Throughout American legal history, few figures have demonstrated the remarkable combination of intellectual brilliance and emotional intelligence quite like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her extraordinary career, spanning decades of groundbreaking work in gender equality law and her historic tenure as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, offers countless lessons for those seeking to navigate difficult professional and personal terrain. Among the many pearls of wisdom she shared during her lifetime, one piece of advice stands out for its elegant simplicity and profound practical application: the concept of deliberately choosing not to engage with thoughtless or unkind words directed our way.
This philosophy of selective attention represents far more than a simple coping mechanism or defensive strategy. Instead, it embodies a sophisticated understanding of how we can preserve our emotional energy, maintain our focus on meaningful work, and refuse to allow others to dictate our internal state. For Ginsburg, this wasn’t merely theoretical advice—it was a lived practice that enabled her to survive and thrive in environments that were often hostile to her presence and dismissive of her contributions.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s approach to managing criticism and negativity didn’t emerge from abstract philosophical contemplation. Rather, it was rooted in concrete advice she received during a pivotal moment in her life—the early days of her marriage to Martin Ginsburg. The counsel came from an unexpected but profoundly influential source: her mother-in-law, Evelyn Ginsburg. Shortly after Ruth and Martin married, Evelyn shared wisdom that would shape Ruth’s approach to interpersonal conflict for the remainder of her life.
Evelyn’s guidance addressed the fundamental challenge of maintaining harmony in close relationships, particularly marriage. She understood that in any sustained relationship, moments of tension, frustration, and thoughtless communication inevitably arise. The question isn’t whether such moments will occur, but rather how we choose to respond when they do. Evelyn counseled her new daughter-in-law to develop the capacity to simply “tune out” when faced with words spoken without consideration or with unkind intent.
This advice arrived at a particularly crucial juncture in Ruth’s life. In 1956, she entered Harvard Law School as one of only nine women in a class of approximately five hundred students. The environment she encountered was not merely challenging—it was often openly hostile to female students. Professors questioned the legitimacy of women occupying seats that could have gone to men. Fellow students viewed their female classmates with skepticism and sometimes outright contempt. In such circumstances, Ruth needed more than just intellectual capability; she required emotional strategies that would allow her to persist despite the constant barrage of dismissive attitudes and thoughtless remarks.
The wisdom Evelyn shared proved applicable far beyond the domestic sphere. Ruth recognized that the principle of selective attention could serve as a protective mechanism in her professional life as well. Rather than expending precious emotional resources responding to every slight, every dismissive comment, every questioning of her legitimacy in legal spaces, she could instead channel that energy toward her actual work—the substantive legal analysis and advocacy that would ultimately prove her worth far more effectively than any defensive response.
When Ruth Bader Ginsburg ascended to the Supreme Court in 1993, becoming only the second woman to serve on the nation’s highest court, she entered an institution steeped in tradition and formality. The Supreme Court operates according to protocols developed over centuries, and the introduction of female justices represented a significant departure from historical norms. Throughout her twenty-seven years on the bench, Ginsburg faced numerous situations that tested her commitment to tuning out negativity and maintaining focus on substantive work.
Critics of her judicial philosophy frequently launched personal attacks that went beyond legitimate disagreement with her legal reasoning. Some commentators questioned her stamina and suggested she should retire, particularly during the Obama administration when her replacement could have been appointed by a Democratic president. Others made ageist remarks about her ability to continue serving effectively. Media personalities occasionally mocked her appearance or speaking style. Yet Ginsburg consistently refused to engage with such commentary, instead allowing her judicial work to speak for itself.
Perhaps most interesting was her relationship with Justice Antonin Scalia, her colleague who represented nearly the opposite end of the judicial philosophy spectrum. Scalia was a committed originalist and textualist, while Ginsburg embraced a more dynamic interpretation of constitutional principles, particularly regarding equal protection and civil rights. Their legal disagreements were fundamental and well-documented. However, Ginsburg exemplified her philosophy of selective attention by choosing to focus on what they shared rather than what divided them.
The Ginsburg-Scalia friendship became legendary precisely because it demonstrated this principle in action. They shared a passion for opera, often attending performances together with their spouses. They vacationed together and genuinely enjoyed each other’s company outside the courtroom. When they disagreed in their judicial opinions—which was frequently—they maintained mutual respect and even affection. Ginsburg consciously chose to “tune out” the aspects of Scalia’s worldview that might have created personal animosity, instead nurturing the genuine connection they shared through common interests and mutual intellectual respect.
This selective attention extended to how Ginsburg handled media scrutiny. When journalists or political commentators criticized her decisions or questioned her judgment, she rarely if ever responded directly. She understood that engaging in public debates with her critics would diminish her judicial authority and distract from her actual work. Instead, she let her written opinions, her questions during oral arguments, and her overall body of work constitute her response. This restraint demonstrated remarkable discipline and a sophisticated understanding of how authority and influence actually function.
Like many frequently quoted pieces of wisdom, Ginsburg’s advice about tuning out negativity has appeared in multiple forms across various sources. The exact phrasing has shifted slightly depending on the interview, speech, or public appearance in which she shared this philosophy. Some documented versions use “tune it out” rather than simply “tune out.” Other iterations include additional context about responding to anger with deliberate thoughtfulness rather than reactive emotion.
These variations emerged naturally from the fact that Ginsburg shared this wisdom repeatedly throughout her later career, particularly as she became an increasingly prominent public figure during the 2010s. Each time she discussed this principle, the specific words might differ slightly while the core concept remained consistent. Journalists and biographers documenting her statements captured these different phrasings, leading to the multiple versions that now circulate in popular culture.
One important distinction worth noting involves the occasional conflation of this quote with Ginsburg’s statements about judicial dissent. Some sources have mistakenly combined her advice about tuning out thoughtless personal remarks with her explanations of why she wrote forceful dissenting opinions. However, these represent fundamentally different concepts. The selective attention she advocated for personal resilience differs significantly from her approach to substantive legal disagreements, where she believed strongly in articulating alternative viewpoints for the historical record and potential future reconsideration.
The most concise versions of this wisdom have achieved the widest circulation, particularly on social media platforms where brevity enhances shareability. Inspirational quote graphics featuring Ginsburg’s image alongside variations of this advice have been shared millions of times across platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. This widespread dissemination has ensured that her philosophy of selective attention reaches audiences far beyond those who follow Supreme Court jurisprudence or legal matters generally.
Ginsburg’s counsel about tuning out thoughtless and unkind words connects to deep philosophical traditions spanning cultures and centuries. Her advice, while expressed in contemporary language and arising from personal experience, echoes wisdom that thinkers have articulated throughout human history. Recognizing these connections helps us understand the timeless nature of her insight.
The ancient Stoic philosophers, particularly those of the Roman era, developed sophisticated frameworks for managing one’s reactions to external circumstances. Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher-emperor who ruled Rome from 161 to 180 CE, wrote extensively in his personal journal (later published as “Meditations”) about maintaining inner tranquility regardless of external chaos or criticism. He advocated for recognizing what lies within our control—primarily our own thoughts and responses—and accepting what lies beyond our control, including the words and actions of others. This Stoic emphasis on controlling our reactions rather than attempting to control external events closely parallels Ginsburg’s advice about selective attention.
Similarly, Buddhist philosophical traditions emphasize the practice of non-attachment, including detachment from harmful thoughts and words directed toward us. Buddhist teachings encourage practitioners to recognize that suffering often arises not from external circumstances themselves but from our attachment to particular outcomes or our identification with others’ perceptions of us. By developing the capacity to observe unkind words without internalizing them or feeling compelled to respond, we can maintain equanimity even in challenging interpersonal situations.
Eleanor Roosevelt, whose own career as First Lady, diplomat, and human rights advocate involved navigating tremendous criticism and opposition, articulated a principle remarkably similar to Ginsburg’s. Her famous observation that “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent” captures the same essential insight: others’ words possess only the power we grant them through our response. Both Roosevelt and Ginsburg recognized that we can choose which messages to internalize and which to simply let pass by without impact on our sense of self-worth or our focus on meaningful work.
Ginsburg’s Jewish heritage likely also influenced her appreciation for this type of wisdom. Jewish textual traditions, particularly the Talmud and various ethical teachings developed over centuries, contain extensive guidance about guarding oneself from gossip, slander, and harmful speech. The concept of “lashon hara” (literally “evil tongue”) addresses both the prohibition against speaking harmfully about others and the importance of protecting oneself from such speech. This tradition emphasizes that we bear some responsibility for what we allow into our consciousness and how we respond to negative communication.
During the 2010s, Ruth Bader Ginsburg experienced a remarkable transformation in her public profile. While she had long been respected within legal circles for her pioneering work on gender equality and her thoughtful judicial opinions, she became a genuine cultural icon among younger generations. The “Notorious RBG” phenomenon—a playful reference to the rapper Notorious B.I.G.—transformed Ginsburg into a symbol of resistance, persistence, and principled advocacy for justice.
This cultural moment brought renewed attention to Ginsburg’s personal philosophy and the practical wisdom she had accumulated over her decades-long career. Her advice about tuning out thoughtless and unkind words resonated particularly strongly with young people navigating the challenges of social media, where hostile comments and thoughtless remarks proliferate with unprecedented speed and volume. Individuals facing online harassment found validation and practical guidance in Ginsburg’s approach. Her words offered a framework for protecting one’s mental health and emotional well-being without completely withdrawing from public engagement.
The quote gained traction across the ideological spectrum, which is itself noteworthy. While Ginsburg’s judicial philosophy placed her on the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, her advice about handling negativity transcended political divisions. Conservatives and liberals alike recognized the universal applicability of her counsel. During periods of intense political polarization, when public discourse grew increasingly hostile and personal attacks became commonplace, Ginsburg’s words offered a path forward that didn’t require abandoning one’s principles but also didn’t demand engaging with every criticism or insult.
Corporate leaders and workplace culture consultants began citing Ginsburg’s approach when advising employees about handling difficult colleagues or navigating challenging professional environments. Her example demonstrated that achieving professional success and maintaining one’s influence doesn’t require responding to every slight or defending oneself against every criticism. Sometimes the most powerful response is no response at all—simply continuing to do excellent work and letting that work speak for itself.
Examining this particular piece of advice reveals several fundamental values that defined Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s approach to both her professional work and her personal life. Understanding these underlying values helps us appreciate why this philosophy proved so effective for her and why it continues to resonate with diverse audiences.
First, the advice reflects Ginsburg’s commitment to focusing energy on productive endeavors rather than reactive responses. She recognized that time and emotional resources are finite. Every moment spent responding to a thoughtless comment or unkind remark is a moment not spent on substantive work that actually advances one’s goals. For Ginsburg, this meant prioritizing legal research, opinion writing, and careful consideration of complex constitutional questions over defending herself against critics or correcting every mischaracterization of her positions.
Second, this philosophy demonstrates her unwavering commitment to maintaining dignity and composure regardless of circumstances. Ginsburg understood that responding emotionally to provocations often diminishes one’s authority and credibility. By refusing to let others dictate her emotional state, she maintained the gravitas and composure that commanded respect even from those who disagreed with her judicial philosophy. Her self-control became a source of power rather than a limitation.
Third, the quote reveals Ginsburg’s strategic thinking about when and how to deploy her influence. She recognized that not every battle is worth fighting. By choosing her responses carefully and deliberately, she preserved her credibility and influence for matters of genuine importance. This selectivity made her interventions more impactful when she did choose to speak up forcefully. People paid attention when Ginsburg raised her voice precisely because she didn’t do so constantly or indiscriminately.
Fourth, this approach reflects a sophisticated understanding of how change actually happens. Ginsburg’s career as a litigator before joining the Supreme Court involved carefully building precedent through strategic case selection. She understood that lasting change comes through persistent, focused effort rather than through reactive responses to every setback or criticism. This same patience and strategic thinking characterized her response to personal attacks—she simply didn’t let them distract her from the long-term work of advancing justice.
Contemporary audiences continue finding relevant applications for Ginsburg’s wisdom across remarkably diverse contexts. The principle of selective attention proves adaptable to many of the challenges people face in modern life, particularly those involving communication and interpersonal conflict.
Social media users face unprecedented volumes of commentary, much of it thoughtless or deliberately unkind. The anonymous or semi-anonymous nature of online communication often encourages people to express themselves in ways they wouldn’t in face-to-face interactions. Ginsburg’s advice offers a practical framework for mental health protection in this environment. Rather than feeling obligated to respond to trolls or engage with every critical comment, individuals can consciously choose to tune out noise that doesn’t serve any constructive purpose. This selective attention helps preserve emotional well-being while still allowing meaningful online engagement.
In professional environments, this philosophy guides more effective conflict resolution strategies. When colleagues make thoughtless remarks or engage in petty workplace politics, immediately responding often escalates tensions rather than resolving them. Taking time to evaluate whether engagement would actually serve a productive purpose—or whether simply continuing to do excellent work represents the better response—often proves more effective. Ginsburg’s example shows that professional success doesn’t require winning every interpersonal skirmish; it requires maintaining focus on substantive contributions.
Educational settings have also embraced this wisdom. Teachers and counselors teach students facing bullying or peer conflict about the power of choosing which messages to internalize. Learning to distinguish between legitimate criticism that might prompt positive change and mere noise that deserves no attention builds psychological resilience. Young people benefit tremendously from understanding that not every negative comment requires a response or even acknowledgment. This lesson helps them develop the emotional regulation skills necessary for navigating both academic environments and later professional life.
Parents raising children in an era of constant connectivity and social comparison find Ginsburg’s philosophy valuable for family discussions about self-worth and external validation. Teaching children that they can choose what to tune out—that they don’t have to internalize every critical or thoughtless comment from peers—helps build the foundation for healthy self-esteem and emotional independence.
The role of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s mother-in-law, Evelyn Ginsburg, in shaping this philosophy deserves deeper exploration. Evelyn’s influence on Ruth extended far beyond this single piece of advice, though this particular wisdom proved especially enduring and impactful.
Evelyn provided crucial emotional support during some of the most challenging periods of Ruth’s early career. When Ruth faced discrimination and dismissiveness in law school, when she struggled to find employment despite her exceptional academic record, when she balanced the demands of young motherhood with professional ambitions—during all these trials, Evelyn offered perspective, encouragement, and practical guidance. Their relationship exemplified the power of intergenerational wisdom sharing, with an older woman who had navigated her own challenges offering hard-won insights to a younger woman facing different but equally daunting obstacles.
Ruth frequently credited Evelyn with helping her successfully navigate the competing demands of marriage and career during an era when few women attempted to maintain both commitments. In the 1950s and 1960s, societal expectations strongly pressured women to choose between professional ambitions and family life. Evelyn’s guidance helped Ruth resist this false dichotomy, showing her that it was possible to honor both commitments without sacrificing either. She taught Ruth to prioritize what truly mattered and to let go of concerns that didn’t serve her ultimate goals.
The specific advice about tuning out negativity emerged from Evelyn’s own life experience. She had navigated her own set of challenges and learned valuable lessons about preserving emotional energy and maintaining focus on what matters. By passing this wisdom to Ruth, she equipped her daughter-in-law with a tool that would prove essential for the battles ahead. This transmission of practical wisdom across generations represents one of the most valuable forms of mentorship, particularly for women navigating professional environments that weren’t designed with them in mind.
One of the most interesting aspects of Ginsburg’s philosophy involves the apparent tension between her advice about tuning out negativity and her famous practice of writing forceful dissenting opinions. Understanding how these two approaches coexist reveals the sophistication of her thinking about when to engage and when to remain silent.
Ginsburg drew a clear distinction between thoughtless personal attacks and substantive disagreements about important principles. Unkind remarks about her appearance, age, or personal characteristics deserved no response because engaging with such comments would accomplish nothing productive. However, legal principles worth defending required her full voice and attention. She chose her battles based on their potential impact on justice and the development of law, not based on whether criticism stung personally.
Her dissent in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) exemplifies this distinction perfectly. When the Supreme Court’s majority struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, Ginsburg didn’t tune out the majority’s reasoning—she challenged it vigorously and eloquently. Her dissent argued that “throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” This forceful response reflected her judgment that voting rights warranted strong advocacy, regardless of whether her position would prevail.
The difference lay entirely in the stakes involved. Personal insults affected only her own feelings and dignity, which she could protect through selective attention. But legal decisions affecting millions of people’s fundamental rights demanded engagement, documentation of alternative viewpoints, and clear articulation of principles for future reconsideration. Ginsburg’s selective attention applied to what she tuned out, not to what she tuned in to—and she tuned in completely when justice required her voice.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s advice about tuning out thoughtless and unkind words remains one of her most frequently cited pieces of wisdom, appearing regularly on inspirational posters, social media graphics, self-help articles, and motivational presentations. The enduring popularity of this quote reflects its universal applicability across cultures, generations, and life circumstances. People from vastly different backgrounds and facing very different challenges find practical value in these simple words.
Educational institutions have incorporated this wisdom into character education curricula, using Ginsburg’s life story to illustrate the power of selective attention and emotional resilience. Students learn that success often depends not just on talent and hard work, but also on the ability to maintain focus despite distractions and criticism. Teachers use Ginsburg’s example to help young people develop the psychological tools they’ll need to persist through challenges in their own lives.
As contemporary society grapples with increasing polarization, declining civility in public discourse, and the mental health challenges associated with constant connectivity and social media exposure, Ginsburg’s advice grows ever more relevant. Learning to tune out thoughtless and unkind words becomes not just a nice skill to have but an essential component of psychological well-being. Her wisdom offers a navigable path through the noise toward meaningful engagement with what actually matters.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legacy encompasses far more than her groundbreaking legal work on gender equality or her influential Supreme Court opinions. It includes practical life guidance that continues inspiring millions of people worldwide to focus their energy on productive work, maintain their dignity in challenging circumstances, and refuse to let others’ thoughtless words derail their purpose. This philosophy of selective attention stands as a testament to the power of choosing wisely where we direct our attention and emotional resources—a lesson that remains profoundly relevant for anyone seeking to navigate our complex, often contentious world with grace and effectiveness.
Explore More About Ruth Bader Ginsburg
If you found this quote inspiring, you might enjoy these products related to Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
- The Unemployed Philosophers Guild Ruth Bader Ginsburg Doll – 12″ Soft Stuffed Plush Little Thinker – $24.95
- Bleacher Creatures Ruth Bader Ginsburg 10″ Plush Figure- The RBG Icon for Play or Display – $24.99
- The Unemployed Philosophers Guild Ruth Bader Ginsburg Magnetic Personality – Plush Finger Puppet and Refrigerator Magnet, Approx 4″ Tall – $9.95
- Feminist Wood Plaque Gift, Women Belong In All Places Where Decisions Are Being Made, Plaque with Wooden Stand, Wood Sign Plaque Gift, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, RBG Woman’s Rights B1 – $7.99
- Feminist Wood Plaque Gift – RBG Woman’s Rights, Wood Sign Gift with Stand – $9.99
As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.