I liked everyone in this episode other than Ally. Working in the city in law, and in this #metoo movement, I really do not agree with pandering to sexual harassers, who do nothing but objectify women. I was on team Nelle and Ling. I understood why they did what they did - that radio person was a pig. Additionally, beautiful women like them will not only be harassed by men but also by women too. Watching this show in 2021, you can see how it's aged badly. It's not ok to hate and bully other woman just because they're beautiful and smart. One consistent character I love is John Cage - he brings so much heart to his performance that I'm always rooting for him, and I love seeing his advocacy performance in court. But I'm really not liking Ally, which is a shame as it's Ally Mcbeal!
3 Reviews
Aged... like horse meat.
Gernot S.12 December 2023
Warning: Spoilers
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
