For U.S. women, currency is power

U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew recently missed his own self-appointed deadline to announce which female American champion of democracy — Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, Eleanor Roosevelt or Harriet Tubman — would be put on the new $10 bill to be released in 2020.

While Lew’s delay is understandable given the controversy created by those who want to ensure that Alexander Hamilton, surging in popularity thanks to the hit Broadway musical, would remain on the bill, his delay is not just disheartening but politically problematic.

With Hillary Clinton vying to become our first female President, it is time to acknowledge that there’s a connection between the absence of women in the corridors of power and their absence on the bills we stuff in our wallets.

These paper notes are ubiquitous, portable monuments. We don’t visit them; they visit us, daily. In subtle but real ways, they convey esteem, and condition us, whether we know it or not, to expect certain qualities in our leaders.

As a Manhattan mother of three who studied feminist literary theory in college and then promptly, if discordantly, took a job at Goldman Sachs, I know how money translates into power. I also know, as mother to a 9-year-old daughter, that girls most certainly do take in the ways in which our democracy falls short of its goal of women and men being truly equal.

The simple fact is that the U.S. is behind many countries not just when it comes to electing a female leader, as has already happened in Germany, Canada, India, Pakistan and Ireland, to name just a few, but also in putting women on the cash that we carry.

Turns out, there’s a connection between when women’s faces appear on money and when women take the reins of power.

I’m not talking about countries that have Queen Elizabeth on their money — Lord knows there are many — or even a country putting a woman on its currency after its first female leader has served her term in office, as Argentina did after Eva Perón, the Philippines did after Corazon Aquino and Turkey did after Tansu Çiller.

I am specifically talking about England, Israel, Australia and Norway, all of whom put women on their currency, and then elected women to be their leaders.

Israel put a pioneer woman soldier on the Israeli half-pound note in 1958; Golda Meir became prime minister in 1969. England put Florence Nightingale on the 10-pound note in 1975; Margaret Thatcher became prime minister in 1979. Norway put Camilla Collett, a feminist activist and novelist, on the 100-kroner note in 1979; Gro Harlem Brundtland became prime minister in 1981. Australia put Dame Mary Gilmore, a writer and social reformer, on a $10 note in 1988; Julia Gillard became prime minister in 2010. Call these coincidences if you like. I consider them feminist awakenings assisted in part by female faces appearing in a previously male-dominated realm.

Given that the U.S. has not had a woman on its paper money since the late 19th century, when Martha Washington briefly appeared on the $1 silver certificate, is it any wonder that we have yet to have a woman in the White House?

Clinton should be judged on her merits as a candidate. I would never suggest she be elected simply because of her chromosomes. But I do believe that 227 years into our history as a republic, our culture is insufficiently prepared to accept a woman leader.

In fact, why are we haggling over which single bill gets feminized? We have seven different bills in circulation, the $1,$2, $5, $10, $20, $50 and $100. We have four women who are deserving of canonization. Knock four men who have already had their turn on our monetary carousel off. Replace them with these women — and then let’s just see what might happen next.

Put us on money — and soon