In a "letter to the editor" of the Washington Post yesterday, Lynette Long, identified as President of Equal Visibility Everywhere (EVE) (q.v.), laments that "in this era of supposed gender equality, not one of the seven denominations of paper currency in circulation commemorates the achievements of a woman."
I think of myself as a pretty strong supporter of women's equality (enough so that I'm willing to cooperate in EVE's attempt to publicize itself a bit after its recent founding only last month), but I find this statement nonsensical. A lot of people would take it as pettifogging pedantry.
Let's look at the context: U.S. bills have indeed followed a very conservative path. The existing denominations have all been around for years, and regardless of how we've changed them in small matters of design, each of them to my knowledge has portrayed the same historical figure since that denomination's inception. Each of these personages steps right out of the decade when our country was formed, even if the importance of some of them might now puzzle some (Alexander Hamilton was the first Secretary of the Treasury). So, there is a certain tradition here.
In that context, as my wife (herself a career woman, now retired) observed, "Who, exactly, would [Ms. Long] propose?" Who indeed? Should we put Molly Pitcher -- whose historical importance could hardly be compared to Franklin's -- on a bill, or is Ms. Long thinking in terms of modern figures, perhaps an Eleanor Roosevelt, a Margaret Chase Smith, or a Tina Turner -- all of whom would certainly appear more than a little out of place among those colonial-era guys with their powdered wigs. Either way, it projects a risible image -- I'm reminded of another woman I knew some years ago, a strong femininist who even in the workplace, would interrupt policy discussions to frown verbally on such usage as "mankind" and "manpower," then wondered why she wasn't taken seriously as a professional.
Could we alter our approach to our currency, and issue a new series entirely, with a whole new set of portraits? Yes, we could, and in that context, certainly, we could consider what woman (or women) might be so honored; also what African-American, what blind person, what gay person, what Hispanic, and so on. The possibilities are endless, and unfortunately so are the possibilities for disagreement, rancor, and divisive controversy. It's something we don't need just now but in the long term, it may provide an answer. What if we decided to ussue a new series of currency every 25 years, so that more people could be represented, but no one's presence on a bill would be taken as eternal? Maybe our first woman President, who will be elected in about six years, could take this up.
Meanwhile, though, I have to note with sorrow Ms. Long's careful wording regarding "paper" currency. Obviously, she wishes to avoid the subject of coins, but that's really too bad for her cause, for two reasons. First, coins have exhibited more flexibility regarding their design; we've had the Eisenhower half-dollar, the Kennedy half-dollar, and now the no half-dollar; coins also were the first to depict a woman (Lady Liberty?). Second, as Ms. Long must be aware, women have been represented on the nation's money in the form of Susan B. Anthony and Sacajawea, both on dollar coins. Neither was a big success, but no one (except perhaps a fanatic) could argue their failure depended on whose picture was on them.
In fact, those failed dollar coins represent something Equal Visibility Everywhere ought to be celebrating -- that efforts have been made, as chances arise, to place a female portrait on U.S. currency. To me this reflects an important historical reality that is a far better lesson for our sons and daughters than seeing an anachronistic likeness of Helen Keller on a dollar bill would be -- that over time, things can and do change for the better. Thanks to the efforts of many generations, women really do have far more equality than they once did. That's a message of hope and human spirit that would be lost if we boot old Ben Franklin out of his coveted spot on the hundred-dollar bill.
Comments