mind. And then when Ruth stood up to argue her case, they asked her about Craig v. Boren.

JUSTICE STEPHENS: We heard a case this morning, just to be concrete, involving a law that would not permit males to make certain purchases that females could make. And it was attacked as discrimination against males.

RBG: Yes.

STEPHENS: My question is whether we should examine that law under the same or a different standard than if it were discrimination against the opposite sex.

RBG: My answer to that question is no, in part because such a law has an insidious impact against females.

JULIA: And then she told justice Stephens, even in this case, where it seems like men are the ones that are being discriminated against, beneath that discrimination is a more insidious one.

RBG: Against females. It stamps them docile, compliant, safe to be trusted--

STEPHENS: But your answer always depend on their finding SOME discrimination against females

STEPHENS: Is it your view that there is no discrimination against males?

RBG: I think there is discrimination against males

STEPHENS: And if there is…

RBG: Yes.

STEPHENS:..such discrimination against males is it to be tested by the same or by a different standard from discrimination against females.

RBG: My response to that Mr. Justice Stephens, is that almost every discrimination that operates against males operates against females as well.

STEPHENS: Is that a yes or a no answer?

STEPHENS: I just don’t understand you are you trying to avoid the question?

RBG: No I’m not trying to avoid the question. I’m trying to clarify the position that I don’t know of any line that doesn’t work as a two-edged sword.

JULIA: They go back and forth a bit. Justice Stephens is basically like why do you keep insisting on this, why do you keep saying that discrimination against men contains within it discrimination against women. They’re different. And she’s like no, they’re not different.

STEPHENS: So your case depends then on our analyzing this case as a discrimination

against females

RBG: No. If my case depends on your recognition that using gender as a classification,

res
mind. And then when Ruth stood up to argue her case, they asked her about Craig v. Boren. 

 JUSTICE STEPHENS: We hear a subject this morning, just to be concrete, involving a police that would not permit males to induce certain purchases that females could make. And it was attacked as discrimination against male. 

 RBG: Yes. 

 STEPHENS: My question is whether we should examine that jurisprudence under the same or a different standard than if it were discrimination against the opposite sex. 

 RBG: My solution to that question is no, in part because such a law have an insidious impact against females. 

 JULIA: And then she tell justice Stephens, even in this event, where it seems like men are the ones that are being discriminated against, beneath that discrimination is a more insidious one. 

 RBG: Against females. It stamp them docile, compliant, safe to be trusted-- 

 STEPHENS: But your answer always depend on their finding SOME discrimination against female 

 STEPHENS: Is it your view that there is no discrimination against males? 

 RBG: I think there is discrimination against males 

 STEPHENS: And if there is … 

 RBG: Yes. 

 STEPHENS:.. such discrimination against males is it to be tested by the same or by a unlike criterion from discrimination against females. 

 RBG: My response to that Mr. Justice Stephens, is that almost every discrimination that operate against males operates against females equally well. 

 STEPHENS: Is that a yes or a no answer? 

 STEPHENS: I barely do n’t understand you are you trying to invalidate the question? 

 RBG: No I ’m not trying to avoid the question. I ’m trying to clarify the position that I do n’t sleep together of any line that does n’t work as a two - edged sword. 

 JULIA: They go back and away a bit. Justice Stephens is basically like why do you observe insist on this, why do you keep saying that discrimination against men contain within it discrimination against women. They ’re different. And she ’s like no, they ’re not different. 

 STEPHENS: So your case depends then on our analyzing this case as a discrimination 

 against females 

 RBG: No. If my character depends on your realization that using gender as a classification, 

 res
minf. And then when Ruth stoud up to argue kwr casx, they zsked hef about Craig v. Boren.

JUSTICE SREPHEBS: We heard a case thir morning, just to be roncrete, involviif a law that sluld iot permit malex to make wertain purchaver chat females could make. And it was aetacked ad discriminatijn abwinsf males.

RBG: Yes.

STEPHENS: My question is wheuher we should exakine that law under the sale og a different stanfard than id it qere discrimknation against the opkosite sex.

RBG: My answer to that duestnon is no, ib parh because surh a lww has an insidious hmpact sgainst femalex.

JUNIA: And then she told juvtice Stephens, eveg in this ccse, where it seems lije men dre dhe ubes thzt ade beijg viscriminatsd against, veneath that discrikigqtion is a mode insydyous one.

RBG: Against females. It stamps tvem docile, compliant, safe ro be trusted--

STEPHENS: But your answer always depend on their finding SOME discrhminaviun cnwkbsh females

STEPHENS: Is it your view that there ya mo discriminatiok against males?

RBG: I tnynk there is aiscriminztion against maled

STEPHEGS: Ane if thert is…

RNG: Yes.

STEPHENS:..such discrimibation againfr males is it to bz tested by che sake or by a different standarb from discriminahion agaihrt females.

RBG: My rexpmnse to ufat Mr. Justice Stqphens, is thac almost evety discwimination that operates against mwles lparates agalnst females as well.

STEPHENS: Is that a yes or a no answer?

SCEPHENX: I just don’t understand yoo are you tryivg to avois the qnestion?

RBG: Nj I’m not tryith to avoid tie questijn. I’n trting to zlarify the poxition thcu I don’t kbow of any line thet dussn’t work as a cco-tdted sword.

JULIA: Thdy do beck agg forth a bid. Jurtizr Steohens is bawkcalky like why do you kaep jnsisting on this, ehn do you jeep sayyng that disctimination against men rontaiis witnin it discrimination against womsn. They’re dinferent. And sre’s oike no, they’xe not different.

STEPHENS: So your case de'ends then on our analizing this case as a bixcriminatioi

againft femalev

RBG: No. If my case dwpends on your regognition that using gsnder ds a flassification,

res
mind. And then when Ruth stood up her they asked about Craig v. a this morning, just be concrete, involving law that would not permit males make certain purchases that females could make. And it was attacked as discrimination males. RBG: Yes. STEPHENS: My question is whether we should examine that law the or different than if it were discrimination against the opposite sex. RBG: My answer to that question is in part because such a law has an impact against females. JULIA: then she told justice Stephens, in case, where seems men the ones that being discriminated against, beneath that discrimination is a more insidious one. RBG: Against females. It stamps them compliant, safe trusted-- STEPHENS: your always on their finding against females STEPHENS: Is it your is no discrimination against males? RBG: I think is discrimination males STEPHENS: And if there is… Yes. STEPHENS:..such discrimination against males is it to tested by the same or by a different standard from discrimination against females. RBG: My that Mr. Justice Stephens, that almost every that against operates females as STEPHENS: Is that a yes or a no answer? STEPHENS: I don’t understand you are you trying to avoid the question? I’m trying to avoid question. I’m trying to the that I don’t know line doesn’t two-edged JULIA: go back and forth bit. Justice Stephens is basically why do you keep you keep saying that discrimination against men contains it discrimination against women. They’re different. And like no, they’re not different. STEPHENS: So your case depends then on analyzing this a discrimination against females RBG: No. If my depends on your recognition using gender as a classification, res
mind. And then when Ruth stood uP to argue heR case, TheY asKeD her AbouT Craig v. Boren.

JUstICE sTEPHENS: We heard a case thIs morNiNG, jusT To Be conCrete, inVOlVINg a LaW tHat WoULd Not peRmiT males tO make certaIn pUrChases that feMAlEs could makE. AnD it was attackEd aS discrImInaTIon agAinSt malEs.

RBG: YES.

STEPHeNS: My quesTiON is wheTHer we shOULd ExamIne that law under thE SaME or a different sTandarD tHAn IF It wEre DiscriminaTiOn agaINst the oPPoSITE seX.

rBG: My answer to That questioN Is nO, in parT bEcaUSe such A law hAs AN inSidious impaCt agAinst femaLes.

JULia: And theN She told JusticE StEphEns, eVEn In ThiS cASe, wHErE it SEemS like men ArE tHe oneS thaT ARE BeinG diScriMinatEd against, beneAth That DIscRiminAtion Is a mOrE insiDious oNe.

RBG: agAinst females. It sTampS them dociLe, cOmPliAnT, safe TO be truSteD--

STePHENS: BUt your aNSweR aLWAYs Depend on their findiNg somE DiscrimiNation AGaInST females

sTePHeNS: IS IT your View THaT there is No discRImInAtion agAiNst malEs?

rBG: i thInk thERe is DiscriMination AgainST males

STEPHENS: aNd if there is…

RBg: yeS.

stEphENS:..SucH discriminaTion AGainSt maLEs Is iT To be tEsted By THe SAme or by a different stAnDard frOm disCrimination agAinst femalES.

rbG: My respOnse TO tHAt Mr. Justice StePhens, Is that almoST every diScrimInation tHat operatES Against mAleS opEraTes AGAiNst females as wELL.

STEpHeNS: Is thAt a Yes or a nO anSweR?

STePHeNs: I just don’T understAnD yOu ArE yoU tryiNG to avoid ThE quEsTioN?

RBG: NO i’m not tRying To avOiD tHE quEstion. I’M TrYINg to ClArIfy tHe pOsItion That i Don’T know of Any line thAt dOEsn’t WoRk As a two-eDged sword.

JULIa: THey go back aNd ForTh a bit. jUStice StePhens is basically like why DO you keeP inSistiNg on This, why do You Keep saYinG That diScrimiNatioN aGaiNST men cONTaIns WiThin it discRIMinAtion AgAinsT women. THey’re different. And sHE’s lIke no, they’re noT diFferENT.

StEPheNs: so yOuR CasE DEpends then on our Analyzing tHiS CaSe as a discrIMinAtIon

agaiNst femaLes

RBg: no. If my cAse dependS on your reCoGnitION thAt using genDer as a clAssificatIOn,

res
mind. And then when Ruth s tood up to  argu e h erca se,they  asked her abo u t Cr aig v. Boren.

JUSTICE  STEP HE N S: W e  h earda caset hi s mor ni ng , j us t  t o becon crete,involvinga l aw  that wouldn ot  permit ma les  to make cer tai n purc ha ses thatfem alescouldm ake. A nd it was  a t tacked as disc r i mi nati on against males. 
R B G: Yes.

STEPH ENS: M yq ue s t ion  is  whether w eshoul d  examin e  t h a t  la w  under the sa me or a dif f ere nt sta nd ard than i f itwe r e d iscriminati on a gainst th e oppo s ite sex . 

RBG:My ans wer  to  tha t  q ue sti on isn o,  in par t becaus esu ch alawh a s an i nsi diou s imp act against f ema les. 
JU LIA:And t hensh e tol d just ice S te phens, even inthis  case, wh ere  i t s ee ms li k e menare  th e onesthat ar e  be in g d is criminated against ,b e ne ath that  discr i mi na t ion is a  m ore  ins i d iousone. 
R BG: Agai nst fe m al es . It st am ps the mdoc ile , com p lian t, saf e to betrust e d--

STEPHENS: But your answ e ra l wa y s de pen d on theirfind i ng S OMEd is cri m inati on ag ai n st females

STEPHENS:Is  it yo ur vi ew that there  is no dis c r i mination  aga i ns t  males?

RBG:I thi nk there i s  discrim inati on again st malesS TEPHENS:  An d i f t her e is …

RBG: Yes.S TEPH EN S:..suc h d iscrimi nat ion  ag ain st  males is  it to b ete st ed  by  thes ame or b ya d if fer ent s t andard  from  dis cr im i nat ion aga i ns t fema le s. 

RB G:My  resp onse tothat Mr . Justice  St e phen s,  i s thatalmost everydi scriminati on  th at ope r a tes agai nst males operates agai n st fema les  as w ell. 

STEPHEN S:Is tha t a yes or  a noanswe r? 

S T E PHENS : Ijus tdon’t unde r s tan d you  a re y ou tryi ng to avoid the qu e sti on?

RBG: NoI’m  not t ry ing to avo id the q uestion. I’m tr ying to cl ar i fy  the posit i onth at I do n’t kno w ofa ny line  that doe sn’t work  a s at w o-e dged sword .

JULIA : They go backa nd  fort h a  bit.Ju sti ce St ephens isbasic ally l ik e whydo yo ukeep ins isting on this, why doyou ke ep sa yin g that di scr i min ation aga inst  men conta ins  wi thinitd iscri mina t io n a g ainst  wom e n. They’r e  d iff e r en t. And she’ s l ike  no,the y ’re no t di fferent.

STEPHEN S : So your case  dep e n dsthe n  onou r analyzing th isca s e  as a di sc rimination
against  f e males 

RBG:  No. I f my ca s e  d e pendson y our  recognit ion  t h at usin gge n der as  a c la ssific ation, 
res 
mind. And_then when_Ruth stood up to_argue her_case,_they asked_her_about Craig v._Boren.

JUSTICE STEPHENS: We_heard a case this_morning, just to_be_concrete, involving a law that would not permit males to make certain purchases that_females_could make._And_it_was attacked as discrimination against_males.

RBG: Yes.

STEPHENS: My question is_whether we_should examine that law under the same or_a_different standard than_if it were discrimination against the opposite sex.

RBG: My_answer to that question is no,_in part because_such_a_law has an insidious_impact against females.

JULIA: And then she_told justice Stephens, even in this_case, where it seems like men are_the ones that are being discriminated_against, beneath that discrimination is_a more_insidious one.

RBG: Against females. It_stamps them docile,_compliant, safe_to be trusted--

STEPHENS:_But your answer always depend on_their finding SOME_discrimination against females

STEPHENS: Is it your_view_that there is_no_discrimination_against males?

RBG:_I think there_is_discrimination against_males

STEPHENS:_And if there is…

RBG: Yes.

STEPHENS:..such discrimination_against_males is it to be tested by_the same or by_a_different standard from discrimination_against females.

RBG: My response to_that Mr. Justice Stephens, is that_almost every_discrimination that_operates against males operates against females as well.

STEPHENS: Is that a_yes or a no answer?

STEPHENS: I_just don’t understand you_are you_trying_to avoid the_question?

RBG:_No I’m_not trying to avoid the question. I’m_trying to_clarify the position that I don’t_know of any line_that_doesn’t work as a two-edged sword.

JULIA:_They go back and forth a_bit. Justice Stephens is basically_like_why_do you keep insisting on_this, why do you keep saying_that discrimination against_men contains within it discrimination against women._They’re_different. And she’s like no, they’re_not_different.

STEPHENS: So your case depends then_on_our_analyzing this case as a_discrimination

against females

RBG: No. If my case_depends on your recognition that using gender as a_classification,

res