Citizenship denied: women’s lack of political rights and the constitutional metamorphosis of the principle of equality
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5380/rfdufpr.v69i1.95225Keywords:
Citizenship. Principle of equality. Gender discrimination. Political rights. Constitutionalism.Abstract
This essay explores the constitutional evolution of female citizenship and begins with Aristotle’s definition of citizenship in ancient Greece in order to emphasize the enduring lack of women’s participation in government functions and public offices. It then examines the systematic denial of political rights to women, a pervasive issue throughout the history of constitutionalism that has perpetuated the principle of political patriarchy. The exclusion of women from politics was perceived not merely as a violation of political equality, but rather as a constitutional reflection of their distinct nature. However, a significant shift occurred in the twentieth century, marked by constitutional transformations in western democracies aimed at dismantling male-centric political rights. This ongoing process has led to a redefinition of the principle of equality within constitutional frameworks. The essay argues that justice, rather than mere equality, is the driving force behind ongoing constitutional changes shaping female citizenship in the modern era.
References
ABERDAM, Serge. Deux occasions de participation féminine en 1793: le vote sur la Constitution et le partage des biens communaux. Annales historiques de la Révolution française, [s. l.], 339, p. 17-34, janv.-mars 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/ahrf.2098.
ACHIN, Catherine; LÉVÊQUE, Sandrine. Femmes en politique. Paris: La Découverte, 2006.
ACKERMAN, Bruce. We the People: The Civil Rights Revolution. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2014.
ACKERMAN, Bruce. We the People: Transformations. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1988.
ALBERT, Richard. Constitutional Amendment and Dismemberment. The Yale Journal of International Law, [s. l.], v. 43, n. 1, p. 1-84, 2018.
ALEXY, Robert. The Argument From Injustice: A Reply to Legal Positivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
ALLEN, Peter; CUTTS, David; CAMPBELL, Rosie. Measuring the Quality of Politicians Elected by Gender Quotas – Are They Any Different? Political Studies, [s. l.], v. 64, n. 1, p. 143-163, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12.
APOSTOLI, Adriana. La dignità sociale come orizzonte della uguaglianza nell’ordinamento costituzionale. Costituzionalismo.it, Roma, n. 3, p. 1-32, 2019.
BALTRUNAITE, Audinga et al. Gender Quotas and the Quality of Politicians. Journal of Public Economics, [s. l.], v. 118, p. 62-74, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.06.008.
BLAKE, Michael. Okin, Susan Moller. In: MANDLE, Jon; REIDY, David A. (ed.). The Cambridge Rawls Lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014. p. 577-578.
CALORE, Antonello. “Cittadinanza” tra storia e comparazione. In: BRUTTI, Massimo; SOMMA, Alessandro (ed.). Diritto: storia e comparazione. Nuovi propositi per un binomio antico. Frankfurt am Main: Max Planck Institute for European Legal History, 2018. p. 81-94.
CHAMPEAUX, Jacqueline. La religione dei romani. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2002.
CITIZEN (Original Title: Citoyen. Author: Denis Diderot. Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, v. 3, p. 488-789, 1753. Translator: Sujaya Dhanvantari [University of Alberta]). In: BRINGMAN, Gregory; EDEN, Malcolm; STEWART, Philip (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d’Alembert: Collaborative Translation Project. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library, 2005. Available from: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/did/. Accessed: 19 April 2024.
CLAYTON, Amanda. Women’s Political Engagement under Quota-Mandated Female Representation: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment. Comparative Political Studies, [s. l.], v. 48, n. 3, p. 333-369, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414014548104.
CONDORCET O’CONNOR, Arthur. Sur l’admission des femmes au droit de cité. In: CONDORCET O’CONNOR, Arthur; ARAGO, M. François (ed.). Œuvres de Condorcet. Tome Dixième. Paris: Firmin Didot, 1847. p. 120-130.
DE GOUGES, Olympe. Les Droits de la femme. A la Reine. Paris: [s. n.], 1791.
FERRAJOLI, Luigi. Il principio di uguaglianza e la differenza di genere. giudicedonna.it, [s. l.], n. 3, p. 1-14, 2015.
FRIEDRICH, Carl J. Trends of Federalism in Theory and Practice. New York: Praeger, 1968.
GERTNER, Nancy; HERIOT, Gail. The Nineteenth Amendment. Common Interpretation. National Constitution Center, Philadelphia, PA, 2018. Available from: https://tinyurl.com/mtjkd9p5. Accessed: 19 April 2024.
GERTZOG, Irwin N. Female Suffrage in New Jersey, 1790-1807. In: LYNN, Naomi B. (ed). Women, Politics and the Constitution. New York: The Haworth Press, 1990. p. 47-58.
GIANFORMAGGIO, Letizia. Eguaglianza, donne e diritto. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2005.
GOLDONI, Marco; WILKINSON, Michael A. The Material Constitution. The Modern Law Review, Oxford, UK, v. 81, n. 4, p. 567-597, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12352.
GUSTAFSSON, Martin. On Rawls’s Distinction between Perfect and Imperfect Procedural Justice. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, [s. l.], v. 34, n. 2, p. 300-305, June 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393104264925.
HAMILTON, Neil A. Rebel and Renegades: A Chronology of Social and Political Dissent in the United States. New York: Routledge, 2014.
HART, Herbert L. A. The Concept of Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 1961.
HARTOG, Hendrik. Man and Wife in America: A History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.
HEILMAN, Madeline E.; WELLE, Brian. Disadvantaged by Diversity? The Effects of Diversity Goals on Competence Perceptions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, [s. l.], v. 36, n. 5, p. 1.291-1.319, May 2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00043.x.
IVERSEN, Torben; ROSENBLUTH, Frances. Women, Work, & Politics: The Political Economy of Gender Inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010.
JACOBSOHN, Gary J. Making Sense of the Constitutional Revolution. Constellations, Oxford, UK, v. 19, n. 2, p. 164-181, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8675.2012.00686.x.
JELLINEK, Georg. Constitutional Amendment and Constitutional Transformation (1906). In: JACOBSON, Arthur J.; SCHLINK, Bernhard (ed.). Weimar: A Jurisprudence of Crisis. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. p. 54-57.
JOHNSON, Joan M. The Woman Suffrage Movement in the United States. Abingdon: Routledge, 2022.
KAMEN, Deborah. Status in Classical Athens. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013.
KELSEN, Hans. Reine Rechtslehre. Einleitung in die rechtswissenschaftliche Problematik. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1934.
KENWORTHY, Lane; MALAMI, Melissa. Gender Inequality in Political Representation: A Worldwide Comparative Analysis. Social Forces, [s. l.], v. 78, n. 1, p. 235-269, Sept. 1999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3005796.
KROOK, Mona L. Contesting Gender Quotas: Dynamics of Resistance. Politics, Groups, and Identities, [s. l.], v. 4, n. 2, p. 268-283, 2016. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2016.1151797.
LANDES, Joan B. Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988.
LASSÉBIE, Julie. Gender Quotas and the Selection of Local Politicians: Evidence from French Municipal Elections. European Journal of Political Economy, [s. l.], v. 62, Mar. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2019.101842.
LIMA, Jairo; PRADELLA BUENO, Marcella; STAMILE, Natalina. Supremas Ministras: a Inclusão de Mulheres na Composição do STF à Luz da Legitimidade das Cortes Constitucionais. Revista Direito Público, Brasília, v. 18, n. 98, p. 225-263, abr./jun. 2021. DOI: 1, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11117/rdp.v18i98.58.
MACKINNON, Catharine A. Gender in Constitutions. In: ROSENFELD, Michel; SAJÓ, András (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199578610.013.0021. p. 397-416.
MATLAND, Richard E.; TAYLOR, Michelle M. Electoral System Effects on Women’s Representation: Theoretical Arguments and Evidence from Costa Rica. Comparative Political Studies, [s. l.], v. 30, n. 2, p. 186-210, 1997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414097030002003.
MILLETT, Kate. Sexual Politics. New York: Doubleday, 1970.
MITCHELL, Juliet. Woman’s Estate. New York: Vintage Books, 1973.
MONOPOLI, Paula A. Constitutional Orphan: Gender Equality and the Nineteenth Amendment. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.
MORTATI, Costantino. La costituzione in senso materiale. Milano: Giuffré, 1940.
MÜLLER, Friedrich. Quem é o povo? A questão fundamental da democracia. São Paulo: Max Limonad, 2003.
ONIDA, Valerio. Eguaglianza, legalità, costituzione. In: ONIDA, Valerio. Idee in cammino. Bari: Cacucci, 2019. p. 177-194.
PATEMAN, Carole. The Sexual Contract. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988.
PERELMAN, Chaim. The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument. London: Routledge, 1963.
POPELIER, Patricia. A Constitutional Perspective on Electoral Gender Quotas. In: GARDNER, James A. (ed). Comparative Election Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2022. p. 322-343.
RADOJEVIC, Marco. The Subjective Effects of Gender Quotas: Party Elites Do Not Consider “Quota Women” to Be Less Competent. Politics & Gender, [s. l.], v. 19, n. 2, p. 349-372, June 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X22000137.
RAWLS, John. A Theory of Justice. Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
REYNOLDS, Andrew. Women in the Legislatures and Executives of the World: Knocking at the Highest Glass Ceiling. World Politics, [s. l.], v. 51, n. 4, p. 547-572, July 1999.
RIX, Rebecca A. Gender and Reconstruction: The Individual and Family Basis of Republican Government Contested, 1868-1925. Ann Arbor: ProQuest UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2008.
RODRÍGUEZ RUIZ, Blanca; SACKSOFSKY, Ute. Gender in the German Constitution. In: BAINES, Beverley; RUBIO-MARIN, Ruth (ed.). The Gender of Constitutional Jurisprudence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005. p. 149-173.
RUGGIU, Ilenia. Mutamenti della forma di governo e integrazione europea. AIC Annual Conference, Brescia, 27-28 October 2023.
SIEGEL, Reva B. She the People: The Nineteenth Amendment, Sex Equality, Federalism, and the Family. Harvard Law Review, [s. l.], v. 115, n. 4, p. 947-1.046, Feb. 2002.
SIEGEL, Reva B. The Nineteenth Amendment and the Democratization of the Family. The Yale Law Journal Forum, [s. l.], v. 129, p. 450-495, 2020.
SMART, Carol. The woman of legal discourse. Social and legal Studies, London, v. 1, p. 29-44, 1992.
SQUIRES, Judith. The New Politics of Gender Equality. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007.
STAMILE, Natalina. Igualdad, diferencia y teoría feminista. Eunomía, [s. l.], n. 18, p. 9-28, abr./sept. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20318/eunomia.2020.5261.
TOMEI, Samuël. Citoyenneté et suffrage universel en France depuis la Révolution. Humanisme, [s. l.], n. 284, p. 42-50, 2009.
UNITED NATIONS. Human Development Report 2020. The Next Frontier: Human Development and the Anthropocene. December 15, 2020a. Available from: https://tinyurl.com/unevv36j. Accessed: 19 April 2024.
UNITED NATIONS. Regional Information Centre for Western Europe. Sustainable Development Goals [SDG]. SDG 5: Gender Equality. June 12, 2020b. Available from: https://unric.org/en/sdg-5/. Accessed: 19 April 2024.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (U.S.). Library of Congress. U.S. Reports: Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875). 2 Apr. 2018. Available from: https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep088162/. Accessed: 19 April 2024.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (U.S.). Library of Congress. U.S. Reports: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856). 21 July 2019. Available from: https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep060393a/. Accessed: 19 April 2024.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with the Journal agree to the following terms:
– Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal right of first publication with the work licensed under the Creative Commons — Atribuição 3.0 Brasil — CC BY 3.0 BR Licence, which allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work’s authorship and initial publication in the Journal;
– Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the Journal’s published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal;
– Any person is free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and to adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) for any purpose, even commercially, but must give, in any case, appropriate credit, and provide a link to the license and indicate if changes were made, under the terms of the Creative Commons — Atribuição 3.0 Brasil — CC BY 3.0 BR Licence and in compliance with Brazilian Law No. 9,610, of February 19, 1998, and other regulations in force.
