I read in the Boston Globe yesterday 18 New Hampshire legislators are trying to change the language in the state’s constitution so it is gender neutral. Specifically, the group wants to strike the word men and references to the word and replace them with gender-neutral words. Currently, the constitution reads, “All men are born equally free and independent.’’ It was ratified in 1783. Today, the New Hampshire State has a female majority.
From the Globe article: “We have women in leadership roles, and to have the Constitution reflect that changing status of women makes sense,’’ said Sylvia Larsen, the state Senate president.
and
“When fourth-graders come to the State House, they are amazed to hear that the Senate has a majority of women,’’ said (state Senator Kathy) Sgambati. “Those young girls should see themselves in the constitution. They shouldn’t have to try to figure out that it applies to them.’’
Fixing the language bias seems a simple enough fix. But opponents of the legislation say, no way. They say the constitution is “sacred” and changing the language would destroy it. Here’s another argument form the Globe article,
“It’s a waste of time,’’ said Charles Arlinghaus, president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy and former executive director of the state’s Republican Party. “It doesn’t help anyone. It doesn’t do anything.’’
I disagree. Language matters. We tell our daughters they can grow up and be anything they want to be. But then they read and hear about selectmen and aldermen and congressmen. What is the cumulative impact on girls as they grow up and notice their gender is invisible in news stories, job descriptions and charters of freedom? Certainly, they can’t rely on visual images to inspire their dreams. Our girls don’t see very many women running universities, or newsrooms, in board rooms or on Capitol Hill.
In the online comment to the Globe story, readers argued a change would make for “unlovely” prose and that gender-neutral language is “bland.” How sad that readability is more important than equal representation. Others argue the constitution is a historic document and should not be revised. And then there is my favorite objection –that intelligent people know the term “men” implies all humans, not just males. It’s in the dictionary, after all.
So I propose a compromise. Leave the document as is. But moving forward, all legislation and all new editions of Webster’s will use the word “women” instead of “men.” Mankind will be written as womenkind. This compromise will maintain the beautiful prose, preserve history and more accurately reflect the U.S. population, the majority of which is female.
Any objection, ladies? (And by ladies, I of course mean you guys too.)
