Did anyone sign the bank note petition?(46 Posts)
I just had an email to say that the Bank of England have decided to put Jane Austin on the new £10 note as a result of the protest and petition.
I'm not convinced she was the best choice but at least they listened and changed their plans.
So what do you think of the outcome?
Yes, I signed it. I'm pleased they've changed their mind, but it feels like Jane Austin was a lazy, easy choice.
Yeah I agree that Jane Austin was a lazy choice.
Yes, I did. I'm happy they are having a female on the note but I think there women more note(haha)worthy than Jane Austin.
Glad they have changed it.
Agree they should have gone with someone a bit more unusual to show willing.
But actually, I didn't think for one minute that an institution like the BoE would give a fuck about it. So overall am very pleased
I signed it.
But I think Austen was an abysmal choice.
What is wrong with Jane Austen?
I signed & am happy.
I would have if I'd seen it.
I wish it was on a different note though, I'd have kept Charles Darwin forever.
Jane Austen is OK but the next bank note they change they should have another woman - my vote would be either Rosalind Franklin ( who should have won a Nobel prize if she hadn't died) or Dorothy Hodgkin who did win one. Both crystallographers which gives great scope for the artwork too. (OT but if you've never looked at banknotes under a magnifying glass with your DC you should )
I signed it. I agree that Austen was a lazy choice but I do think it's a real victory in the sense that representation seems to have literally never occurred to anyone at BofE before and now they are reviewing the process whereby the people are chosen. It also sends out a message that people won't put up with this sort of shit.
Oh hold on
It's on the news
So it's still going to be 4 blokes until 2017
So not a huge win, frankly.
Nothing wrong with Austen as such but as she is the only representative of women on banknotes then I would rather have had someone a little more, I don't know, groundbreaking. I'm a big Austen fan but she did write books about women marrying well as an ultimate ambition. Remember that bit in P&P when someone (Jane?) asks Lizzie when she changed her mind about Mr Darcy and she replied that it was when she saw his massive house (I'm paraphrasing) and given the political nature of the choice there are half a dozen other women (plus Emily and Charlotte Bronte) who I would have preferred.
I remember that bit well. My English teacher (female) was firmly of the opinion that the value of the property was of secondary importance to the fact it was tasteful and unostentatious, revealing that Darcy was unpretentious and more real than Elizabeth had previously believed. Just her pov of course.
Austen wrote about women's lives as they were in a particular class at a particular time. She didn't seek to glorify or condemn. It was more a study of human relationships and character development, to me anyway. She was a huge talent and her ability to represent men and women as believable characters and document their interactions in a way we still recognize today is worthy of huge respect imo.
Austen's novels aren't really about women finding husbands (although obviously that is the conclusion of the plot) and much more about social and psychological observation that resonates with us all these years later. Her secondary characters are mainly overlooked in film adaptations for reasons of time but are incredibly well drawn. Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility did one of the best jobs I've seen of bringing them out (and even she had to miss out characters like Lady Middleton). Elizabeth was joking about fancying Darcy because Pemberley was such a gorgeous house - she already knew to the last shilling how rich he was, after all! - their meeting there was the first sign of a change in him and a relaxation of his pride.
I agree, though, that there are many other women from history who also deserve to be on our bank notes. I see no reason why the BoE shouldn't focus exclusively on women for the next 50 years or so, frankly, given the deficit (pun intended) to date.
I signed the petition. I would have preferred a suffragette on the banknote.
I'm not slagging her, I love the bones of the woman, but you can't get away from the fact that her image is that of a Regency writer of
chick lit romance novels with bonnets and scoundrels. No matter how much you dissect her work and praise her character development or that marvellous way she had of putting ordinary life under the microscope, there is something fundamentally demure about her image and I think she was chosen because of her absolute lack of controversy. A nice lady writing nice stories that go on the TV on Sunday nights. Aphra Behn has been suggested as an alternate author but would fail the test of being heard of. Personally I would have liked a suffragette. Emily Wilding Davison would have been nice, given it's the centenary (If they'd thought of it a few years ago and got it in place of course) or Emmeline Pankhurst, who is undoubtedly famous (maybe they are 'keeping her in the wings' until 2028 ). Lots of worthy social reformers but I'd be happy not to have one based on having just had Elizabeth Fry. There are loads of scientists they could have picked, personally I would have gone with Ada Lovelace but I think Rosalind Franklin would have got it based on being for known.
I signed it but also think that Austen was a poor choice by the bank and 2017 is a long time to wait. That is not to detract in any way from the performance of the campaigners however. It all shows that women will not be relegated to the sidelines.
Accepting her image as Regency-chick-lit-writer-in-a-bonnet is playing into the hands of a particular brand of misogyny which labels anything homely and romantic as lightweight and a bit insubstantial. Dickens is also perfect Sunday night viewing but nobody feels his presence on a banknote is a bit disappointing or is heard muttering about whimsical lawyers with lamb chops. This would be an unfair two dimensional representation of his work.
I am grateful to the female pioneers who have ploughed new furrows at great personal expense to enable women to receive an education, attend university, work, vote, be regarded as independent beings from their husbands. And so on. I suppose I believe these shifts have been brought about by a multitude of women and no one individual can be held as the victor in chief. Plus the battle is still ongoing. I guess I prefer that the emancipation angle has been avoided altogether. A woman is on our banknotes because she had a talent and achieved something with it, something that has stood the test of time. There is nothing more which has to be said about it. The same as if she had been a man.
I am also grateful to the female scientists, doctors and nurses who have made contributions in the fields of medicine and beyond. I guess deep down (and I'm not proud to admit this) I think that scientific developments rarely happen in isolation and are often more about following on from other recent developments than anything else. I accept many scientists are innovative, imaginative and inspired. I am a doctor so perhaps this says more about what I feel about myself and my profession than anything else.
To me Austen was a genius. There is so much we can still learn from her work and so much of it the very antidote to the ills of modern life. The simiplicity, dignity, discretion, modesty, restraint, moderation, patience, tolerance, all the values which she champions in her work. On the parts of both men and women. I see so many patients afflicted by the enormous strain of modern life and their decompenstaion methods - addiction, obesity, general dissatisfaction with their lot compared with others, stress and so on, much of it leading to anxiety and depression as well as physical illness. It doesn't have to be like this, it really doesn't. While parading around in a bonnet isn't going to help anyone, the values she endorses could help most of us. And the subtle characterisation and reading of human relationships isn't just a sideline. It is human life in its very essence. Most of us will never make astounding scientific discoveries or throw ourselves under the King's horse or write a classic novel. But we all interact with others for a least some of our day, even introverts struggle with no human contact. Our relationships are pretty central to most of our lives, be they with our children, partners, friends or parents. Anyone which can teach us about that two hundred years on is worth listening to.
I signed. I think Austen is quite appropriate. She managed to make a living out of writing, which is no mean feat for women of that time. And to copy from Wiki: "her plots, though fundamentally comic, highlight the dependence of women on marriage to secure social standing and economic security".
But more women please. Anyone would think we are a minority.
When Dickens was on, the other three banknotes were also men. I don't think Austen would be regarded as a lazy/easy/don't rock the apple cart choice if there was more representation or if representation hadn't had to be campaigned for. Nobody would say "Dickens? Why not a scientist or an engineer?" because there was a male scientist and a male engineer on other notes. I'm not a Dickens fan but even if I was I would struggle to make an argument that he made a contribution greater than that of Fleming, but of course I wouldn't need to because the BofE saw fit to use them both. I think she has earned her place, I think she is marvellous but I don't think she is the best choice for the sole representation of women at a time when it actually had to be pointed out that the only woman was being replaced with a man who was against suffrage and I don't think Mervyn helped with his 'quietly waiting' comment.
I signed. I was pleased when I received the email and a bit amazed to be honest!
Don't mind the choice of Jane Austen but personally would have prefered a suffragette.
Join the discussion
Please login first.