Money talks – and the decision to remove the only female face from Bank of England banknotes says it all
 |
| Ada Lovelace |
Since news broke that social reformer Elizabeth Fry
was to be retired from Bank of England banknotes and replaced with Sir
Winston Churchill feminist campaign groups have been in uproar, furious
at seeing their gender’s contribution to their nation further
marginalised in the history books.
It was hardly a surprising choice, seeing as how any Brit educated within the last 20 years thinks British history consists solely of England saving the world from Germans, and it says everything about just how out of touch the suited men at the Bank of England are with the people who carry those notes around.
In a rather patronising attempt to placate the masses, Britain has been promised a female understudy should Churchill’s banknote fall victim to a spike in fraud. And the hotly-tipped contestant? English author Jane Austen, often mistakenly referred to as the first writer of chick lit.
Even as a fan of the author’s books, I can’t help feeling this populist choice is a patronising, further under-valuation of women’s contribution to British history. Surely there are more worthy choices who have contributed more to the making of Britain, even to literature?
If we must have the Second World War connection, why not the lesser-known Beatrice ‘Tilly’ Shilling – the engineer who created a simple but brilliant solution to correct a serious defect in the Rolls-Royce Merlin, which powered the RAF to victory?
Or how about Rosalind Franklin, whose critical discoveries about the fine molecular structures of DNA helped the world understand how genetic information is passed on from parents to children?
And has everyone forgotten about Ada Lovelace who, as creator of the world’s first computer algorithm, is often considered the world's first computer programmer?
We’ve had iconic nurse Florence Nightingale on a banknote in the past, but heaven forbid we promote Margaret Ann Bulkley, a.k.a. James Barry, the pioneering British military surgeon who had to live her adult life as a man to successfully carry out vital work improving conditions for wounded soldiers and native inhabitants.
If we must confine women’s achievements to the creative arts, England’s first professional female literary writer Aphra Behn, philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft, social reformer Annie Bessant or revolutionary journalist Mary Anne Evans, a.k.a. George Eliot, all seem more influential choices.
It is argued Jane Austen is a relevant choice given how prominently money features in her work, but, while she is and will rightly remain enduringly popular, is she as relevant today as 10 years ago?
Adaptations of her work peaked in the ‘90s, more recently Hollywood has been showcasing the works of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Victor Hugo, who wrote of the great chasms between the rich and poor.
On that note, perhaps Jane Austen’s contemporary Elizabeth Gaskell who documented the struggles of the poor, wrote of the growing resentment between underpaid workers and overpaid masters and tensions between step families would be a more relevant choice for today’s world?
This is not to decry Jane Austen’s work, of which I am a huge fan, or devalue the fast-paced comedy, biting irony and social commentary she contributed to the world of literature.
It just seems a safe choice made by men believing they are choosing a token woman for women, instead of acknowledging a person who has contributed to their world – perhaps, even today, that would be too threatening.
Of course, if one wanted to be really radical, one could suggest there is room for more than one female candidate on the seven banknotes currently in circulation.
It was hardly a surprising choice, seeing as how any Brit educated within the last 20 years thinks British history consists solely of England saving the world from Germans, and it says everything about just how out of touch the suited men at the Bank of England are with the people who carry those notes around.
In a rather patronising attempt to placate the masses, Britain has been promised a female understudy should Churchill’s banknote fall victim to a spike in fraud. And the hotly-tipped contestant? English author Jane Austen, often mistakenly referred to as the first writer of chick lit.
Even as a fan of the author’s books, I can’t help feeling this populist choice is a patronising, further under-valuation of women’s contribution to British history. Surely there are more worthy choices who have contributed more to the making of Britain, even to literature?
If we must have the Second World War connection, why not the lesser-known Beatrice ‘Tilly’ Shilling – the engineer who created a simple but brilliant solution to correct a serious defect in the Rolls-Royce Merlin, which powered the RAF to victory?
Or how about Rosalind Franklin, whose critical discoveries about the fine molecular structures of DNA helped the world understand how genetic information is passed on from parents to children?
And has everyone forgotten about Ada Lovelace who, as creator of the world’s first computer algorithm, is often considered the world's first computer programmer?
We’ve had iconic nurse Florence Nightingale on a banknote in the past, but heaven forbid we promote Margaret Ann Bulkley, a.k.a. James Barry, the pioneering British military surgeon who had to live her adult life as a man to successfully carry out vital work improving conditions for wounded soldiers and native inhabitants.
If we must confine women’s achievements to the creative arts, England’s first professional female literary writer Aphra Behn, philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft, social reformer Annie Bessant or revolutionary journalist Mary Anne Evans, a.k.a. George Eliot, all seem more influential choices.
It is argued Jane Austen is a relevant choice given how prominently money features in her work, but, while she is and will rightly remain enduringly popular, is she as relevant today as 10 years ago?
Adaptations of her work peaked in the ‘90s, more recently Hollywood has been showcasing the works of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Victor Hugo, who wrote of the great chasms between the rich and poor.
On that note, perhaps Jane Austen’s contemporary Elizabeth Gaskell who documented the struggles of the poor, wrote of the growing resentment between underpaid workers and overpaid masters and tensions between step families would be a more relevant choice for today’s world?
This is not to decry Jane Austen’s work, of which I am a huge fan, or devalue the fast-paced comedy, biting irony and social commentary she contributed to the world of literature.
It just seems a safe choice made by men believing they are choosing a token woman for women, instead of acknowledging a person who has contributed to their world – perhaps, even today, that would be too threatening.
Of course, if one wanted to be really radical, one could suggest there is room for more than one female candidate on the seven banknotes currently in circulation.
No comments:
Post a Comment