The Us Constitution: A Male-Dominated Document?

The US Constitution has long been criticised for its exclusion of certain groups, including women, from its language. Notably, the word man or male does not appear in the original Constitution, nor does any other gendered noun or adjective. This has led to debates about the interpretation of the Constitution and its use of pronouns, such as he, and whether they should be updated to be more inclusive. While some argue that changing the Constitution's pronouns would be a massive political undertaking, others believe that it is important to acknowledge the ability of women to hold positions of power, such as the presidency.

Explore related products

Brain Games - Word Search Puzzles: The U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence

$12.99

Constitution of the United States (Books of American Wisdom)

$9.25 $9.95

An American Family: A Memoir of Hope and Sacrifice

$3.58 $27

Getting the Word Out: A Handbook for Readers (Leading Worship Matters)

$7.99 $8.49

Power Grab: Obama's Dangerous Plan for a One-Party Nation

$21.61 $24.95

The Incomplete History of Secret Organizations: An Utterly Unreliable Account of Netflix's A Series of Unfortunate Events

$23.98 $35

The US Constitution does not contain the words man or male

The US Constitution is a foundational document that sets out the country's fundamental laws and principles. Notably, the original text of the Constitution does not contain the words "man" or "male". This absence of gendered nouns or adjectives is significant because it implies that the rights, privileges, and protections afforded to "persons" under the Constitution apply equally to both men and women.

The omission of gender-specific language in the Constitution is particularly noteworthy when considering the historical context of its drafting. The Constitution was ratified in 1787, a time when women could not vote and societal norms and legal frameworks were largely shaped by patriarchal values. Despite this, the drafters of the Constitution chose to use inclusive language, referring to "persons" or "the people" rather than specifying a particular gender.

This intentional use of gender-neutral language in the Constitution has important implications for interpreting the document. Firstly, it underscores the principle of equality and the belief that all individuals, regardless of gender, possess inherent rights and deserve equal treatment under the law. Secondly, it provides a basis for legal arguments and interpretations that promote gender equality and challenge discriminatory practices.

However, it is essential to acknowledge that the absence of gendered language in the Constitution does not automatically translate into full gender equality in practice. While the document may not explicitly discriminate against women, societal biases and structural barriers have often limited women's ability to fully exercise their constitutional rights. Moreover, the use of masculine pronouns, such as "he" when referring to the President, can contribute to a perception of leadership roles as predominantly male domains.

As a result, there have been calls for more inclusive language in the Constitution. Some advocates argue that using gender-neutral pronouns like "they" or explicitly including "she" when referring to positions of power can help promote a more inclusive society and encourage equal representation in leadership roles. Changing the Constitution's pronouns, however, would face significant political challenges, requiring a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and approval by three-quarters of state legislatures.

The Constitution uses gender-neutral pronouns, referring to persons

The Constitution of the United States is a foundational document that sets out the country's fundamental laws and principles. It is a product of its time, drafted and ratified in the late 18th century, a period when societal norms and values differed significantly from those of today. Notably, the language used in the Constitution reflects the social and political realities of that era, including the use of gendered pronouns.

While the Constitution does not explicitly use gender-neutral pronouns such as "they" or "them," it is important to recognise that the document employs a more inclusive approach to gender by referring to individuals as "persons." This choice of wording is significant and was intentional, as it ensured that the rights, privileges, and protections outlined in the Constitution applied equally to both male and female persons. By avoiding specific gender references, the Founding Fathers created a framework that, while not explicitly gender-neutral in pronoun usage, was designed to encompass all citizens regardless of gender.

In the original text of the Constitution, the words "man" or "male" are notably absent. Instead, the document refers to "Persons," "People," and "Citizens," indicating an understanding that the rights and responsibilities outlined within it were meant for all. This use of gender-inclusive language, while not employing modern gender-neutral pronouns, reflects a recognition that the principles enshrined in the Constitution were intended to be universal and applicable to all individuals, regardless of gender.

For example, in the famous preamble, the Constitution states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." Here, the use of "We the People" and "ourselves" indicates an inclusive vision that encompasses all citizens, regardless of gender.

However, it is important to acknowledge that the absence of gendered pronouns does not automatically equate to complete gender equality within the document. The Constitution, while using gender-neutral language in some sections, still reflects the societal biases and limitations of its time. For instance, the use of "he" when referring to the President of the United States is a notable example of gendered language that fails to acknowledge the potential for a female president. This has led to discussions and petitions advocating for the use of gender-neutral pronouns in the Constitution to ensure it better reflects the diversity and inclusivity of modern society.

The Constitution does use the pronoun he when referring to the President

The Constitution of the United States, transcribed by Jacob Shallus, was ratified in 1787. At the time, women did not have the right to vote, and the pronoun "he" was commonly used as a default, often to refer to people of any gender. This is reflected in the Constitution, which uses the pronoun "he" when referring to the President of the United States.

While the use of "he" as a default pronoun was common during the time of the Constitution's drafting, it is important to acknowledge that language and societal norms have evolved. In modern times, the use of gender-specific pronouns, such as "he" or "she," can be limiting and fail to represent the diversity of individuals who may hold the office of the President.

The use of inclusive language, such as "they" or "their," has gained traction as a more inclusive alternative to gender-specific pronouns. This trend reflects a growing awareness of gender diversity and a desire to create a more inclusive society. As such, some people may prefer to use gender-neutral language when referring to the President, even when quoting or discussing the Constitution.

Despite the historical context, there have been calls for the Constitution's pronouns to be updated to reflect the modern era. Changing the language of the Constitution is a significant undertaking, requiring a two-thirds vote in both the U.S. House and Senate, as well as approval by three-quarters of state legislatures. While some may view this as a frivolous endeavour, proponents argue that it is not just a matter of semantics but a reflection of a broader issue of gender inequality, particularly in politics.

Explore related products

Elections: Why They Matter to You (A True Book: Why It Matters) (A True Book (Relaunch))

$31 $7.95

Godzilla vs. Kong: Sometimes Friends Fight: (But They Always Make Up) (Friendship Books for Kids, Kindness Books, Counting Books, Pop Culture Board Books, PlayPop)

$8.66 $9.99

Why Wilson Matters: The Origin of American Liberal Internationalism and Its Crisis Today (Princeton Studies in International History and Politics Book 152)

$21.53 $34

Werewolves and States of Matter (Monster Science)

$8.99 $8.99

Scooby-Doo! A States of Matter Mystery: Revenge from a Watery Grave (Scooby-Doo Solves It with S.T.E.M.)

$7.95 $27.99

theBalm theBalmJour Lip Stain

$17

There is no mention of slavery, race, colour, black, or white in the original document

The original US Constitution, written in 1787, did not include the words "slavery", "race", "colour", "black", or "white". While the document does not explicitly refer to these terms, it does contain circumlocutions that allude to the concept of slavery. For instance, the Constitution used phrases such as "person held to service or labour" and "such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" instead of the word "slave".

The absence of these terms in the original Constitution is notable, especially given that the issue of slavery was a significant concern during the Constitutional Convention. The framers of the Constitution, many of whom were slave owners themselves, consciously avoided using the word "slave", recognising that it would taint the document. Instead, they included provisions that protected slavery and gave it important concessions. One such provision was the fugitive slave clause, which required the return of runaway slaves to their owners. Additionally, the Constitution prohibited Congress from outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for twenty years, and it gave the federal government the authority to suppress domestic rebellions, including slave uprisings.

The three-fifths clause, which counted three-fifths of a state's slave population when apportioning representation, gave the Southern states extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College. This clause was not about the humanity of slaves but about voting power in Congress, ensuring that the Southern states had more influence. The framers believed that these concessions on slavery were necessary to gain the support of the Southern delegates for a strong central government. By sidestepping the issue of slavery, the framers laid the groundwork for future conflicts.

It is important to note that the original Constitution, while not explicitly mentioning slavery, race, or colour, also did not include women, Blacks, or Jews. The phrase "We the People" excluded a majority of Americans, as Thurgood Marshall, the first African American Supreme Court justice, pointed out. The framers consented to a document that laid the foundation for tragic events, including the Civil War, which led to the inclusion of the word "slavery" in the Constitution for the first time in the Thirteenth Amendment, prohibiting slavery in the United States.

The Constitution has been amended to include the words race and colour

The US Constitution has indeed been amended to include the words "race" and "colour". While the original text of the US Constitution did not explicitly mention "race" or "colour", it has since been amended to address issues of racial equality and civil rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, is a key example of this. It was enacted to secure the civil rights and privileges of citizenship for persons of colour, particularly those who had been previously held in slavery. This amendment not only granted citizenship to people of colour but also denied states the power to withhold equal protection of the laws from them. It also authorised Congress to enforce these provisions through legislation.

The Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted by courts to prohibit state-imposed distinctions based on race. For example, in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court held that a state law that discriminated against African Americans was void and unconstitutional. Similarly, in the California measure case, the Court struck down a Washington measure that singled out busing for desegregation, finding that it imposed a more severe burden and had an intentional impact on racial minorities.

Another example is the Civil Rights Bill of 1875, which intended to secure equal accommodations in all public places for people of all races. While this legislation aimed to eliminate race distinctions recognised by law, it did not address the underlying issue. The legislatures and courts of the states continued to create and uphold race distinctions, which the Federal courts and Congress were powerless to challenge.

The Constitution, as amended, aims to give equal civil and political rights to all races, as evidenced by court statements: "...if one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them on the same plan." However, the interpretation and enforcement of these amendments have been complex, and the journey towards racial equality in the US has been a long and ongoing process.

Frequently asked questions