The Constitution's Surprising Number Of "Woman" Mentions

The word woman does not appear in the US Constitution. In fact, the document does not refer to women or men at all, only [persons]. This was likely a deliberate choice by the authors, as the term persons is gender-neutral and could therefore be interpreted to include women. However, the interpretation of the law was also informed by common law inherited from British precedents, and many state laws at the time were not gender-neutral. This meant that, despite the gender-neutral language of the Constitution, women were often denied the rights it afforded to persons.

Explore related products

Constitution of the United States (Books of American Wisdom)

$9.25 $9.95

Frequency: The Power of Personal Vibration (15th Anniversary Edition) (Transformation Series)

$12.99 $17.99

Handheld Vibrating Massager - Clitioral Stimulant Relaxes Muscles Tool 10 Modes Viboators Toy Couples Clitioral Sucker High Frequency Silent Personal Massage Adult Tools Relaxation Portable ce-08

$22.99

300ML Cooling Gel for Laser Hair Removal Device and Radio Frequency Facial Body Skin Care Machine for Women and Men

$9.98

Today Adult Tools for Women Dual Head 7 High Frequency Modes Thrusting Sensory Toys Womens Toys Thrusting Stimulation Tool Women Machine Realistic Handheld Gifts for Her ZM0161

$23.99

Rose Vibratoar 2025 Clitotial Sucker Silent Electric Vibration Machine Wand High Frequency Rose Adult Toys for Woman Tongue, Adult Tool for Women Suction Rose Viboatorr Today Adult 930H161 (Pink)

$13.96

The word woman is not mentioned in the US Constitution

The word "woman" is not mentioned in the US Constitution. In fact, the words "man" or "male" do not occur either, nor does any other noun or adjective denoting sex. Instead, the Constitution uses the word "persons" to refer to all citizens.

The absence of the word "woman" in the Constitution is significant because it reflects the historical exclusion of women from political and social discourse. While the use of "persons" suggests a gender-neutral interpretation, common law inherited from British precedents and state laws often interpreted the law in a way that discriminated against women. For example, the principle of coverture, which prevailed at the time, dictated that a married woman had no separate legal existence from her husband, severely limiting her rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed to overturn the Dred Scott decision and clarify citizenship rights after the American Civil War, 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, as some supported it for establishing racial equality in voting, while others opposed it due to its denial of women's voting rights.

Despite the lack of explicit mention, the Constitution has been interpreted and deliberated upon by the courts to address issues relating to women's rights. For instance, in Craig v. Boren, the court threw out a law that treated men and women differently in setting a drinking age, setting a new standard of judicial review in cases involving sex discrimination. In another case, the Supreme Court found that spousal consent laws in the third trimester were unconstitutional, as the pregnant woman's rights were more compelling than her husband's.

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has been proposed to explicitly enshrine gender equality in the Constitution and prohibit discrimination based on sex. The ERA was first drafted in 1921 by Alice Paul, a suffrage leader, who believed that the 19th Amendment alone would not provide equal treatment for women. While the ERA has faced opposition and ambiguity, it recently achieved support from the required number of states for ratification, and activists are pushing for its final enshrinement in the Constitution.

The word person is used, which is gender-neutral

The US Constitution does not explicitly mention women, and the word "woman" does not appear in the document. While the Constitution does use gender-neutral language in referring to "persons," the historical context and legal interpretation of the time meant that women were often excluded from the rights and protections afforded to men.

The Constitution's use of the word "person" or "persons" is gender-neutral on its face, and this choice of language is significant. During the Constitutional Convention, there was a debate between representing "property" or "persons," and the advocates of persons prevailed. This shift away from property as the basis of representation meant that there was no clear reason to exclude women. The use of the word "persons" indicated an intention to include both men and women, and the delegates' discussions during the Convention supported this interpretation.

However, despite the seemingly inclusive language, the reality was quite different for women. Common law inherited from British precedents, as well as state laws, were not gender-neutral. The principle of coverture, which prevailed at the time, meant that a married woman was legally dependent on her husband and lacked independent legal existence. Women also faced restrictions on their property rights and were excluded from the right to vote. While New Jersey initially granted voting rights to women, this right was later rescinded in 1807.

The Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed to overturn the Dred Scott decision and clarify citizenship rights after the Civil War, included the word "male" in connection with voting, explicitly denying women the right to vote. The Supreme Court also interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment as applying only to male citizens in the case of Minor v. Happerset, further excluding women from the political process.

While the Constitution's use of "person" or "persons" is gender-neutral in theory, the historical and legal context shows that women were often excluded from the rights and protections it afforded. The interpretation and application of the Constitution have evolved over time, and the fight for women's equality and inclusion in US politics and law continues.

The Constitution's interpretation was influenced by common law, which was not gender-neutral

The United States Constitution does not mention the word "woman" or any other noun or adjective denoting gender. Instead, it uses the term "persons" to refer to all individuals, regardless of gender. However, the interpretation of the Constitution was influenced by common law, which was inherited from British precedents and was not always gender-neutral.

At the time the Constitution was written and adopted, the principle of coverture prevailed, which meant that a married woman was not considered a separate legal entity from her husband. Her legal existence was tied to his, and she did not have the same rights as unmarried women or men. For example, married women had limited property rights, as the convention of dower that protected their income during widowhood was often ignored.

The delegates who drafted the Constitution were influenced by republican political thought, which argued that government represented only those men with sufficient property to be independent. However, there was a debate during the Constitutional Convention about whether property or persons should be represented. The advocates of persons prevailed, and the use of the term "persons" in the Constitution was intended to include both men and women. This shift towards representing persons, rather than property, made it more difficult to justify excluding women from the political process.

While the Constitution itself does not explicitly discriminate against women, the interpretation and application of its provisions have been influenced by non-gender-neutral common law. For example, in the case of Minor v. Happerset, the Supreme Court found that while women were citizens, voting was not one of the "privileges and immunities of citizenship," and therefore states could deny women the right to vote. Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed to grant full citizenship rights to African Americans, included the word "male" in connection with voting, explicitly denying women the right to vote at the federal level.

In recent years, some states have amended their constitutions to use gender-neutral language, replacing male pronouns with neutral terms like "they" or "their." These changes reflect a shift towards more inclusive language and a recognition that male references can often be interpreted to include both sexes. While the United States Constitution has not undergone similar amendments, legal experts argue that the use of gender-neutral language is important to send a message about the current state of society.

Explore related products

Rose Vibratoar 2025 Viboators for Woman, The Suction Rose Vibration Adult Toys for Women High Frequency Clitioral Soy Sucker Vibrates Clitotial Stimulant Silent Wand Adult Tool for Couples Game 109H1

$12.96

The Resonance Effect: How Frequency Specific Microcurrent Is Changing Medicine

$19.95 $33.26

Frequency: Tune In. Hear God.

$5.61 $28.99

Rose Viboators Toys,2025 Rose Vibratoer Device Licking Sucking Silent Multi Frequency Stick Women's Gift Toy ZQKAW

$18.99

High Frequency 10 Modes Silent Vibrations Battery for Women Vibrateirs for Women Today Adult H4-3Ug

$25.98

Cooling Gel Use with for Laser Hair Removal Device and RF Radio Frequency Facial Machine for Women and Man 300ML

$9.88

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 milestone in the history of the United States, extending liberties and rights to formerly enslaved people and other African Americans. This amendment was designed to overturn the Dred Scott decision, which infamously declared that Black people had no rights that white men were bound to respect. The Fourteenth Amendment ensured that all people born or naturalized in the United States were citizens, with equal protection under the law.

While the Fourteenth Amendment was a crucial step towards racial equality, it also introduced the word "male" in connection with voting rights. This inclusion of gendered language had a significant impact on the women's rights movement. The amendment stated that all male citizens over twenty-one years old had the right to vote. This was the first explicit federal denial of women's voting rights, and it caused a split in the women's rights movement. Some activists, like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, opposed the amendment, arguing that women should be included alongside Black men in the expansion of suffrage. Others, like Lucy Stone, supported the amendment, believing that women's suffrage would soon follow.

The Fourteenth Amendment's reference to "male" citizens marked a shift from the original Constitution, which used the word ["persons"] and did not explicitly mention gender. While the term "persons" was intended to be inclusive of both men and women, common law interpretations and state laws often restricted women's rights, including voting rights. The Fourteenth Amendment, therefore, became a pivotal moment in the struggle for women's suffrage, bringing the issue of gender equality in voting rights to the forefront of national debate.

The inclusion of the word "male" in the Fourteenth Amendment underscores the complex and evolving nature of constitutional interpretation. While the amendment was a significant step forward in racial equality, it also highlighted the ongoing struggle for women's rights and the need for continued advocacy to ensure that all citizens, regardless of gender, are guaranteed equal protection under the law. The Fourteenth Amendment set the stage for further amendments and legal challenges aimed at securing voting rights for women and ensuring that the Constitution upholds the principles of equality and justice for all.

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) would prohibit discrimination based on sex

The word "woman" appears in the United States Constitution just once, in the nineteenth amendment, which guarantees women the right to vote. This sole reference to women in the Constitution highlights the historical absence of explicit protections for women's rights and the need for an amendment specifically addressing gender equality. This is where the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) comes into play, aiming to rectify this historical oversight and ensure that discrimination on the basis of sex is prohibited.

The ERA is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex. The amendment reads: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." The purpose of the ERA is to extend to women the same constitutional protections against discrimination that are already afforded to men.

Despite the ratification deadline extensions, the ERA has not been adopted into the Constitution. Currently, there is a legal and political debate about whether the ERA can still be adopted and if the previous ratifications are still valid. Supporters of the ERA argue that it is necessary to explicitly include sex as a protected class in the Constitution to ensure that women's rights are safeguarded. They contend that without the ERA, women remain vulnerable to discrimination in various aspects of life, including employment, education, and legal rights.

The absence of the word "woman" in the Constitution, except in the context of suffrage, underscores the historical exclusion of women from the foundational document's protections. The ERA seeks to rectify this by providing a constitutional guarantee of equal rights, ensuring that discrimination on the basis of sex is legally untenable. This amendment would empower women and strengthen the foundation of equality upon which American democracy stands.

The ERA is composed of three sections, each playing a crucial role in prohibiting discrimination based on sex. The first section, as mentioned earlier, establishes the principle of equality by stating that legal rights cannot be denied or abridged because of one's sex. The second section empowers Congress to enforce this amendment through appropriate legislation, a common feature of constitutional amendments that provides legislative bodies with the authority to create laws that uphold the amendment's principles.

Finally, the third section of the ERA addresses the amendment process itself, specifying that this amendment shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution once ratified. This section mirrors the language used in other amendments and underscores the significance and validity of the ERA as a constitutional amendment. By explicitly including it in the Constitution, the ERA would provide a powerful legal tool to challenge discriminatory laws and practices based on gender stereotypes and inequality.

Frequently asked questions