RBG

It's strange when you realize the law is much more complicated than simply feeling hot or cold throughout the day, and that advanced texts don't have clearly defined meanings which snuggly fit every case with cozy semantic lucidity.

The same logic applies to simpler texts as knowledge is obtained and interpretive methods are codified, reified, modified, exemplified, as others have noted, but that moment when you're sitting there reading dense material and you realize it can be read and applied from multiple different perspectives dependent upon the task at hand is simultaneously thrilling and chilling, inasmuch as it obscures the genuine while concurrently romanticizing its pursuit.

Example.

Take an equal wage paid for equal work done. If two equally qualified people are doing the same job and they started at the same time and they both perform their tasks competently they should be paid the same wage regardless of creed, race, ethnicity, appearance, or gender.

If opportunities for advancement exist they should be given to the person who is performing their tasks consistently well with the most precision as long as they aren't loathsome to deal with or incapable of managing staff diplomatically enough to prevent them from quitting or causing internal discord.

It makes perfect sense to me that men and women working the same job should therefore be paid the same wage and be given equal opportunities within their respective working environments if their employers are genuine.

It's clear that laws should support such a conclusion, yet it's chilling to read article after article, decade after decade, about how men and women are paid unequal wages for doing equal work, which makes the pursuit of creating a legal framework wherein which men and women are actually paid the same wage for equal work romantic, insofar as you need to simplify complicated codes of conduct which have diversified labour forces without applying fair work practices.

Actually doing this, actively changing the law so that one gender can't reflexively delegitimize the work of another in order to silently uphold gender based biases institutionally must be thrilling, and I imagine, in my limited way, that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has found her lifework to be quite thrilling, many of its compelling achievements nimbly presented in Betsy West and Julie Cohen's documentary RBG.

Not to say she isn't highly logical.

I suppose she eruditely comprehends the thrills of logical construction.

She's made many game changing arguments throughout her career while working as a lawyer and has delivered many landmark judgments as part of the American Supreme Court, while also raising a strong family with the aid of her remarkable husband (now passed).

A real world Marvel superhero.

A powerful living breathing example of an individual who worked within the system to peacefully change things while earning the respect of her peers, a dedicated activist who changed many laws to legalize social justice, I hope thousands of young and not so young people see this film and discover what can be realistically gained by working hard within a system that isn't necessarily broken.

RBG and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are the best real world examples which can be used to challenge the cynicism culturally propagated by the right that I've come across in years.

As they've inspirationally proven, the fight isn't hopeless and gender equality is a possibility.

You just have to find the fight thrilling.

And make sure you're a genuine romantic.