This sphere of earning bread, supporting the family, that was the man’s world. And the women’s world, women were to take care of the house and raise the children, that dichotomy. And the laws were shaped to fit that. That’s why any woman could get the deduction in Charles E. Moritz’s case, because women, it was well known, could take care of incapacitated relatives no matter what the age. But men — in fact that was one of the arguments the government made in Moritz, that he hadn’t proved that he was capable of taking care of his mother so that the babysitter was a substitute for himself. Women would not have to prove that because everybody knows that women could take care of elderly parents. So, what we needed to show was that the image of women being on a pedestal, there was something wrong with that picture and that in fact, as Justice Brennan put it years later, the pedestal all too often turned out to be a cage. The woman couldn’t get out. She was locked in. So it was to try to promote the understanding that these so-called protective laws more often than not ended up restricting what women could do, sparing men’s jobs from women’s competition. So, how to say that in a polite way to get across the picture, that was a challenge.