[ad_1]<\/p>\n
Ms. Ginsburg gently suggested that men can take care of children, too.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are several states,\u201d she said, \u201cthat have exemptions for persons primarily responsible for the care of young children.\u201d<\/p>\n
The point seemed to dawn on the chief justice. \u201cSo that\u2019d be husbands or wives then,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Speaking slowly, as if to a dim student, she replied: \u201cIt could be husband or wife, yes.\u201d<\/p>\n
Years later, she reflected on the approach she used in the six cases she argued before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
\u201cI did see myself as kind of a kindergarten teacher in those days, because the judges didn\u2019t think sex discrimination existed,\u201d she said in the documentary \u201cR.B.G.\u201d<\/a> \u201cOne of the things I tried to plant in their minds was, Think about how you would like the world to be for your daughters and granddaughters.\u201d<\/p>\n More than 40 years later, progress has been halting, said Michael R. Dreeben<\/a>, a former deputy solicitor general who has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court and who examined the Duren case in an article<\/a> in Criminal Justice, a magazine published by the American Bar Association.<\/p>\n \u201cShe accomplished this enormous legal victory, and she really transformed the way gender and the law are perceived, and she broke molds,\u201d he said. \u201cYet the underlying stereotypical patterns have a much longer persistence in both law and practice.\u201d<\/p>\n The most striking gap, Mr. Dreeben said, is among the elite lawyers who argue before the court.<\/p>\n \u201cObviously, there\u2019s a lot of progress with one-third of the court being female,\u201d he said. \u201cBut it\u2019s not having nearly as great an effect on advocates.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n