I'm not sure how to word this, but there's just something so, I dunno, fake about things like this. Let me be clear, I'm not against this; it's not a big deal and it's actually kinda fun to mix things like currency up sometimes. But the whole thrust of the change and the motivation behind it really kinda accents a problem I've always had with progressive, I dunno, "stunts" like this. I mean, the fact that we say "we're going to put a woman on a bill to be more inclusive" seems to push a "women are equal to men" narrative. I mean, that's that heart of it. And I don't disagree. But at the same time, doesn't that really do the opposite? The fact that we have to make a point to include women? The fact that women only get the representation they deserve when the higher ups decide it's time to? I dunno, it kinda lessens the whole thing. The point is, feminists will no doubt treat this as a victory over patriarchal norms. But was it? Who are they kidding. As they'll tell gladly remind you, old white guys still run this country. There's no way this idea went anywhere without the approval of very power system they claim to be fighting against. And so their "victory" over the old boys club actually came down to, as it always does, convincing the old boys club to approve of their change. Which really only reinforces the old power dynamic. Kinda like the civil rights movement. Congress at the time was dominated, like today, by white people. So the only real accomplishment of the movement was convincing the majority of the white guys in power to sympathize with them. They'll never outright say it, but that's all any progressive movement boils down to. It's not a "hard fought battle against injustice." It's a battle to convince enough white guys to sympathize with your cause that something actually changes. Until the traditional power demographics in the country (wealthy, straight, white males) relinquish enough of their hold that things can get done without their general approval, this will always be the case. And we are going that way. Every socially progressive law passed by the traditionally powered government is a step closer. And, given no law is passed without their approval, when it happens, it will only be because those demographics in power gave it up willingly. I guess my main point is what I said earlier. All progressive movements that act to disrupt the old power dynamic are basically undermined by the fact that they have to appeal to the very power system they are fighting against to get anything done. If they didn't, there would be no need for a struggle in the first place. It's almost a Catch 22. We want to lesser men's grip on certain facets of society, but we can only do that making use of men's grip on society. Eventually, men will willingly lessen their grip enough that we don't have to fight anymore. Replace "men" with any other SLW boogeyman, and you've got every social movement in the history of the United States.