The Constitution And Women: A Mention Or Omission?

The US Constitution does not explicitly mention women. However, the term sex is mentioned, which implies that the Constitution is based on an inclusive theory of representation. The use of gendered pronouns in the Constitution, such as referring to the President as he, has been criticised as outdated and contributing to a culture where men are seen as fundamentally different from women. There have been calls to amend the Constitution to include gender-neutral language and enshrine equal rights between the sexes.

Explore related products

A People's History of the Supreme Court: The Men and Women Whose Cases and Decisions Have Shaped Our Constitution: Revised Edition

$16.64 $24

Michigan's Con-Con 11: Women and State Constitution-making in 1961

$32.95 $32.95

Women of the Constitution: Wives of the Signers

$69.99 $83

A More Perfect Union: The Story of Our Constitution

$7.77 $11.99

The Constitution of The United States of America: Pocket Book Constitutions

$6.99

Ordinary Equality: The Fearless Women and Queer People Who Shaped the U.S. Constitution and the Equal Rights Amendment

$23.5 $27.99

The US Constitution does not mention women

The US Constitution, the nation's supreme law, makes no mention of women. The founding fathers left any reference to women out of the founding documents, despite Abigail Adams's famous plea to her husband, John Adams, to "remember the ladies". The absence of any mention of women in the Constitution is a stark reminder of the historical gender inequality in the country, particularly in politics. This omission has significant implications for government and political thought, as it reinforces the notion that men and women are fundamentally different.

The use of gendered pronouns in the Constitution, such as referring to the President as "he", further contributes to this perception. While it may have been understandable in 1787 when the Constitution was ratified and women did not have the right to vote, the lack of inclusion in modern times is concerning. The country has witnessed women running for president and even winning the popular vote, yet the Constitution has not been updated to reflect this progress.

The push for gender equality in the Constitution is not a new concept. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), first drafted in 1921 by suffrage leader Alice Paul, aims to enshrine equal rights between the sexes in the Constitution. The ERA has received bipartisan support and backing from various organisations and individuals from all walks of life. However, despite Virginia becoming the final state needed to ratify the amendment in 2021, achieving the required three-fourths of all 50 states, the ERA still faces massive political hurdles.

Changing the Constitution's pronouns and fully recognising women's rights requires a two-thirds vote in both the US House and Senate, as well as approval by three-quarters of state legislatures. While these obstacles are daunting, it is crucial to start somewhere. Raising awareness and generating discussions about this issue are essential steps towards achieving gender equality in the nation's founding document. The journey towards equality is a long one, but with persistent advocacy and efforts, the ERA can take its rightful place in the US Constitution, ensuring that women's rights are protected and promoted.

The pronoun he is used to refer to the President

The use of the pronoun "he" to refer to the President of the United States is a complex issue. While it is grammatically correct to use "he" as a pronoun for the President, the practice has been the subject of debate and scrutiny, especially in the context of gender inclusivity and non-binary gender identities.

In traditional English grammar, the use of "he" as a pronoun for the President may be considered acceptable, as it corresponds to the masculine gender typically associated with the role. However, with evolving societal norms and a growing awareness of gender diversity, the exclusive use of "he" may be perceived as outdated and exclusionary.

In modern times, there has been a push for more inclusive language, especially in positions of power. The President of the United States can be of any gender, and using gender-neutral language helps to acknowledge and respect this diversity. Instead of using "he," more inclusive alternatives such as "they" or "them" can be employed. This shift in language usage reflects a broader societal change toward recognising and accommodating non-binary and gender-nonconforming individuals.

Additionally, the use of "he" to refer to the President can be seen as inconsistent with the evolving nature of gender representation in society. The President is not just a masculine figure, and using gender-neutral pronouns can help to reinforce the idea that the office is open to people of any gender. This promotes equality and inclusivity, ensuring that all individuals are represented and valued regardless of their gender identity.

While the use of "he" as a pronoun for the President may have been common in the past, it is important to recognise that language is dynamic and constantly evolving. Adapting our language to be more inclusive helps to create a more welcoming and equitable society for all individuals, regardless of their gender identity or expression. This evolution of language usage aligns with the ongoing efforts to ensure that all people are treated with dignity and respect, moving towards a more inclusive and just world.

The ERA would enshrine equal rights for women

The United States Constitution, as it stands, does not mention women at all. The omission of women from the founding documents has resulted in a long journey to enshrine equal rights among the sexes in the US Constitution. This journey has been marked by the efforts of many prominent women, including Alice Paul, a suffrage leader and head of the National Women's Party, who first drafted the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in 1921.

The ERA is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that seeks to explicitly prohibit sex discrimination and secure full equality for women. It aims to end legal distinctions between men and women in matters such as divorce, property, employment, and other areas. By enshrining equal rights for women in the Constitution, the ERA would ensure that the government cannot pass laws or take any official action that discriminates based on sex. This constitutional amendment would become the supreme law of the nation, surpassing any other law in importance.

The ERA has undergone several revisions since its initial proposal in 1921, with the version passed by Congress in 1972 gaining significant bipartisan support. Despite facing opposition and experiencing setbacks, the ERA has continued to move forward, with 38 states finally ratifying it as of 2020. However, whether the protections for women's rights outlined in the ERA will be added to the Constitution remains uncertain.

The inclusion of the ERA in the Constitution is of critical importance. Without it, there is a risk that laws could be passed that diminish the idea of equality in America. The ERA addresses issues such as equal pay, fair healthcare coverage, protection against gender testing laws, and the prevention of discrimination against LGBTQ+ persons. It also seeks to protect men in occupations traditionally held by women and safeguard against rollbacks in women's rights. The ERA is, therefore, a powerful tool to uphold the principles of equality and ensure that women's rights are protected and advanced.

Explore related products

The History of the Constitution: Notable Events for Young Readers

$4.99 $7.99

Women and the U.S. Constitution: 1776-1920 (New Essays on American Constitutional History)

$18.12

Sisters in Law: How Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went to the Supreme Court and Changed the World

$9.99 $20.99

Women and the U.S. Constitution: History, Interpretation, and Practice

$34.2 $35.99

From Colonies to Constitution: The Evolution of American Democracy

$19.95 $14.95

The Constitution of the United States and Other Patriotic Documents

$21.99 $35

Women's rights were different when the Constitution was ratified

Women's rights have evolved significantly since the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1789. At the time, women were not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, and their rights and duties were not discussed during the Constitutional Convention. While some argue that this implied their inclusion as "persons", others contend that it reflected their exclusion from the political community created by the Constitution.

The original Constitution did not secure the right of women to vote. Women's suffrage was introduced in several pre-revolutionary colonies, but after 1776, all states except New Jersey adopted constitutions that denied women the right to vote. New Jersey rescinded women's voting rights in 1807 and only restored them in 1920 with the ratification of the 19th Amendment. The 19th Amendment, passed by Congress on June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, guaranteed women the right to vote in the United States. The journey to achieving this milestone was long and challenging, spanning decades of agitation, protests, lectures, writing, lobbying, and civil disobedience.

In addition to voting rights, women's rights in other areas have also evolved since the ratification of the Constitution. For example, in 1839, Mississippi became the first state to grant women the right to hold property in their own name, but only with their husband's permission. Women also faced limitations in other areas, such as serving on juries and running for elective offices. It wasn't until 1923 that the National Woman's Party proposed a Constitutional amendment calling for equal rights for men and women.

The interpretation of women's inclusion or exclusion in the Constitution has been a subject of debate, with feminist scholars arguing that gender is always a factor in political theory and government, whether explicitly or implicitly. While the original Constitution did not explicitly mention women, subsequent amendments and legal challenges have helped secure and expand women's rights in the United States.

The ERA has faced opposition

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has faced opposition since it was first drafted in 1921 or 1923 by Alice Paul, a suffrage leader and head of the National Women's Party. Opponents of the amendment, such as the Women's Joint Congressional Committee, believed that the loss of benefits to women resulting from the ERA would not be worth the supposed gain in equality. For instance, women would lose the benefit of shorter work hours and no night work or heavy lifting.

In 1972, when the ERA was passed by Congress, it faced opposition from conservative activists and the emerging religious right, who launched a campaign to stop the amendment. The STOP ERA campaign, led by conservative lawyer and activist Phyllis Schlafly, argued that the ERA would lead to gender-neutral bathrooms, same-sex marriage, and women in military combat, among other things. The opposition campaign was remarkably successful, and it managed to slow down the momentum of the ERA ratification process.

Opposition to the ERA was particularly high among religious conservatives, who argued that the amendment would guarantee universal abortion rights and the right for homosexual couples to marry. The ERA has long been opposed by anti-abortion groups, who believe it would allow legal abortion without limits and mandate taxpayer funding for abortions. The National Council of Catholic Women, labor feminists, and the AFL-CIO (until 1973) were also part of the opposition.

Other arguments against the ERA include the belief that it will not give women any more rights than they currently have. Women already have a claim to equal rights through the 14th Amendment and numerous other laws in various areas of American life, such as employment, education, and housing. Additionally, it is argued that the language of the ERA is vague and poorly written, not allowing for any distinction between men and women based on their biological differences. As a result, critics argue that the ERA will harm women and their unborn children by overturning laws and programs that benefit them.

Despite the opposition, the ERA has gained widespread support and, as of 2020, has been ratified by 38 states. The journey to enshrine equal rights among the sexes in the US Constitution continues, and the ERA is closer than ever to taking its place in the supreme law of the nation.

Frequently asked questions