All of the representatives to the Constitutional Convention were men. They were largely very successful professionals. Most were well versed in the law and knew that in writing contracts it was as important to say what you mean as it was to mean what you say. They did.
“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 [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”
“No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”
Limitations on voters are surprisingly absent in the Constitution.
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.”
However, examining Article 2, we may suspect that misogyny rears its ugly head when we find the use of “he” and “his” used in describing the duties and powers of the President.
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows...”
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
In my study of the law, and particularly legal documents written during historical periods, lawyers did not adopt the convention of using “and/or” until modern times. Thus, we may reasonably infer that the Framers of the Constitution intended that any person could serve as President regardless of gender, and that the use of masculine pronouns in Article 2, was neutral as was the case in most writings of that period.
Were these oversights on the part of the representatives to the Constitutional Convention, all of whom were men, or did they leave the door open to all persons, male and female, to vote and serve in government? It would appear so and that the failure of women to vote prior to suffrage was as much a fault of their cultural conditioning as any male-oriented misogyny. One may reasonably suspect that this cultural imperative reached well into modern times inasmuch as the principle source of opposition to the failed ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment came from women themselves. Surveys of men serving in state legislatures where ratification of the ERA died, report that their Nay votes were largely inspired by their wives.
Claims of unequal pay recently espoused at the Academy Awards have been debunked by studies of pay and benefits among American workers. These show that the disparity between men and women is less than 8%, which can be easily explained by career and life choices. Interestingly, the one place where women earn significantly less than men is in government service, especially at the White House where women earn less than three-quarters as much as men doing the same work. Also, the purported champion of women, Hillary Clinton, pays her female staff members an even smaller percentage. Strange.
Now, tell me. How is a Constitution that provides individual liberty for all, men and women, flawed?