It's almost 2024. I'm rewatching the show for the first time since its original run. I liked and like the show, because of its quirkiness, its heart and feel-good-vibes. Ally, as silly as her character is - same parts great lawyer and near-mental child -, she is, maybe BECAUSE of that parts, extremely lovable.
That being said: the cases, which are quite obviously written to talk about our greatest moral disputes, are very... pre-2000.
This episode has TWO of which I completely disagree with. Not with the questions themselves, but with the way the handled them.
The first is about a radio host who is makes a living out of his sexism. He gets sued for it. During the trial, in and out of public, he constantly objectifies all the women around him (most of them LAWYERS), in the worst possible way.
The kicker: After all is said and done, Ally kind of apologizes for what they(!) did to him.
Here's the thing: we are sexual beings, and objectification is not always wrong. BUT: if you're a female lawyer, every objectification devalues your status and your reputation as a professional, therefore endangers your livelyhood. As Ally, I would have sued him for EVERY time he objectified me/her or her colleagues as mere sex dolls, or, worse, paid sex workers.
The second case started out with a moral question that's as current today as it was then: what's the difference between animals we DO it and animals we DON'T eat?
That could have been great and groundbreaking stuff. Instead, they took the lowest road possible. Essentially, John argued: We know that meat is the product of a cruel business. But IF you chose to differentiate between cows and horses - giving the latter any kinds of rights NOT to be eaten -, "your" burger will be next. And then "your" chicken wings.
You don't want that, right? Because... meat is yummy. Don't do what's right, do what's convenient.
And the jury did.
If this text is still online in 2048, another 25 years down the road, I would love to hear how people talk and think about these topics then.
The first one came a long way, since then.
The second one, not that much.
That being said: the cases, which are quite obviously written to talk about our greatest moral disputes, are very... pre-2000.
This episode has TWO of which I completely disagree with. Not with the questions themselves, but with the way the handled them.
The first is about a radio host who is makes a living out of his sexism. He gets sued for it. During the trial, in and out of public, he constantly objectifies all the women around him (most of them LAWYERS), in the worst possible way.
The kicker: After all is said and done, Ally kind of apologizes for what they(!) did to him.
Here's the thing: we are sexual beings, and objectification is not always wrong. BUT: if you're a female lawyer, every objectification devalues your status and your reputation as a professional, therefore endangers your livelyhood. As Ally, I would have sued him for EVERY time he objectified me/her or her colleagues as mere sex dolls, or, worse, paid sex workers.
The second case started out with a moral question that's as current today as it was then: what's the difference between animals we DO it and animals we DON'T eat?
That could have been great and groundbreaking stuff. Instead, they took the lowest road possible. Essentially, John argued: We know that meat is the product of a cruel business. But IF you chose to differentiate between cows and horses - giving the latter any kinds of rights NOT to be eaten -, "your" burger will be next. And then "your" chicken wings.
You don't want that, right? Because... meat is yummy. Don't do what's right, do what's convenient.
And the jury did.
If this text is still online in 2048, another 25 years down the road, I would love to hear how people talk and think about these topics then.
The first one came a long way, since then.
The second one, not that much.