Samantha Sharac is worried about equal rights for women. She thinks that Harvard President Lawrence Summer's supposition that men and women are genetically different (especially when it comes to math and science) is the product of male chauvinism that dates back to the late 1700s. In the Daily Collegian, student newspaper for the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, she writes:

The Constitution was ratified with the nineteenth Amendment, yet the Declaration of Independence remains the same. Women now have the legal right to vote but they are not entitled to "certain unalienable rights ... among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Declaration of Independence provide these three rights to "all men," with no mention of women. Now, one may argue that women are legally given these rights as citizens of the United States.

If women were granted these three rights, I doubt that there would be a gender gap in wage earnings, violence against women, unsafe abortions and substantially more women than men in poverty; these ugly realities severely undercut women's right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You just have to know that the sexist male pig in me is screaming, "Geez, they don't know anything about history either". But I'll try to supress my feelings of superiority just long enough to give her a history lesson.

First of all, the Constitution was amended with the Nineteenth Amendment, which was in turn ratified in 1920. (Unless she is claiming that our nation is only 85 years old.)

Second, the Declaration of Independence is not really a legally binding document. It was basically a giant F-U letter sent to the King of England. It enumerated his many crimes against the colonists and declared that America was free and independent. It is the spirit behind the law, not the law itself.

Of course Ms. Sharac's fundamental flaw is her way of thinking. People are not "granted" rights by the government. That violates the definition of both "rights" and "unalienable". A right that is regulated by the government ceases to be a right and is instead a priviledge. The very definition of "unalienable" means that which cannot be taken away. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution protect our rights, they don't grant them. Perhaps had she quoted the whole passage she would have read that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Of course by Creator they mean God, so it's no wonder she purposely left it out.

Her notion that using some white out on the Declaration of Independence would somehow magically close the "gender gap" is absurd. Starting wages are typically much higher for women. That men rise above women in the work place likely has everything to do with women putting their careers on hold to raise a family. Let's face it, taking a few years off from your job isn't the best career move. And "violence against women" and "unsafe abortions" are both problems common only to women. Most men I know have a 0% chance of suffering from violence against women and unsafe abortions. In fact, I don't know of a single case of a man getting an unsafe abortion. Then again, I don't realy follow it that closely.

But I doubt that there are a bunch of wife beaters are out there claiming that the Declaration of Independence made them do it.

Via Taranto