday lol. Yesterday, it seemed like it was every couple hours.

Post: #18

Nobody suggested Ada Lovelace?

Post: #19

(06-02-2013 07:32 AM)cardguy Wrote:  MARIE CURIE!

Marie Curie was born in Warsaw, a Polish physicist and chemist, who worked mainly in France. She was not British. FAIL.

She also died of cancer because she thought radioactive glow was "pretty", and kept a pile of radioactive salts next to her bed to glow through the night.

(06-02-2013 09:40 PM)Sailor Wrote:  Nobody suggested Ada Lovelace?

Exactly. They list shop keeper Vivianne Westwood, but omit the first computer programmer Ada Lovelace. The include mystery writer Agatha Christie, but snub literary great Jane Austen. The list is as daft and uncultured as the people who wrote it.

Post: #20

Huh?

Isn't the queen female then?


o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o

It boggles the mind!



I'm kinda strepped for cash right now, but the queens on every note surely. I've actually been near a £50 note before.

Post: #21

(06-02-2013 09:40 PM)Sailor Wrote:  Nobody suggested Ada Lovelace?

She's probably the only serious candidate with an important contribution to computing and didn't even get a mention. Ridiculous. Although Charles Babbage was the real pioneer at the time.

Post: #22

As an update this has now gone through and Charles Darwin is going to be replaced with Jane Austin. Evolution is not as important as pride and prejudice I guess.

Post: #23

(07-24-2013 02:03 PM)Statsi Wrote:  As an update this has now gone through and Charles Darwin is going to be replaced with Jane Austin. Evolution is not as important as pride and prejudice I guess.

It's because natural selection is cis-privilege.

Post: #24

should just put Jade goody on one and be done with it.