Big Guy Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 I think my mother would be a good choice. She was a true blue Canadian and certainly had the respect for a dollar! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Good grief, Is this our choices for women? There has to someone other than a couple old hippies - isn't there? Maybe Kim Campbell. I know she was never elected as prime minister, but she was prime minister and that speaks to many other preceding accomplishments. Too bad Joni didn't run for PM. She'd have won in a landslide, we could slap her on bill, and we could celebrate by drinking a case of Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Putting a performer or artist of any sort on our currency is just plain stupidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Putting a performer or artist of any sort on our currency is just plain stupidity. I'll pop some corn, open a beer and wait to see how you propose to back up that statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 I'll pop some corn, open a beer and wait to see how you propose to back up that statement. Easy! It's called an opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Easy! It's called an opinion. And apparently your opinion is that someone who has artistic ability and success is not valuable enough to put on our money, but Kim Campbell is. My, my. Tell us what Campbell did, if you please, to warrant such notoriety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 And apparently your opinion is that someone who has artistic ability and success is not valuable enough to put on our money, but Kim Campbell is. My, my. Tell us what Campbell did, if you please, to warrant such notoriety. That's right! I would consider Terry Fox based on his worldly contributions, but a singer? That's embarrassing...that really shows that we have no realistic ideas. But, if we're gonna do celebs, why not M.J Fox, Shattner or Don Cherry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 How about a heart with the word mom in it? Surely that's as valid as a proponent of eugenics or a 60's burnout folk singer, but no doubt there are plenty of good choices available, not that it matters to most, it's another empty gesture, it's what liberals seem to be best at. War memorials are symbols we don't need, but a picture of a woman most will likely never have heard of on money most of us don't use is somehow important, yawn. You only need to look at the kind of people here that this seems to impress to know how unimportant it truly is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 How about a heart with the word mom in it? Surely that's as valid as a proponent of eugenics or a 60's burnout folk singer, but no doubt there are plenty of good choices available, not that it matters to most, it's another empty gesture, it's what liberals seem to be best at. War memorials are symbols we don't need, but a picture of a woman most will likely never have heard of on money most of us don't use is somehow important, yawn. You only need to look at the kind of people here that this seems to impress to know how unimportant it truly is. Nicely said! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 How about a heart with the word mom in it? Surely that's as valid as a proponent of eugenics or a 60's burnout folk singer, but no doubt there are plenty of good choices available, not that it matters to most, it's another empty gesture, it's what liberals seem to be best at. War memorials are symbols we don't need, but a picture of a woman most will likely never have heard of on money most of us don't use is somehow important, yawn. You only need to look at the kind of people here that this seems to impress to know how unimportant it truly is. "Burn out folk singer"? Apparently you are a little slow when it comes to Canadian culture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Nicely said! I wouldn't be surprised to hear both of you boys are the type to have taty's of Mom with a heart thru it on your forearms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 I wouldn't be surprised to hear both of you boys are the type to have taty's of Mom with a heart thru it on your forearms. You really need to work on your trash talking skills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 "Burn out folk singer"? Apparently you are a little slow when it comes to Canadian culture. If it's about "Canadian culture", I'd rather choose Anne Murray. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 You really need to work on your trash talking skills. That's the last thing I wish to work on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 If it's about "Canadian culture", I'd rather choose Anne Murray. What did you think faces on Canadian money was about in the first place, if not our culture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 (edited) No, an example of the perfect solution fallacy would be: We shouldn't put women for the sake of women on money because there would still not be enough non-christians for the sake of being non-christians, or non-whites for the sake of being non-white. That isn't my position. My position is that the whole thing is sexist and wrong. Ah.So you think we should just continue to put men on the bills as in the past ... ? But that would be sexist and wrong! How do we correct sexism? . Edited March 15, 2016 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 (edited) If it's about "Canadian culture", I'd rather choose Anne Murray.Sorry. No live women.They have to be dead at least 25 years, I think. Except the Queen ... Edited March 15, 2016 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Ah. So you think we should just continue to put men on the bills as in the past ... ? No, I think we should take the Pakistan approach. But that would be sexist and wrong! How do we correct sexism?. It is sexist and wrong to base decisions on what is between someone's legs. Male or female, shouldn't be a criteria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 (edited) No, I think we should take the Pakistan approach. It is sexist and wrong to base decisions on what is between someone's legs. Male or female, shouldn't be a criteria. Obviously, as far as faces on the money, gender has been a criteria for over a century.How would you suggest we correct that existing sexism? . Edited March 15, 2016 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Obviously, as far as faces on the money, gender has been a criteria for over a century. No, heads of government/state have been the criteria. Thus the Queen + former Prime Ministers. How would you suggest we correct that existing sexism? Paskistan's approach. Remove all humans from money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Obviously, as far as faces on the money, gender has been a criteria for over a century. How would you suggest we correct that existing sexism? . There is no sexism involved. The figures on the bills are people who, in Canada's history, contributed to the building of this country No woman contributed much, compared to many men. That WAS due to sexism, of course. In a patriarchal society women were not rulers or generals - except members of Royalty. They didn't run huge business, and often weren't even employed outside the home. That is why scouring through Canada's history trying to find a woman who had anything like the influence of any number of men is futile. What woman influenced Canada as much as Lester Pearson? And he's not on any bill. And who is this woman going to replace? Most likely Robert Borden, who led Canada through WW1, an era where we were transformed from still something of a colony to an independent nation, and the PM who introduced universal suffrage, giving women the vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 There is no sexism involved.??? The figures on the bills are people who, in Canada's history, contributed to the building of this country No woman contributed much, compared to many men. That WAS due to sexism, of course. Precisely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Paskistan's approach. Remove all humans from money. Sounds like a good idea. You can propose that. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 (edited) ??? Precisely. I don't think anyone would question there used to be sexism in society. But putting a woman on a bill simply because she's a woman is sexism now unless it can be demonstrated that she deserves the honour more than Robert Borden or Lester Pearson or others who built and shaped this country. It's actually quite patronizing. When I ask women I know about putting a woman on a bill their usual response it to roll their eyes and say something like "Like I give a damn". Edited March 15, 2016 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Is there some objective measure of who deserves it most? Of course not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.