Last month, Justin Trudeau announced that a woman would be featured on the next series of banknotes, to be issued in 2018. The press has, unsurprisingly, been ecstatic.
The Bank of Canada has actually put together a council of seven people for the momentous task of determining the woman who will grace our currency. They’ve gotten some real gems, including a women’s studies professor, an author who wrote 100 Canadian Heroines (and its riveting sequel, 100 More Canadian Heroines), and a “world championship hurdler”. Can you guess the qualification they have in common?
Everything I read about this story makes me embarrassed to have a vagina.
Margaret Conrad, a tenured professor sitting on the council of seven, stated she wants to see Muriel McQueen Fergusson on the note in part because “she was the first woman to sit on the city council here in Fredericton”. Is she really a key figure in history? Was she somehow the most accomplished mid-level municipal bureaucrat of all time? Or are we supposed to be impressed because she achieved something relatively unremarkable while having ovaries?
In an interview for the Globe and Mail, Victoria-based historian (and member of the council of seven) Merna Forster stated that “she has been writing letters to politicians and Bank of Canada governors for years saying that it is unacceptable not to have a single bill featuring a woman.” Forster has even started an online campaign asking for a woman to be enshrined on a banknote. According to the Globe, “she doesn’t know who she’d choose, but she’s hoping to see someone who represents Canada’s diversity”.
Last time I checked, Queen Elizabeth was on the $20 bill. Does Forster have some earthshaking news she’d like to share with the rest of us?
This has nothing to do with fighting any kind of discrimination, and everything to do with people simply wanting to feel better about themselves for the sake of being “progressive”. This kind of checkbox diversity serves no purpose but to make these diversity-police feel better about themselves.
I can imagine people making similar demands in the future to cater to groups that are even more “marginalized”. We’ll have to have transgender people, otherkins, and furries on every piece of legal tender issued by the Canadian government.
By all means, have a transgender otherkin furry plastered all over everything printed by the government, if they deserve it. But none quite come to mind at the moment.
I would respect the movement to have another woman on our currency if these gynocentric terrorists would drop the focus on gender and look exclusively at merit. If people came forward and said “we need to put a woman on a Canadian bill strictly because of the success and achievements she has made as a Canadian” that would be fine. I don’t know that any Canadian woman has achieved as much as someone like John A. Macdonald or William Lyon Mackenzie King, but they’d at least have an argument.
That’s what’s sad about this whole situation. Women are being given consideration because of accomplishments that wouldn’t be noteworthy if they had been men. Women shouldn’t become a coddled protected class just because they lack a Y chromosome. The whole idea of forcing a woman on the banknote is just as backwards and patronizing as the idea of making your cabinet 50% female.
They want a woman to be embedded in Canada’s currency for something that’s only an achievement because we consider a vagina a handicap. Being a woman isn’t a kind of retardation (despite what I’ll admit is mounting evidence to the contrary thanks to feminism).
Honestly, I’m going to throw up if I hear “diversity is our strength” one more time. What about success, achievement or creativity? Everyone in Canada seems obsessed with appearances above all else. This effort is just about being diverse for the sake of being diverse.
We have a perverse fixation on diversity. It needs to stop.