The Constitution's Use Of The Word "Man

The United States Constitution has long been criticised for its use of gendered language, with the pronoun he being used to refer to the President, and the word male being used in connection with voting rights. While the Constitution did not explicitly mention women or limit any rights exclusively to males, the use of gendered language has been seen by some as a failure to acknowledge a woman's ability to hold the presidency and a lack of gender inclusivity. This has sparked debates about the need for more gender-neutral language in the Constitution, with petitions calling for changes to its pronouns. However, amending the Constitution is a challenging process, requiring a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate and approval by three-quarters of state legislatures.

Explore related products

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $6.95

3- Pocket U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence (Three Pack)

$13.11 $19.99

Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution

$18.6 $20

The U.S. Constitution And Fascinating Facts About It

$4.91 $4.95

Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence (Pocket Edition)

$2.75

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 because, at the time, women could not vote, and it was assumed that only men could be involved in politics, especially in the role of president.

The exclusive use of male pronouns to refer to the president can be seen in Article II of the US Constitution, which outlines the qualifications and job of the President. For example, in Article 2, Section 1, it states: "He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years..." Another example is: "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected..."

The use of "he" as the preferred pronoun for the president arises from the assumption that the President would always be male. This assumption is further supported by the fact that the qualifications for electors in the Fourteenth Amendment are specifically stated as "male."

However, it is worth noting that the US Constitution does not explicitly mention gender when referring to the President. While it uses male pronouns, it also refers to the President as a "'person'," which can be interpreted as inclusive of both men and women.

In recent times, there have been calls to change the presidential pronouns in the Constitution to 'they/them' to accommodate all gender identities of future presidents and presidential candidates. Some people argue that the exclusive use of male pronouns is outdated and does not represent the current political landscape, where there have been several non-male candidates for the presidency. Changing the Constitution's pronouns, however, would face significant political challenges, including the need for a two-thirds vote in both the US House and Senate and approval by three-quarters of state legislatures.

The word persons is used in the Constitution, which is gender-neutral

The United States Constitution does not explicitly mention women, nor does it restrict any of its rights or privileges to males. Instead, the gender-neutral term "persons" is used throughout the document. This choice of wording is significant because it reflects a more inclusive approach, avoiding the explicit exclusion of women or the limitation of rights to men only.

However, it is important to acknowledge that the Constitution was drafted and ratified in a historical context where women's rights were not yet a widely recognised concept. For example, at the time, women did not have the right to vote, and societal norms, such as the principle of coverture, prevailed. Under this principle, a married woman was legally dependent on her husband and did not have the same rights as men, particularly regarding property ownership and legal existence.

Despite the use of "persons" in the Constitution, the interpretation and application of the law were influenced by common law inherited from British precedents and various state laws, which were often not gender-neutral. For instance, New Jersey initially granted voting rights to women after the Constitution was adopted, but these rights were later rescinded by a bill in 1807, demonstrating the complex and evolving nature of women's rights in the early days of the United States.

While the Constitution itself does not use explicitly male-centric language to restrict rights, subsequent amendments and legal interpretations have had a significant impact on women's rights. The Fourteenth Amendment, for example, was designed to ensure racial equality in voting rights but included the word "male," becoming the first explicit federal denial of women's voting rights. This amendment caused a split in the women's rights movement, highlighting the ongoing tension between racial equality and gender equality in the country's legal framework.

Efforts have been made to address gender inequality in the Constitution and amend its language to be more inclusive. Alice Paul, for instance, proposed the Equal Rights Amendment, later renamed the Alice Paul Amendment, to require equal rights for men and women. While these efforts have faced significant political hurdles, they reflect a growing awareness of the importance of inclusive language and the need to ensure that the Constitution reflects the values of equality and justice for all persons, regardless of gender.

The Fourteenth Amendment included the word male in connection with voting

The Fourteenth Amendment, passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868, was a significant step towards extending liberties and rights to formerly enslaved people. This amendment, proposed in the aftermath of the Civil War, played a pivotal role in guaranteeing equal civil and legal rights to Black citizens. A notable aspect of this amendment was its inclusion of the word "male" in connection with voting rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment introduced the concept of birthright citizenship, granting citizenship to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States." This marked a significant shift by providing a legal framework for citizenship that extended beyond race or previous enslavement. However, the amendment's reference to voting rights specifically mentioned "male" citizens, stating that:

> "When the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

This inclusion of the word "male" in the Fourteenth Amendment had a significant impact on the voting rights landscape. For the first time, the Constitution explicitly asserted that men, and not women, had the right to vote. Prior to this amendment, only state laws restricted voting rights to men, but now the Constitution itself enshrined this exclusion. This presented new challenges for women's rights activists, who had to navigate the explicit mention of "male" in the nation's supreme law.

The Fourteenth Amendment's reference to "male" citizens in the context of voting rights set the stage for ongoing debates and efforts to achieve gender equality in the Constitution. Activists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton recognized the potential challenge ahead, predicting that removing the word "male" from the Constitution would be an arduous task. The amendment's language, while a significant step forward for the rights of African American men, highlighted the ongoing exclusion of women from the political process and fueled the flames of the women's suffrage movement.

In summary, the Fourteenth Amendment's inclusion of the word "male" in connection with voting rights was a pivotal moment in the evolution of voting rights in the United States. It extended legal protections and citizenship to formerly enslaved individuals while simultaneously underscoring the lack of representation for women. This amendment laid the groundwork for future struggles and achievements in the ongoing quest for gender equality in the American political system.

Explore related products

Constitution of the Service Men of the Spanish War: Adopted January 12th, 1899 (Classic Reprint)

$18.57 $22.97

Charter, Constitution and by-Laws of the Young Men's Association of the City of Troy (Classic Reprint)

$29.27 $22.97

Constitution of the Young Men's Christian Association of Columbia: With an Introduction, Embracing the Principal Points of an Address (Classic Reprint)

$18.57 $22.97

Certificate of Incorporation, Constitution and Rules and Regulations of the Minute Men

$26.95

The Constitution of the United States, Declaration of Independence, and Articles of Confederation: Illustrated Edition

$0.99

Mark Twain Understanding the US Constitution Workbook, American History Books Covering Articles, Amendments, Three Branches of Government, and More, Classroom or Homeschool Curriculum

$12.07 $12.99

Alice Paul reworded the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1940s, which passed Congress in 1972

The U.S. Constitution, as transcribed, uses male pronouns such as "he" and "his" when referring to the President of the United States. This is understandable, given that the Constitution was ratified in 1787, when women could not vote. However, in the modern era, with women running for president and winning the popular vote, there have been calls for the country's highest legal authority to acknowledge a woman's ability to hold the office by changing the Constitution's pronouns. While some argue that debating pronouns in a time of social and political crisis is frivolous, others disagree, highlighting that it is not just a matter of semantics. Changing the pronouns in the Constitution, however, would face massive political hurdles, requiring a two-thirds vote in both the U.S. House and Senate, as well as approval by three-quarters of state legislatures.

In the context of seeking to amend the Constitution to explicitly prohibit gender discrimination, Alice Paul reworded the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the 1940s, and it passed Congress in 1972. Alice Paul, the head of the National Women's Party, believed that the Nineteenth Amendment would not be sufficient to ensure that men and women were treated equally regardless of gender. In 1923, she first revised the proposed amendment to state: Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. This version was named the Lucretia Mott Amendment, after a female abolitionist who advocated for women's rights.

The ERA was introduced in every session of Congress from 1923 onwards, but it was not until the 1940s that both the Republican and Democratic parties added support for the ERA to their platforms. In 1943, Alice Paul further revised the amendment to align with the wording of the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments, and this text became Section 1 of the version passed by Congress in 1972. The new version stated: "But the labor movement was still committed to protective workplace laws, and social conservatives considered equal rights for women a threat to existing power structures."

In 1972, the Equal Rights Amendment, also known as the proposed 27th Amendment, passed the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives and was sent to the states for ratification. This achievement was the result of renewed interest in the ERA during the women's movement of the 1960s, which led to increased advocacy and activism by women's organizations. Despite the progress, the achievement was compromised by a seven-year time limit placed on the ratification process by Congress, requiring 38 state ratifications for the ERA to become law. Unfortunately, this ratification threshold was not met by the original deadline, and even with a three-year extension granted by Congress, the ERA fell short by three states in 1982.

The failure to secure full ratification was due in part to a shift towards more conservative politics in the late 1970s, with the Republican Party removing their support for the ERA from their platform in 1980. Despite these setbacks, the ERA has remained important to Americans, with ongoing efforts in the 1990s and beyond to secure the necessary state ratifications and remove the original time limit.

The Constitution does not mention women or limit rights and privileges to males

The United States Constitution does not explicitly mention women or limit any of its rights or privileges to males. The use of the word "persons" in the Constitution is gender-neutral, suggesting that the rights and privileges outlined are intended for all. However, it is important to acknowledge the historical context in which the Constitution was written and the influence of common law and state laws that were not always gender-neutral.

The absence of specific references to women in the Constitution does not necessarily reflect a commitment to gender equality. At the time the Constitution was written and adopted, the principle of coverture prevailed, which meant that a married woman was legally dependent on her husband and did not have the same rights as men, particularly regarding property ownership.

While the Constitution itself does not use gendered language to restrict rights, the interpretation and application of the law have been influenced by societal norms and legal precedents. For example, the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed to ensure citizenship rights for formerly enslaved people and other African Americans, also included the word "male" in connection with voting, explicitly denying women the right to vote. This amendment caused a split in the women's rights movement, highlighting the complexity of achieving racial equality and gender equality simultaneously.

Additionally, the use of gendered pronouns in the Constitution, such as "he" when referring to the President, reflects the historical context of women's exclusion from political leadership roles. While it may have been a common practice at the time, it does not align with modern values of gender equality and the increasing number of women running for political office.

Efforts have been made to address these gender disparities in the Constitution. For example, Alice Paul proposed the Equal Rights Amendment to require equal rights for men and women, which passed in Congress in 1972. Furthermore, petitions and initiatives, such as the one mentioned by Day, aim to raise awareness and promote the use of gender-inclusive language in the Constitution. However, changing the Constitution's pronouns would face significant political challenges, requiring a two-thirds vote in both the U.S. House and Senate and approval by three-quarters of state legislatures.

Frequently asked questions