“Badge of Inferiority”-“Brief for the Appellant in Reed v. Reed (1971)”
Ginsburg expounds, “The fact that not all women are denied the right to a hearing or presumed less than competent to administer an estate highlights the invidious discrimination inherent in the statue. A woman may compete on terms of equality whenever her challenger is another woman. If no male equally eligible opposes, the woman will be appointed. Through this device of law-mandated subordination of “equally entitled” women to men, the dominant male society, exercising its political power has secured women’s place as the second sex.”
The statute bestows the label of inferiority to all women. Accordingly, in a woman versus man case, the man has high odds of winning due to the preferential treatment endorsed by the law. A woman can stand a chance of triumphing in estate-related cases in cases when she is contesting another woman. The law has encouraged men's domination in society and put the women in the position of an inferior sex. The laws suggest that men are better estate administrators than females due to the 'badge of inferiority' that influences judges' decisions regarding estates.
“Citizen Soldiers”-“Majority Opinion in United States v. Virginia (1996)”
Ginsburg concurs, “VMI’s distinctive mission is to produce “citizen soldiers,” men prepared for leadership in civilian life and in military service. VMI pursues this mission through pervasive training of a kind not available anywhere else in Virginia. Assigning prime place to character development, VMI uses an “adversative method” modelled on English public schools and once characteristic of military instruction.”
The 'citizen soldiers', all of whom are men, are equipped with skills and knowledge that enable them to handle difficult conditions after they complete their training. The course is hectic, but it yields citizens that are responsible and intelligent. Perhaps the label, 'citizens soldiers', would be pertinent if women too were admitted to the course; women too are citizens. Women have the potential of withstanding military-style training and become impressive leaders regardless of their gender.
“Sex Discrimination”-“Majority Opinion in United States v. Virginia (1996)”
Ginsburg demonstrates, “As a plurality of this Court acknowledged a generation ago, “Our Nation has had a long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination.” Through a century plus three decades and more of that history, women did not count among voters composing “We the People”; not until 1920 did woman gain a constitutional right to the franchise. And for a half century thereafter, it remained the prevailing doctrine that government, both federal and state, could withhold from women opportunities accorded men as long as any “basis in reason” could be conceived for the discrimination.”
Sex-based discrimination has been a longstanding cultural issue in America that has denies females constitutional rights and opportunities. Citation of the history of sex- discrimination is instrumental for Ginsburg to demonstrate that VMI is involved in sex-based discrimination which is outlawed by the constitution. Ginsburg cannot ratify VMI's decision because it would be tantamount to endorsing gender-based discrimination.
"Future goals of Higher Education"- “Majority Opinion in United States v. Virginia (1996)”
Brettschneider reports, “In 1990, an official commission, “legislatively established to chart the future goals of higher education in Virginia reported: “Because colleges and universities provide opportunities for students to develop values and learn from role models, it is extremely important that they deal with faculty, staff, and students without regard to sex, race, or ethnic origin.” In the goals, gender classifications have been excluded. The exclusion, whether deliberate or unintentional, demonstrates that gender-discrimination is not recognized as a form of discrimination. The goals assume that biological sex and gender are synonymous, yet in reality gender is not solely shaped by biological factors.
