Simone Lawson
The original U.S. Constitution does not contain the words man or woman, nor any other noun or adjective that denotes sex. The document does, however, use pronouns such as he, his, and himself, which have been interpreted by some as indicating that only men can hold national office. Despite this, there is no record of any discussion about women, their rights, or their duties during the Constitutional Convention. The use of gender-neutral terms such as citizens, members, and representatives suggests that the rights and protections afforded by the Constitution apply equally to people of all genders.
Are the words "man" or "woman" mentioned in the Constitution?
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Words denoting sex | Not mentioned |
| Pronouns | "He", "his", "himself" |
| Nouns | "Electors", "citizens", "members", "inhabitants", "officers", "representatives", "persons" |
| Mention of women | No record of any discussion about women, their rights, or their duties |
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
What You'll Learn
- The US Constitution uses the pronoun he when referring to the President
- The words man or male do not occur in the original Constitution
- The issue of gender was far from the minds of the delegates to the Continental Congress
- The Constitution must mean that every right afforded to men also applies to women
- The Constitution does not contain any nouns or adjectives that denote sex
The US Constitution uses the pronoun he when referring to the President
The US Constitution, which was ratified in 1787, uses the pronoun "he" when referring to the President of the United States. This is unsurprising, considering that during that time, women could not vote. However, this has sparked debates about whether the Constitution should be updated to include gender-neutral language, especially given that several women have run for president in recent years, and one even won the popular vote.
The use of gendered language in the Constitution is not limited to the presidency. The pronouns "he" and "his" are also used to refer to the Vice President and members of Congress. While some argue that these pronouns should be interpreted as gender-neutral, others contend that the use of exclusively male pronouns contributes to a culture of misogyny and gender inequality in politics.
In defence of the former interpretation, one could argue that the text presents no obstacle to having a woman in office or any other national office. The use of "he" can be read as generic or neuter, leaving open the possibility that the antecedent could be either a man or a woman. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Constitution also uses the word "person" in certain sections, indicating an intention to include both men and women.
However, proponents of updating the language acknowledge the implicit misogyny and the reality gap that the current language creates. Young girls observing women running for president today will also learn that the Constitution only refers to the president as "he." This dissonance can send a message that men and women are fundamentally different, which can be damaging to the perception of women in leadership roles.
Changing the Constitution's pronouns would face massive political hurdles, requiring a two-thirds vote in both the US House and Senate and approval by three-quarters of state legislatures. Despite these challenges, some individuals have started petitions to raise awareness and spark discussions about this issue.
The Constitution's Missing Pieces: Founders' Exclusions
You may want to see also
The words man or male do not occur in the original Constitution
The original US Constitution does not contain the words "man" or "male". The document only uses the terms "electors," "citizens," "members," "inhabitants," "officers," "representatives," and "persons," which are now considered non-sexist. The Constitution also uses masculine pronouns such as "he," "his," and "himself," but these can be interpreted as gender-neutral.
The absence of gender-specific language in the Constitution has been interpreted as an indication of inclusivity. By referring to "persons" rather than "men," the Constitution can be understood to afford the same rights, privileges, and protections to women as it does to men. This interpretation is supported by the fact that there is no record of any discussion about women's rights or duties during the Constitutional Convention.
However, some have argued that the use of masculine pronouns in the Constitution implies that only men can hold national office, including the Presidency. This interpretation has been challenged, with proponents of gender inclusivity arguing that the masculine pronouns can be read as generic or gender-neutral, leaving open the possibility that the antecedent could be either a man or a woman.
Despite the absence of gender-specific language, women have historically faced barriers to equal rights and representation. The 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote, did not guarantee voting rights for all women, particularly women of color and those with limited financial status. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was conceptualized to strengthen protections for women under the law and prohibit discrimination based on sex.
The movement for gender inclusivity in the Constitution is ongoing. While changing the Constitution's pronouns would face massive political hurdles, advocates argue that it is important to raise awareness and continue the conversation about gender equality.
Constitution Activation: What's the Process?
You may want to see also
The issue of gender was far from the minds of the delegates to the Continental Congress
The Continental Congress delegates did not have gender on their minds, and the words "man" and "woman" are not mentioned in the Constitution. The document does, however, use the pronouns "he," "his," and "himself," which are masculine. The absence of any noun or adjective denoting sex, such as "man" or "male," and the use of gender-neutral terms like "electors," "citizens," and "persons" indicate that the Constitution was intended to be inclusive of both sexes. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the term "sex" is mentioned, albeit fleetingly and inadvertently, suggesting that the Constitution is based on an inclusive theory of representation.
The use of gender-neutral language in the Constitution is significant because it means that every right, privilege, and protection afforded to "persons" applies equally to both men and women. This interpretation is further supported by the fact that the delegates chose to use the word "persons" instead of "men," which would have been quite easy to do. This choice indicates that the delegates intended the Constitution to be inclusive and that there was no longer any rationale for excluding women from representation once it shifted from property to persons.
However, some people interpret the masculine pronouns in the Constitution as evidence that only men were meant to hold national office, including the Presidency. This interpretation is not universally accepted, and the text itself does not explicitly state that these offices are exclusively for men. The masculine pronouns can be read as gender-neutral or generic, leaving open the possibility that they refer to either a man or a woman.
Despite the absence of gender-specific language in the original text, the issue of gender representation in the Constitution has been a topic of debate. In recent times, there have been petitions to change the Constitution's pronouns to be more inclusive, acknowledging that women can hold the office of President. However, making changes to the Constitution faces significant political hurdles and would require a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and approval by three-quarters of state legislatures.
In conclusion, while the issue of gender may not have been a primary concern for the delegates to the Continental Congress, the language they chose to use in the Constitution has been interpreted and debated over time. The absence of gender-specific nouns and adjectives and the use of gender-neutral terms suggest an intention for inclusivity. However, the masculine pronouns used in reference to certain offices have been interpreted differently by different people. The debate around gender-inclusive language in the Constitution continues, with some advocating for changes to acknowledge explicitly a woman's ability to hold positions of power.
Immunity Types: Understanding Constitutional Violation Exemptions
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Constitution must mean that every right afforded to men also applies to women
The original US Constitution does not contain the words "man" or "woman", nor any other noun or adjective denoting sex. Instead, the terms used throughout the Constitution are consistently non-sexist, such as "electors", "citizens", "members", "representatives", and "persons". The use of the term "persons" indicates that the Constitution rests on an inclusive theory of representation. This shift from "property" to "persons" meant that there was no longer a rationale for excluding women.
However, the Constitution does use the pronouns "he", "his", and "himself", which some interpret as evidence that the Founding Fathers intended for only men to hold national office, including the Presidency. Nevertheless, these pronouns can also be read as gender-neutral, leaving open the possibility that the antecedent could be either a man or a woman. The absence of any explicit mention of gender in the Constitution, therefore, supports the interpretation that every right, privilege, and protection afforded to men also applies to women.
The interpretation of the Constitution's use of pronouns has been a topic of debate in modern times, with some advocating for the use of gender-inclusive language when discussing the Constitution. While changing the Constitution's pronouns would face significant political challenges, it is argued that raising awareness about this issue is an important step towards achieving greater inclusion.
In conclusion, the absence of the words "man" and "woman" in the original Constitution, coupled with the use of gender-neutral terms like "persons", strongly suggests that the rights afforded to men also extend to women. While the pronouns used may seem to imply a male-only perspective, they can be interpreted as gender-neutral, further reinforcing the inclusive nature of the Constitution. As societal norms and values evolve, it is essential to re-examine and interpret the Constitution in a way that reflects the principles of equality and non-discrimination.
Compromises: The Constitution's Foundation
You may want to see also
The Constitution does not contain any nouns or adjectives that denote sex
The original US Constitution does not contain any nouns or adjectives that denote sex. The words "man" or "male" are notably absent, and the document instead refers to persons. This inclusive language suggests that the rights, privileges, and protections afforded to persons in the Constitution apply equally to both men and women. The terms used throughout the original Constitution, such as "electors," "citizens," "members," "inhabitants," "officers," "representatives," and "persons," are consistently non-sexist.
However, the Constitution does include masculine pronouns such as "he," "his," and "himself." These pronouns have been the subject of debate, with some arguing that they indicate that only men can hold national office, including the Presidency. Others interpret these pronouns as gender-neutral, leaving open the possibility that they refer to either a man or a woman.
The absence of specific references to women or gender in the Constitution has led to differing interpretations over time. While some have argued that the lack of gendered language indicates an inclusive intent, others have pointed out that the absence of explicit inclusion does not preclude discrimination or inequality. For example, while the word "blacks" is not mentioned in the original Constitution, the Three-Fifths Clause has been interpreted as racist and denying the humanity of Black people.
The interpretation and application of the Constitution have evolved over time, reflecting changing social and political attitudes. In modern times, there have been calls for more inclusive language in the Constitution, particularly regarding the use of gender-neutral pronouns. While changing the Constitution's pronouns would face significant political challenges, some argue that it is essential to acknowledge the ability of women to hold positions of power, such as the Presidency.
In conclusion, while the original Constitution does not contain any nouns or adjectives denoting sex, the use of masculine pronouns and the absence of explicit references to women have led to differing interpretations and ongoing debates about the inclusion and representation of women in the United States' founding document.
The Senate's Role in Amending the Constitution
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, the words "man" or "woman" are not mentioned in the US Constitution. The Constitution uses gender-neutral terms such as "persons," "citizens," and "inhabitants."
Yes, the pronouns "he," "his," and "himself" are used in the US Constitution when referring to the President of the United States. However, these pronouns can be interpreted as gender-neutral or generic, leaving open the possibility that the antecedent could be either a man or a woman.
Yes, there have been petitions and efforts to update the pronouns in the US Constitution to be more inclusive and acknowledge a woman's ability to hold the office of President. However, changing the Constitution's pronouns would face significant political hurdles and require a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and approval by three-quarters of state legislatures.
