Some life lessons learned from a conversation with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's mother left her with two key pieces of advice: Be independent, and be a lady. She's both.

I was able to talk with the Justice about everything from her mother to the role of international law in American courts to her now infamous plane ride on Thursday night during an onstage interview at University of California Hastings. There are few lawyers in history who have done more to advance women's rights than Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Here are a few things we can all learn from her.

1) "Begin at the beginning"

When Ginsburg first started working for the ACLU in the early 1970s, there was no legal protection against gender discrimination. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment guaranteed equal rights -- but for 104 years courts had held that it applied only to race, not to gender. What, I asked her, made her think she could change that?

"The times," Ginsburg said. "The Court is a reactive institution. It's never at the forefront of social change. There's always a movement in society that's pushing the Court."

The times may have pushed the Court, but Ginsburg certainly helped. The landmark case of Reed v. Reed challenged a law stating that if a conflict arose between a man and a woman over the administration of an estate, the man would always get precedence. The plaintiff, Sally Reed, was a mother whose son had killed himself in his father's care. For the first time, the Court held that women are equally protected under the Constitution -- and Reed was able to oversee her son's estate.

Over the next few years, the ACLU Women's Rights Project, under Ginsburg's leadership, brought or helped bring several other landmark cases before the Court, including Frontiero v. Richardson, in which Justice Brennan famously wrote that romantic paternalism puts women "not on a pedestal, but in a cage."

2) Men are included in feminism

At the same time that Ginsburg was working on Reed v. Reed, she was also litigating a parallel case, known as the Moritz case, in which a man caring for his ailing mother was denied a tax break automatically available to female caregivers on account of his gender. She said incorporating the fight for male gender equality into the women's rights movement was part of her litigation strategy.

"What we wanted was to open all doors, for men and for women," she said.

This two-pronged strategy continues to be truly revolutionary to this day. Gender pressures on men play as big a role in shaping society as gender pressures on women, and it remains true that how we define masculinity is as important to the feminist movement as how we define femininity.

Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

3) Find a partner who's really a partner

Ginsburg thinks women can have it all -- because she did. A husband, two kids, a successful career. Talking to her, it's clear that she was able to get to where she is today only because of her relationship with her husband Martin Ginsburg, whom she calls Marty.

"In a family, there's balance," she said. "When Marty was starting out and eager to make partner, I did the lion's share of taking care of [our daughter] Jane and the housework."

Ten years later, when Ginsburg was appointed to the DC Court of Appeals, her family moved with her from New York. For Marty, that meant leaving the law firm where he was a partner and transferring from Columbia Law School, where he had just gotten tenure, to Georgetown.

At the time, it was almost unheard of for a man to move for his wife's career, and many people assumed Ginsburg was commuting to DC from New York. At parties and dinners in Washington, she remembers, the confusion was even more basic: "I would be introduced as Judge Ginsburg and a hand would extend to Marty."

"That stopped when I got to the Supreme Court," she added.

4) Be a little bit deaf

On her wedding day, Ginsburg's future mother-in-law told her the secret of a happy marriage: "It helps to be a little bit deaf."

Ginsburg has taken this strategy to the Supreme Court, where her eight colleagues span a wide range of political ideologies. The judges' differing political stances have led to what she has called "spicy opinions."

"We don't merely respect, but also genuinely like each other," she said. "Scalia is my biggest buddy at the opera."

While Ginsburg and fellow justice Antonin Scalia couldn't be more different on the bench, they've been friends for three decades. They've even traveled together. On a 1994 trip to India, a picture was taken of the two together on an elephant.

"It was quite a magnificent, very elegant elephant," Ginsburg said of the experience. "And my feminist friends, when they see the photograph of Ginsburg and Scalia on this elephant, say, 'Ruth, why are you sitting in the back?'"

She's said in the past that her choice of seating was related to distribution of weight. Regardless, when it comes to the things that matter, she's not one to sit in the back. And I, for one, want to thank her for it.

Joan Williams is the author of Reshaping the Work-Family Debate. Rachel Dempsey contributed to this article.

Judge Loretta Preska rolled back the clock on mothers seeking justice for straightforward discrimination.

When Sekiko Garrison told former boss Michael Bloomberg she was pregnant, his answer was simple: "Kill it." Allowing mothers flexible work arrangements, he commented, was like allowing a man time off to practice his golf swing. The CEO who took over when Bloomberg left the company demanded that managers "get rid of these pregnant bitches" (referring to two women on maternity leave). The Head of Global Human Resources commented that mothers "belong at home" and that "women [do] not really [have] a place in the workforce." The Head of News commented that "half these f**king people take the [maternity] leave and they don't even come back. It's like stealing money from Mike Bloomberg's wallet. They should be arrested." The Head of Global Data asked, "Who would want to work with an office full of women?"*

And yet Federal Judge Loretta Preska said last week there was so little evidence of discrimination that she would not allow the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to proceed to trial to try to prove that Bloomberg had discriminated against mothers. Preska, a pro-business Bush appointee, ended her opinion with a severe scolding: "At bottom, the EEOC's theory of this case is about so-called 'work-life balance'... [T]he EEOC's claim...amounts to a judgment that Bloomberg, as a company policy, does not provide its employee-mothers with a sufficient work-life balance." Preska quotes (as binding authority?) former General Electric CEO Jack Welch: "There's no such thing as work-life balance. There are work-life choices, and you make them, and they have consequences."

Where to start? The plaintiffs in this case were not asking for work-life balance. They were asking that their employer not discriminate against them because they were mothers. Recent social science suggests that motherhood is the strongest trigger for gender discrimination in today's workplace. If you give people identical resumes, one a mother and the other not, the mother is 79% less likely to be hired, 100% less likely to be promoted, offered an average of $11,000 less in salary, and held to higher performance and punctuality standards, according to a study by Shelley Correll, Steve Benard, and In Paik. Note: identical resumes. This is not a measure of the desire for work-life balance. It's evidence of extraordinarily strong discrimination against mothers. And, as the quotes from Bloomberg management demonstrate, discrimination against mothers is not only very strong. Often, it's also very open.

It’s free! Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

Discrimination at Bloomberg appears to have been very open indeed. Yet through a series of procedural rulings, Judge Preska threw out most of the EEOC's evidence and then held that it had so little evidence it could not take the case to trial. First, she rejected the EEOC's statistical evidence. Then she threw out statements like those above. Those statements she could not throw out for technical reasons she simply ignored. (The comments about leave-takers stealing Mike's money were not excludable for any of the reasons the judge identified. And by the way, it is illegal under the Family and Medical Leave Act to discourage people from taking FMLA leave. Would you be discouraged by these comments?)

I won't go deeply into the technical problems with the court's opinion. But the court got caught in a time warp. Ten years ago, suits against mothers were often stymied because courts could not find a suitable "comparator" -- a similarly situated pregnant man. Courts eventually solved this problem by abandoning their search for a comparator, instead allowing plaintiffs to prove discrimination by introducing evidence of stereotyping (e.g., comments about how mothers belong at home). But Judge Preska turned back the clock. She not only insisted on comparator evidence, but rejected the obvious comparison between people who took maternity leave and those who did not. Instead, she insisted that the plaintiffs compare their salary growth to that of employees who took leaves of similar length. But healthy men don't typically take long leaves, which means that plaintiffs' salary growth was compared to that of employees who, one assumes, either were seriously ill, seriously disabled, or else had gone on an extended vacation to discover themselves in Aruba. Not surprisingly, under these circumstances the significant salary disparity found by the plaintiff's expert magically disappeared.

But the most troubling thing about this case is Judge Preska's confusion about the difference between work-life balance and discrimination against mothers. "The law does not mandate 'work-life balance.' It does not require companies to ignore employees' work-family tradeoffs -- and they are tradeoffs -- when deciding about employee pay and promotions." True that.

What employers are not allowed to do is discriminate against mothers on the fast track because a different group of mothers decided to leave the fast track. If the judge doesn't understand that, she needs a refresher course on the basics of anti-discrimination law, set down in the 1970s. You can't penalize women who don't conform to stereotypes just because other women do conform to them.

If we abandon these basic principles of anti-discrimination law, it's open season on mothers. And that's a really, really devastating setback for women. Studies show what dooms women economically in the United States is not being a woman -- it's being a mother. If the courts refuse to protect mothers on the fast track simply because other mothers decided to leave, we are not going to have gender equality anytime soon. That's for damn sure.

*These quotes can be found in the EEOC brief.

Joan Williams is the author of Reshaping the Work-Family Debate.