Quote Origin: “My mother told me to be a lady. And for…

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The American legal landscape was forever transformed by a woman who carried her mother’s wisdom like a torch through the darkest corridors of discrimination. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose name has become synonymous with justice and equality, often reflected on the foundational principles that shaped her remarkable journey. At the heart of her success lay not complex legal theory or academic prowess alone, but rather the simple yet profound guidance she received from her mother during her formative years. This maternal wisdom, which emphasized the dual concepts of ladylike conduct and personal autonomy, would become the philosophical bedrock upon which one of America’s most influential jurists built her career.

The relationship between Ruth and her mother, Celia Amster Bader, represents one of the most poignant examples of intergenerational empowerment in American history. Celia understood intimately the barriers that society erected against women, having experienced them firsthand throughout her own truncated educational journey. Rather than allowing bitterness to consume her, she transformed her disappointment into determination—determination that her daughter would have access to opportunities that had been cruelly denied to her. This transformation of personal pain into purposeful action exemplifies the kind of resilience that would later characterize Ruth’s own approach to systemic injustice.

To fully appreciate the depth and significance of the guidance Celia provided, we must first understand the circumstances of her own life. Celia Amster Bader was no ordinary woman of her generation. She possessed a brilliant mind that hungered for knowledge and intellectual stimulation. Her academic achievements were remarkable for any student of her era, but particularly extraordinary for a young woman in the early 20th century. She completed her high school education at the remarkably young age of fifteen, demonstrating not only intellectual capability but also exceptional dedication to her studies. Her academic record sparkled with high marks that should have opened doors to higher education.

However, the reality of her family’s financial situation and the prevailing social attitudes of the time conspired to slam those doors shut. In the economic calculations of working-class immigrant families during this period, education was viewed as an investment, and that investment was almost invariably directed toward male children. Celia’s family made the decision that her brother’s education would take priority. This was not necessarily a reflection of malice or even conscious sexism—it was simply the accepted wisdom of the time. Men would need to support families, the reasoning went, while women would marry and be supported. Therefore, educational resources should flow toward the men.

The consequence of this decision was that Celia found herself working in New York’s garment district, surrounded by the clatter of sewing machines and the harsh realities of industrial labor. She spent her days in conditions that were often difficult and sometimes dangerous, all to fund her brother’s educational aspirations. The garment industry of this era was notorious for its exploitation of workers, particularly women and immigrants. Yet Celia persevered, sacrificing not merely her time and labor, but her dreams themselves. The books she might have studied remained closed to her. The lectures she might have attended were delivered to others. The intellectual life she craved remained tantalizingly out of reach.

This experience could have broken her spirit entirely. Many women of her generation simply accepted such limitations as immutable facts of existence. However, Celia possessed a different temperament. She refused to allow her thwarted ambitions to die completely. Instead, she redirected them, channeling all her hopes and dreams into her daughter Ruth. She became determined that her daughter would not face the same artificial barriers. Ruth would have choices. Ruth would receive an education. Ruth would be able to pursue her intellectual passions wherever they led. This determination became Celia’s driving purpose, and she approached it with the same dedication she had once brought to her own studies.

The tragedy that compounds this story is its premature ending. Celia Amster Bader developed cancer, and despite whatever treatments were available in that era, the disease progressed. She fought it as long as she could, but ultimately lost that battle. The timing of her death adds a particularly cruel dimension to the narrative: she died the day before Ruth’s high school graduation. She never saw her daughter walk across that stage. She never witnessed Ruth’s acceptance to college. She never lived to see any of the extraordinary achievements that would follow. Yet despite her physical absence, Celia’s influence would prove immortal. The lessons she had imparted during Ruth’s childhood and adolescence had taken root so deeply that they would guide Ruth through every subsequent challenge.

The phrase “be a lady” carries considerable cultural baggage. For generations, it has been wielded as a tool of social control, a euphemistic instruction for women to remain quiet, passive, and decorative. When traditional society told women to “be a lady,” the implicit message was clear: do not make waves, do not speak too loudly, do not assert yourself too forcefully, do not challenge male authority. It was a call for conformity disguised as etiquette, a demand for submission wrapped in the language of propriety.

Celia Bader, however, understood that language is malleable and that meanings can be reclaimed and redefined. When she instructed her daughter to “be a lady,” she was not endorsing the traditional interpretation. She was not asking Ruth to make herself small or to silence her voice. Instead, she was articulating a completely different vision of what ladylike behavior could mean. In Celia’s formulation, being a lady meant carrying oneself with dignity and self-respect. It meant maintaining composure under pressure. It meant refusing to allow emotions to overwhelm reason. It meant presenting one’s arguments with such clarity and force that they could not be dismissed.

This reinterpretation was nothing short of revolutionary. Celia took a term that had been used to constrain women and transformed it into a source of strength. She understood something that many activists of her era did not: that strategic presentation matters. She recognized that a woman who lost her temper in a professional setting would be dismissed as “hysterical” or “emotional,” while a man displaying the same behavior might be seen as “passionate” or “committed.” This double standard was unjust, but it was also real. Celia did not waste energy railing against it. Instead, she taught her daughter how to navigate it effectively.

Ruth internalized this lesson completely. Throughout her career, she became known for her measured, careful approach to legal argument. She did not engage in theatrical displays or emotional appeals. Instead, she constructed her cases with meticulous attention to logic and precedent. She dismantled opposing arguments not through volume but through precision. She wielded the law like a surgeon wields a scalpel—with steady hands and absolute focus. This approach proved devastatingly effective. Male judges who might have dismissed an angry woman could not dismiss one who had so thoroughly mastered their own legal reasoning that she could expose its flaws with surgical precision.

Her famous dissents exemplify this approach. When she disagreed with the majority opinion, she did not resort to personal attacks or inflammatory rhetoric. Instead, she methodically demonstrated why the majority’s reasoning was flawed, why their interpretation of precedent was incorrect, why their decision would have harmful consequences. Her dissents were masterclasses in legal argumentation, and they commanded respect even from those who disagreed with her conclusions. Justice Antonin Scalia, despite being her ideological opposite on many issues, became one of her closest friends. Their relationship demonstrated that intellectual disagreement need not preclude personal respect—a lesson that seems increasingly forgotten in our current era of political polarization.

The second component of Celia’s advice—the insistence on independence—was equally transformative and perhaps even more radical for its time. When Celia told Ruth to be independent, she was directly contradicting the dominant narrative about women’s roles in society. The prevailing wisdom of the 1930s and 1940s held that a woman’s primary goal should be to secure a good marriage. A woman’s worth was measured largely by the status and income of her husband. Financial security came not from one’s own efforts but from choosing the right partner. Intellectual development was seen as unnecessary at best and potentially threatening at worst—after all, men supposedly did not want wives who were smarter than they were.

Celia rejected this entire framework. She understood that dependence, regardless of how comfortable it might be, always carries a cost. A woman who depends entirely on a husband for financial support has limited options if that marriage becomes unhappy or abusive. A woman who has not developed her own skills and credentials has little leverage in negotiating the terms of her relationships. A woman who defines herself entirely through her connections to others—as someone’s wife or someone’s mother—risks losing her sense of self entirely. Celia wanted something different for Ruth. She wanted her daughter to stand on her own feet, to develop her own capabilities, to forge her own identity.

This emphasis on independence extended beyond merely financial considerations, though those were certainly important. Celia also stressed intellectual autonomy—the ability to think for oneself, to form one’s own judgments, to resist the pressure to simply accept received wisdom. This intellectual independence would prove crucial throughout Ruth’s career. She did not accept that women were naturally suited only for certain roles. She did not accept that discrimination was inevitable or unchangeable. She did not accept the legal reasoning that upheld gender-based classifications. Instead, she thought critically about these assumptions, identified their flaws, and worked systematically to dismantle them.

Ruth’s decision to attend law school exemplified this independence. In the 1950s, law was an overwhelmingly male profession. Women who entered law school faced not merely indifference but active hostility. Ruth was one of only nine women in a class of over five hundred students at Harvard Law School. The dean famously asked the women students to justify taking spots that could have gone to men. The message was clear: you do not belong here. Many women might have internalized that message and retreated. Ruth, fortified by her mother’s insistence on independence, knew that she had every right to be there. She belonged in that classroom not because any man granted her permission to be there, but because she had earned her place through her own merit.

Another dimension of Celia’s advice concerned the management of emotions, particularly anger. Celia taught Ruth that anger, while sometimes justified, is rarely productive. When we become angry, our thinking becomes clouded. We make poor decisions. We say things we later regret. Moreover, displays of anger often backfire, particularly for women. A woman who expresses anger in a professional setting is likely to be labeled as difficult, unstable, or overly emotional. These labels then become weapons used to dismiss her substantive arguments. Celia understood this dynamic and taught Ruth to channel her frustration into more productive outlets.

This did not mean that Ruth never felt anger. She certainly experienced frustration and outrage at the injustices she witnessed and experienced. However, she learned to transform that emotional energy into fuel for her work rather than allowing it to explode in counterproductive ways. When she encountered discrimination, she did not waste time on angry outbursts. Instead, she documented the discrimination, researched the legal principles at stake, and constructed careful arguments for why the discriminatory practice violated constitutional principles. She turned her anger into briefs, into legal strategies, into Supreme Court victories that changed the law for millions of people.

This approach required tremendous discipline. It is emotionally satisfying to express anger directly, to tell someone exactly what you think of their unjust behavior. The delayed gratification of methodical legal work is less immediately rewarding. However, Ruth understood that her goal was not personal satisfaction but systemic change. She wanted to transform the legal landscape, not merely to win individual arguments. This required patience, persistence, and the ability to maintain focus over years and even decades. The emotional control her mother had taught her made this possible.

Her relationship with Justice Antonin Scalia illustrates this principle beautifully. Scalia held views on gender equality, reproductive rights, and numerous other issues that were diametrically opposed to Ruth’s positions. They disagreed fundamentally on questions of constitutional interpretation. Yet they maintained a close personal friendship that lasted until Scalia’s death. They attended opera together. They celebrated New Year’s Eve together. They genuinely enjoyed each other’s company. This was possible because Ruth did not allow her disagreement with Scalia’s judicial philosophy to curdle into personal animosity. She could separate the intellectual from the personal, the professional from the social. This ability—to disagree profoundly while maintaining respect—seems increasingly rare in our current political climate, making Ruth’s example all the more valuable.

Ruth’s marriage to Martin Ginsburg provides a powerful illustration of how independence and partnership can coexist. Ruth met Martin while they were both students at Cornell University. Martin was unusual among men of his generation in that he was not threatened by female intelligence. Most young men of the 1950s preferred girlfriends who would defer to them, who would make them feel smart and important. Martin was different. He was attracted to Ruth precisely because of her brilliant mind. He found her intelligence exciting rather than intimidating. This was, as Ruth later noted, extraordinarily rare. She often remarked that Martin was the only boy she had met who cared that she had a brain.

Their marriage became a partnership of genuine equals. Martin supported Ruth’s career with the same dedication that she supported his. When Ruth was appointed to the Supreme Court, Martin campaigned tirelessly for her confirmation, using his connections and influence to build support. He took primary responsibility for cooking, having discovered that Ruth’s culinary skills were limited. He did not view these domestic contributions as emasculating or as evidence that he was somehow less important than his wife. Instead, he recognized that they were a team, and that teams function best when members contribute according to their strengths rather than according to rigid gender roles.

Crucially, however, Ruth never defined herself primarily through her relationship with Martin. She did not introduce herself as Martin Ginsburg’s wife and then mention her own accomplishments as an afterthought. She was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, attorney and later justice, who happened to also be married to Martin. Her identity was her own. Her achievements were her own. Her career was her own. This is what her mother had meant by independence. It was not about refusing relationships or rejecting partnership. It was about maintaining a core sense of self that did not dissolve into someone else’s identity.

This dynamic was radical for its time and remains relatively rare even today. Many couples still fall into traditional patterns where the woman’s career is treated as secondary, where family decisions are made primarily around the man’s professional opportunities, where the woman is expected to handle the bulk of domestic responsibilities regardless of her professional obligations. Ruth and Martin demonstrated that another model was possible. Their partnership showed that a woman could be independent while also being married, that a man could be supportive without being paternalistic, that equality in marriage was not merely possible but deeply rewarding.

In recent years, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has achieved a level of popular cultural recognition unusual for a Supreme Court justice. The “Notorious RBG” phenomenon, with its t-shirts, coffee mugs, action figures, and other merchandise, has transformed her into something approaching a pop culture icon. Young people who might struggle to name other Supreme Court justices can identify Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her image has become shorthand for feminist resistance and the fight for equality.

This popularization has both benefits and risks. On the positive side, it has introduced Ruth’s story and her mother’s wisdom to audiences who might never have encountered them otherwise. Young women see Ruth as a role model, someone who proved that it is possible to break through barriers and achieve extraordinary things. They find inspiration in her persistence, her intelligence, and her refusal to accept limitations. The quote about being a lady and being independent has become a rallying cry, a reminder that women need not choose between dignity and strength, between grace and power.

However, there is also a risk that the commodification of Ruth’s image and words will flatten their meaning. When we print a quote on a t-shirt, we risk transforming it from a philosophy of life into a mere slogan. We risk losing sight of the hard work, the sacrifice, and the strategic thinking that the quote represents. Being independent is not simply a matter of attitude or self-affirmation. It requires developing real skills and capabilities. It requires education and training. It requires the willingness to face setbacks and continue anyway. It requires the kind of discipline and focus that Ruth demonstrated throughout her career.

Similarly, the redefinition of “being a lady” that Celia offered is not about adopting a particular aesthetic or style. It is about strategic communication and emotional intelligence. It is about presenting one’s arguments in ways that will be heard rather than dismissed. It is about maintaining composure under pressure. These are skills that must be cultivated through practice and conscious effort. They do not automatically flow from purchasing merchandise or posting inspirational quotes on social media.

To truly honor Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legacy and her mother’s wisdom, we must engage with the substance of their message rather than merely its surface. We must ask ourselves difficult questions: Are we developing our own capabilities, or are we waiting for opportunities to be handed to us? Are we maintaining our independence, or are we allowing ourselves to become dependent on others for our sense of worth? Are we channeling our frustration into productive action, or are we simply expressing anger without following through? Are we presenting our arguments strategically, or are we allowing emotion to overwhelm reason?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away on September 18, 2020, but her influence continues to shape American law and society. The cases she argued and decided have expanded opportunities for millions of people. Her strategic approach to litigation—building precedent gradually, choosing cases carefully, framing arguments in ways that could persuade even skeptical judges—has become a model for public interest lawyers. Her dissents continue to be read and studied, offering roadmaps for future challenges to unjust laws.

At the foundation of all these achievements lies the wisdom Celia Amster Bader imparted to her daughter. The advice to be a lady—to maintain dignity and composure—enabled Ruth to be heard in spaces that were hostile to women’s voices. The advice to be independent—to develop her own capabilities and define her own identity—gave Ruth the strength to persist despite obstacles. Together, these principles formed a philosophy of life that proved remarkably effective in transforming an unjust legal system.

The power of this maternal wisdom extends beyond Ruth’s individual story. It offers guidance for anyone facing systemic barriers or working for social change. It reminds us that effectiveness often requires strategic thinking as well as moral conviction. It demonstrates that we can challenge unjust systems without losing our sense of self. It shows that independence and connection, strength and grace, persistence and patience are not opposites but complements.

As we face contemporary challenges—ongoing gender inequality, racial injustice, attacks on civil rights—we would do well to remember the lessons Celia taught Ruth. We need the composure to present our arguments effectively rather than simply venting our anger. We need the independence to think critically and resist pressure to conform. We need the persistence to continue fighting even when progress seems impossibly slow. We need the strategic intelligence to choose our battles wisely and frame our arguments persuasively.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s life demonstrates that these qualities, cultivated over decades, can indeed change the world. She transformed American law not through a single dramatic moment but through sustained effort over many years. She won victories not by being the loudest voice in the room but by being the most carefully reasoned. She earned respect not by demanding it but by demonstrating expertise that could not be denied. All of this flowed from the foundation her mother built—the understanding that being a lady and being independent were not contradictory but complementary, not limitations but sources of strength.

In the end, perhaps the most powerful aspect of this maternal wisdom is its accessibility. Celia Amster Bader was not a famous philosopher or a renowned educator. She was a working-class woman whose own dreams had been thwarted by circumstances beyond her control. Yet she possessed the insight to recognize what her daughter would need to succeed in a hostile world, and she possessed the dedication to instill those principles deeply enough that they would last a lifetime. Her legacy, transmitted through Ruth, now belongs to all of us. We honor it best not by merely celebrating it but by living it—by being our own persons, by being independent, and by working with strategic intelligence and sustained effort to build a more just world.

Explore More About Ruth Bader Ginsburg

If you found this quote inspiring, you might enjoy these products related to Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

Topics: