TIME Military

Female Army Ranger Grads Are Among Nation’s Top Soldiers, But Can’t Fight

"150420-A-CR195-196"
Army / Dacotah Lane This class of would-be Rangers training at Fort Benning, Ga., was the first to include women.

The pair earned an elite warrior designation, but have no place to use it...yet

“What if you gave a war and nobody came?” was the adage uttered amid dwindling public support for the Vietnam War.

This weekend it’ll be replaced with “What if you’re an Army Ranger, but can’t fight?”

That’s because a pair of Army women will graduate Friday from the service’s grueling 62-day Ranger course and earn the prized Ranger tab. That storied black-and-gold patch places them among the nation’s top soldiers (only 3% of their male counterparts have earned it throughout Ranger history). But despite the accomplishment, they’re still barred from direct ground combat, which is the Rangers’ raison d’être.

Earning the tab isn’t a key into the 75th Ranger Regiment, the Army’s top light-infantry outfit, often deployed on the service’s riskiest missions. It simply means they’re eligible for an assignment into that exclusive unit. Pentagon policy currently bans women from serving in direct ground combat slots, which include infantry—like the Rangers—as well as armor, most artillery, and special-operations units.

But the pair’s graduation is a significant crack in the wall keeping women formally off the battlefield. “This is an historic, path-breaking achievement by two exceedingly fit, determined, and professionally competent women who literally `rucked up’ and `walked point’ for their gender,” says one-time Ranger David Petraeus, who went on to wear four stars.

Soldiers who earn the Ranger tab wear it high on their uniforms’ left shoulders for the rest of their careers, though in the past not all male graduates went on to serve as Rangers. Many troops specializing in aviation, intelligence or other career fields will never be able to serve in a Ranger unit, but that tab places them among the Army’s finest warrior-leaders and is seen as a first-class ticket to future promotions.

Ranger School is the Army’s top combat leadership course, and teaches Rangers how to overcome fatigue, hunger, and stress to lead troops during small-unit operations, the very heart of warfare. It’s no Boy Scout camp, according to General David Perkins, the Army’s top trainer. “Most people in the Army don’t go to Ranger School. Most of the males don’t want to go to Ranger School,” he said recently. “Most of the males that do go to Ranger School fail.”

The Columbus Ledger-Inquirer, the local paper near the Ranger School at Fort Benning, Ga., identified the women as 1st Lieutenant Kristen Griest, a military police officer from Orange, Conn., and Captain Shaye Haver, an AH-64 Apache helicopter pilot from Copperas Cove, Tex. The two soldiers, both West Point graduates, find themselves in a limbo created by the Pentagon as it grapples with integrating women ever more deeply into the military’s combat units. It’s basically trying to amass a stockpile of Ranger-tabbed women believing the Pentagon will lift that ban early next year.

Responding to a 2013 order from then-defense secretary Leon Panetta that all military jobs should be open to women in 2016, the services have been conducting tests over the past two years to see if women can handle the dirtiest, most demanding ground combat assignments. While the services may, in the coming months, seek to keep some jobs male-only, the final decision will be made by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter in January.

"Ranger Course"
Army / Paul SaleThe Army’s first co-ed Ranger course begins training.

Skeptics of the move to open up combat slots to women say that while there is no doubt some women can serve in front-line units, there won’t be enough to achieve a “critical mass” to make them a true part of combat units. They fear unit cohesion—the glue that binds soldiers together in battle—will weaken amid sexual dynamics in co-ed front-line units. Male troops can be ordered into combat—will women face that same requirement? And will they have to register for the draft?

The pending female Rangers has generated polarized debates across many military-related websites. Proponents say women have been in combat for decades, and that their ability to attend Ranger School simply recognizes the changing combat realities that have blurred the front lines in warfare. The growing role of women in combat, they maintain, isn’t that much different from the racial integration of the ranks that took place after World War II, or the recent change that allows openly gay troops to serve. Critics insist standards have been eased, often on the sly, to let more women serve in combat roles.

The Ranger course, spread over Army posts in Florida and Georgia, includes arduous assignments in woods, mountains and swamps. It includes many physical requirements, including 49 push-ups, 59 sit-ups, a five mile run in 40 minutes, and six chin-ups; a swim test; a land navigation test; a 12-mile foot march in three hours; several obstacle courses; four days of military mountaineering; three parachute jumps; four air assaults on helicopters; multiple rubber boat movements; and 27 days of mock combat patrols.

“This course has proven that every soldier, regardless of gender, can achieve his or her full potential,” Army Secretary John McHugh said. “We owe soldiers the opportunity to serve successfully in any position where they are qualified and capable.”

"150420-A-HD818-502"
Army / Antonio LewisThe Army’s first co-ed Ranger course.
TIME politics

See the Original Document That Got American Women the Right to Vote

The 19th Amendment was ratified 95 years ago, on Aug. 18, 1920

U.S. National Archives

The struggle for women’s right to vote in the United States was a long one: It began pretty much as soon as the country came into existence, continued as suffrage was expanded within the male population, neared completion as the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was passed in June of 1919 and was finally victorious 95 years ago today, on Aug. 18, 1920.

It was then that Tennessee ratified the Amendment—thus putting it over the three-quarters mark it needed to become a Constitutional Amendment. It was certified by the Secretary of State within days. This document, which is held in the U.S. National Archives (and which you can zoom in on by rolling over it with your mouse, or tapping on mobile), is the Congressional resolution that originally proposed “an amendment to the Constitution extending the right of suffrage to women.”

TIME India

A State in India Just Outlawed Witch-Hunting, but Many Fear That Won’t Stop the Practice

INDIA-CRIME-WITCHCRAFT
STR—AFP/Getty Images Indian police talk to villagers after five women accused of practicing witchcraft were killed in Kanjia village in India's eastern Jharkhand state on Aug. 8, 2015

Women are often killed for allegedly practicing witchcraft

Earlier this month, a group of local youth in the Indian village of Kajiya Maraytoli in the eastern state of Jharkhand dragged 53-year-old Etwaria Kholkho out of her home and accused her of being a witch.

They demanded she identify the other witches in the village, the Indian Express newspaper reported, following which she named her mother Ratiya Kholkho and three others — 55-year-old Madni Kholkho and 40-year-old Tetri Kholkho (both unrelated to the first two women) as well as Jasinta Toppo, also 40.

The five women were then brought together and publicly beaten to death by a mob of around 50 people with sticks, bricks and stones. The Aug. 7 lynching followed a meeting of village residents to discuss the recent ill health of several villagers and their animals, triggered by the death of a 17-year-old boy a few days earlier that a “sorcerer” from a neighboring village had allegedly blamed on witchcraft.

The killing came two weeks after a 63-year-old woman in the northeastern Indian state of Assam was beheaded in broad daylight after being accused of bringing bad luck to the village through witchcraft.

These incidents are far from rare, but simply the latest occurrences in the ever-present practice of witch-hunting across the South Asian nation. In Jharkhand, where the five women were killed, data from India’s National Crime Records Bureau shows that 220 people have been murdered for witchcraft between 2008 and 2013 — the most of any Indian state. The problem is far more widespread, though, with the Indian government reporting nearly 2,300 deaths of alleged “witches” nationwide since the year 2000.

“These are happening in remote areas where life is hard,” Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia Director for Human Rights Watch (HRW), tells TIME. “When people are living in really harsh circumstances where they’re pretty much on the edge of subsistence or when a challenge occurs that they cannot help, they start looking for people to blame — whether it’s a poor crop or ill health,” she says, comparing the Indian phenomenon to burnings at the stake in medieval Europe.

In Assam, where the elderly woman was beheaded last month and where more than 100 women have been killed in the past six years, the state legislature last Thursday unanimously passed a law making witch-hunting a criminal offense — a much stricter version of laws that already exist in several other states, including Jharkhand. The Assam Witch Hunting (Prohibition, Prevention and Protection) Bill, introduced in the state assembly on Monday, mandates a jail term of between three and seven years for branding any person a witch, which may be extended to life imprisonment if the person is driven to commit suicide as a result of being labeled a witch.

“It is a good bill, many innocent people are being killed so we want to pass this bill,” Jadav Chandra Deka, an Assam state legislator from the Bharatiya Janata Party, which India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi also represents, said in an interview soon after the bill was tabled in the assembly and three days before it was passed. Deka adds that he expects the law to lead to a reduction in crime.

“The general laws often cannot convict these criminals,” he said, citing the provision of special courts included in the bill that will enable witch-hunting cases to be fast-tracked and made nonbailable. “It will take a shorter time for conviction,” the lawmaker says, “It will be more vigorous.”

However, many experts have their doubts.

“The legislative intervention might help in controlling [to some extent] the instances of witch hunting, but how can a deep-rooted social practice be challenged by law?” Arupjyoti Saikia, a professor of history and head of the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at the Indian Institute of Technology in Assam’s capital, Guwahati, says via email. Saikia explains that many communities in Assam have long practiced witchcraft out of a belief in its healing abilities, but tensions and a “breakdown of faith” among its practitioners over the years has “increased animosity and led to the alienation of ‘bad’ ones.”

Many of the cases — including the two most recent ones mentioned above — underline this fact. Police in the Assamese village where last month’s beheading took place arrested a younger woman who “claims to be a goddess” for inciting the mob to attack the elderly woman. Witch-hunting is also often used as an excuse to settle personal vendettas, with local media reporting motives ranging from property disputes to previous participation in antiliquor campaigns for the lynching of the five women in early August.

“I don’t think legislations would bring to an end these age-old practices,” says Shankar Prasad Bhattacharjee, an advocate at the High Court in Guwahati. “They [people who practice witch-hunting] are so illiterate, so blind in thought that until and unless you make some effort to enlighten them about the laws and the consequences of their actions, I don’t think there will be any effect.” Bhattacharjee tells TIME that the same law-enforcement infrastructure that has been unable to stop the practice thus far cannot hope for significantly different results from a law being passed. “There is no dearth of legislation [in India],” he adds. “The only thing is that we lack a move to educate all those poor people.”

The Assam state government appears cognizant of the gap that needs to be bridged between legislation and enforcement; one assembly member argued last week that the law needs to be more reformative since those who subscribe to beliefs of witchcraft are largely impoverished and uneducated. The bill also mentions awareness programs for the administration and police to undertake in the near future along with civil-society organizations, and prominent activist and anti-witch-hunting crusader Dibajyoti Saikia told the local Assam Tribune newspaper that he would ensure that the law “does not become another piece of legislation that exists only on paper.”

For HRW’s Ganguly, however, the prevalence of witch-hunting even in the 21st century is emblematic of a much more disconcerting trend in India.

“The other side I find even more concerning is this ability to justify vigilante violence,” she says, citing recent instances of mob attacks caused by religious differences or even allegations of petty theft. “How is it that this is allowed to happen, and isn’t there something missing in India’s criminal justice system which is allowing this kind of response to perceived crimes?”

Ganguly says that India often has “excellent legislation” and that is a “good step,” but merely outlawing something often fails to serve as an adequate deterrent.

“There needs to be more effort [in strengthening the administrative structure] as India becomes more ambitious about itself, and it’s becoming increasingly and rightly ambitious about itself,” she says.

“People follow the rule of law when they know that rule of law functions.”

TIME health

Planned Parenthood Will Survive—Some Women May Not

A sign hangs in the offices of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in New York City.
Mario Tama—Getty Images A sign hangs in the offices of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in New York City.

Women will lose access to vital, sometimes life-saving, health care when states defund Planned Parenthood

Responding to five shocking videos released by the Center for Medical Progress, government officials in Louisiana, New Hampshire and Alabama have moved to defund Planned Parenthood. Now the White House has entered the fray, warning these states that defunding may break the law.

Through a network of affiliated clinics, Planned Parenthood provides health care services to millions of women across the country, especially low-income and young women who have few options for care.

The latest controversy will negatively impact these women’s access to essential services, but Planned Parenthood itself will survive the firestorm.

A political storm

The videos purport to show that Planned Parenthood profits from the unethical sale of fetal tissue. Detractors argue that the videos prove that leaders in the organization have a “cavalier” attitude toward the sale of this tissue.

Whether these videos are true – and factcheck.org raises some questions – they have tremendous political legs. Aside from state action to defund the organization, presidential candidates from Scott Walker to Hillary Clinton have weighed in on the controversy.

But, while the videos are a hot media topic, they are nothing new.

Every six months or so, for the past several years, a heavily edited video has surfaced, throwing practices at Planned Parenthood into question.

The videos always seem to shock. But, as a scholar of the social and political histories of pregnancy and birth, I can say that their presence shouldn’t surprise us.

Planned Parenthood, the organization, has long been a political lightning rod.

Controversial origins

Margaret Sanger founded what would become Planned Parenthood in 1916.

Contraceptives were then illegal nationwide, and even providing information about them could land someone in jail. Sanger spent 30 days in prison after opening a birth control clinic in Brooklyn, New York.

At that time, the idea of a “planned pregnancy” was revolutionary. Sanger and her contemporaries saw reproductive autonomy as an essential part of women’s liberation.

Detractors often point to Sanger’s ties to eugenicist movements as a way to discredit the organization, which was officially founded in 1952. This paints her politics with too broad a brush.

Sanger was, indeed, on the side of so-called “positive eugenics.” She believed that healthy, planned pregnancies would lead to healthier babies and children, and that birth control could reduce problems associated with overpopulation worldwide. She did use racializing and alienating language in her private correspondence. But, there is nothing in her record to indicate she desired, as some allege today, to use abortion as a means to genocide, or as a plot to disempower, coerce, or control poor women and women of color.

A decades-long fight

Anti-choice advocates have engaged in a decades-long fight to limit access to women’s right to abortion.

Planned Parenthood, one of the only national organizations ready to help women with that access, makes an obvious target.

But Planned Parenthood does far more than provide abortion services for women. In fact, only 3% of Planned Parenthood clients procure abortions from their clinics.

Many more women use Planned Parenthood for sexual health reasons other than abortion: for birth control, Pap smears, HIV testing, sexual health counseling and prenatal care.

The fact that abortion is what garners attention, when 97% of Planned Parenthood’s activities focus on something else, should make us ask why there is so much hysteria over Planned Parenthood’s presence in the states.

The answer might be that 3% of clients receiving abortion services is still too many for pro-life activists to accept. The fact is that this 3% makes Planned Parenthood the single largest provider of abortion in the United States.

But defunding Planned Parenthood also limits women’s access to birth control – access that actually reduces rates of abortion.

If you want fewer abortions, keeping Planned Parenthood open would be a better strategy.

So why might politicians want to restrict access to safe, effective birth control? Being able to plan and avoid pregnancies by using birth control empowers women to enjoy their sexuality. And why might politicians want to dissuade women from that?

A fiery defense

In a fiery speech on the Senate floor in defense of Planned Parenthood, Elizabeth Warren argued that opposition to women’s reproductive freedom is old-fashioned and regressive.

As Rickie Solinger, historian of women’s sexuality and the politics of birth control in the United States, has argued, when women’s independence is facilitated by their ability to time pregnancy and childbirth, that independence is seen as “fearsome.” It is seen as a rejection of motherhood as the pinnacle of women’s lives, Solinger persuasively argues.

By providing women access to safe and affordable birth control and abortion, Planned Parenthood enables women to be fearsomely free in determining the trajectory of their lives. Being able to plan and avoid and terminate pregnancies allows women to work for pay outside the home when they need or want to. It allows women to leave bad relationships and stay in good ones. It allows women access to education and promotions and other opportunities that, in 2015, are still constrained when women reproduce.

When legislators in Alabama, New Hampshire and Louisiana vote to defund Planned Parenthood, they are participating in a politics that would ask us to return to second-class citizenship. They are parroting a rhetoric that expresses fear of women’s sexuality. And they are engaging in actions that will deny women access to vital health care, reduce rates of abortion and improve maternal lives.

Moves to defund Planned Parenthood are disturbing for how regressive they are, and for how much they harken back to times when women had far fewer rights.

But, the organization has weathered many storms. And, ironically, these shock videos tend to motivate women (and the men who support and love them) to defend their doctors and their decisions.

Donations up

Donations to Planned Parenthood, for example, have increased since these videos were released. Some donations were even made in honor of anti-choice politicians.

But the fact is that women – especially poor women, young women and women of color – will lose access to vital, sometimes life-saving, health care when states defund Planned Parenthood.

The organization will live on. Some women may not.

This article originally appeared on The ConversationThe Conversation

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Companies

Apple’s Diversity Numbers Reveal Plenty of Progress To Be Made

Apple Reports Quarterly Earnings
Spencer Platt—Getty Images The Apple logo.

But there are signs of improvement

Apple has updated its breakdown of employee demographics, first reported in August of last year. And while the needle hasn’t budged much—at least percentage-wise—the company says it has hired more diverse candidates in the past 12 months than in any other year.

According to head of human resources Denise Young Smith, more than 11,000 women have been hired worldwide in the last year, a 65% increase from the year before (for some more perspective, the company employs over 110,000 people worldwide). In United States, 2,200 black employees and 2,700 Hispanic employees were hired in the same time frame, representing increases of 50% and 66%, respectively. And in the first six months of this year, nearly 50% of Apple’s U.S. hires were women, black, Hispanic or Native American.

“We feel good about what’s been accomplished in the last 12 months,” Young Smith said in a phone interview withFortune. “Clearly this is a start, but we know that with the investments that we’re making and the work we’re doing we’ll show much more progress over time.”

CEO Tim Cook also offered a message on the company’s website Thursday afternoon, saying that Apple realizes there is a lot more work to be done. According to Cook’s statement: “Some people will read this page and see our progress. Others will recognize how much farther we have to go. We see both.”

Like many other large Silicon Valley players, Apple’s gender and racial breakdown is still far from reflecting our society. Under increasing pressure, these companies have pledged to not only disclose the demographic breakdown of their employee base, but to put money into programs that aim to increase the pipeline of women and minorities in tech and to make changes to their hiring practices. Last year, Cook said he is as committed to “being as innovative in advancing diversity as we are in developing products.” He has also said that the definition of diversity should go beyond race and gender and include age and sexual orientation, among other characteristics. (Last year CEO Cook became the first openly gay leader of a Fortune 500 company.)

“It is the leader and leaders of a company that really sets the tone and articulates the commitment [to increasing diversity],” says Young Smith.

Earlier this year Apple announced it would invest more than $50 million in diversity efforts, partnering with the likes of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund. This week the company unveiled another partnership with Code2040, which runs a fellowship program for black and Hispanic entrepreneurs.

Other companies, like Intel, are also putting their money where their mouth is, investing in diversity efforts and adopting more inclusive hiring practices. The efforts are leading to very slow progress, though it is progress nonetheless: Apple’s 2015 breakdown shows that the company’s employee base is still 69% male and 54% white; in 2014 it was 70% male and 55% white. But while one percentage point doesn’t sound impressive, it does reflect thousands of new, more diverse employees, and—as Young Smith admitted—it is just a start.

This article originally appeared on Fortune.com.

TIME Hollywood

Hollywood Still Has a Major Diversity Problem

US-ENTERTAINMENT-HOLLYWOOD SIGN-MAKEOVER
ROBYN BECK—AFP/Getty Images

The report analyzed 30,835 speaking characters

Hollywood has a problem: it’s mostly all white men.

From 2007 to 2014, only 30.2% of 30,835 speaking characters were female. That means there was roughly one female for every 2.3 male actors in a film, according to a new study out of the Media, Diversity & Social Change Initiative at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

That doesn’t even get into the issue of race or ethnicity. In 2014, 73.1% of characters in the top 100 films were white. Middle Easterners and Latinos had some of the worst showings, holding 2.9% and 4.9% of the roles, respectively.

The report looked at 700 popular films released over 7 years, examining the mix of gender and race on screen and behind the camera. All speaking characters were counted and assessed for demographics, domestic traits and hyper-sexualization.

Not only are women and minorities sidelined over their white male peers, but age matters, as well. (Even Amy Schumer has poked fun at this fact.) Last year, there wasn’t a single movie among the top 100 fictional films that starred a woman over 45 years of age.

Top older actresses that may come to mind didn’t hold the starring roles. Meryl Streep, who is 66-years-old and graced the screen in films such as “Into the Woods” and “The Giver” last year, held only supporting roles.

The findings aren’t new; diversity issues have plagued movies and television for years. But it’s a good reminder that even in a year that featured diverse leads in films such as “Selma,” “The Hunger Games,” and “Divergent,” American entertainment remains a homogeneous field.

MONEY women

Getting Mad at Work Can Cost Women $15,000 in Annual Pay

angry-women-lose-15k-at-work
ONOKY - Eric Audras—Getty Images/Brand X

Angry men lose only half that amount in perceived worth.

Being overly aggressive or negative at work is never a good idea. But a new study finds that certain displays of assertiveness are perceived as especially unacceptable for women.

If a woman comes across as angry or critical, she is rated as 35% less competent and worthy of $15,088 less in pay than a woman who doesn’t rock the boat. Similar behavior by men costs them only about half as much in perceived fair compensation.

Corporate training company VitalSmarts surveyed more than 11,000 people in June to reach its results, which included this silver lining: Sometimes acknowledging sexism can reduce its effects.

When a woman prefaces a harsh comment with a “framing” phrase, like “I know it’s a risk for a woman to speak this assertively, but I’m going to express my opinion very directly,” backlash can be reduced by as much as 27%.

While discussing gender bias so openly might not feel comfortable in every workplace, more neutral statements also help reduce the negative effects on perception. One example: “I see this as a matter of honesty and integrity, so it’s important for me to be clear about where I stand.”

The study involved participants watching male and female actors reading the same scripts, pretending to be managers delivering criticism and suggesting there might be consequences for poor performance. After watching the actors, participants rated the “managers” in terms of competency and deserved pay.

Read More: 7 Myths About Women Leaders Debunked

TIME Business

Netflix’s New Parental Leave Policy Could Make Things Worse for Women

The needs of children don’t end after one year

No doubt people are dancing a jig with Netflix’s announcement Tuesday that the tech company will allow its employees to take unlimited maternity or paternity leave during the first year after their child’s birth or adoption—while earning their normal pay.

“We want employees to have the flexibility and confidence to balance the needs of their growing families without worrying about work or finances,” said Tawni Cranz, Netflix’s chief talent officer. “Experience shows people perform better at work when they’re not worrying about home.”

There are several problems with this new policy. First, offering an unlimited leave policy in the first year to new moms and dads means the remaining employees who don’t fit the bill will be left to pick up the slack. This will likely, in turn, strain relations among co-workers and make the workplace environment less effective.

Second, it isn’t fair to babies. By encouraging mothers, who are the still the primary parent at home, to bond with their baby for a long period of time with the expectation they’ll return to work at the end of the year means the baby will become even more attached to his mother, and separation may become intolerable.

Same goes for the mother. Her attachment to her baby, or her re-thinking of her priorities during this time, may make her even less likely to return to work—thus negating the whole point of the policy, which is to get her attention back on work and off of baby.

Finally, being home with one’s baby doesn’t mean a parent’s worry will magically vanish. Most parents, mothers in particular, do worry about what’s going on at home in their absence. That’s the point. Most women change when they become mothers. They aren’t the same people, let alone the same type of worker.

As a society, we’d do better to acknowledge the fact that women (and men, for that matter, though in a different way) change as a result of having children, and often do care less about work. And what’s wrong with that? Isn’t that why people have babies? To make life more meaningful? And, dare I say it, less focused on work?

Offering new parents full pay for up to one year is akin to putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. The needs of children are huge, and they do not end at one year. On the contrary, they just begin. Taking a year off of work to meet those needs merely scratches the surface.

No company (or government) policy can possibly solve the work-family conflict. The needs of children undermine the needs of employers, just as the needs of employers undermine the needs of children. As Katharine Hepburn once said about why she never had children, “Well, I’m not dumb enough to think I could have handled that situation. If your mind is on something else, you are useless. If someone needs you, they need YOU!”

Indeed.

None of this is to suggest that women can’t have it all over the course of their lifetimes. It’s only to say that choices and concessions must be made. It’s also to say that no parental leave policy, even the one at Netflix, can possibly solve a problem as monumental as the anguished pull parents feel between home and work.

It could potentially make it even worse.

Suzanne Venker has written extensively about marriage and the family and its intersection with culture. She is the author of The Two Income Trap: Why Parents are Choosing to Stay Home, a book about balancing the needs of work and family.

TIME

This Is the Woman Most Americans Are Hoping to See on the New $10 Bill

No, it's not Beyonce

Of the women being considered to replace Alexander Hamilton on the redesigned $10 bill, Eleanor Roosevelt is the favorite by far with more than one in four Americans favoring her over the other contenders.

The former first lady came in first place with 27% of the 1,249 votes counted in a McClatchy Marist poll that was released on Wednesday. Harriet Tubman and Sacagawea followed at second and third place, with 17% and 13% of the vote, respectively.

Martha Washington’s portrait was printed on money in the 19th century, but this will be the first time that a female figure is featured on U.S. currency in over a century. The new $10 bill will appropriately be released in 2020, the 100th anniversary celebration of the ratification of the 19th amendment, which gave women the right to vote.

After Treasury Secretary Jack Lew announced the decision to replace Hamilton with a woman, the Treasury created a social media campaign dubbed #TheNew10 so that everyone could weigh in with their opinion. Aside from those named in the poll, suggestions included Rosa Parks and Amelia Earhart.

TIME Innovation

Why Some District Attorneys Are Trying to Prove Themselves Wrong

The Aspen Institute is an educational and policy studies organization based in Washington, D.C.

These are today's best ideas

1. Some district attorneys have dedicated units working to prove them wrong.

By Nicole Porette with Dean Meminger in the Crime Report

2. Find out why the U.S. unskilled labor visa program is like a new American slavery.

By Jessica Garrison, Ken Bensinger and Jeremy Singer-Vine in BuzzFeed

3. For Turkey, the fight against ISIS upends a fragile peace with the Kurds.

By Kaya Genç in Pacific Standard

4. The next billion entrepreneurs will be women.

By Carol Leaman in the Next Web

5. What is your attention really worth?

By Manoush Zomorodi in Note to Self from WNYC

The Aspen Institute is an educational and policy studies organization based in Washington, D.C.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com