1. Are fake media stereotypes ethical if they are benign stereotypes? When my son was a young child, I watched a lot of children’s programming, and immediately noticed that almost every show had a computer nerd, tech genius character, and that character was almost invariably black. I get it: the idea was to fight pernicious stereotypes with opposite stereotypes, but neither stereotype was accurate. (Lots of prime time movies and TV shows for adults also perpetuated the black tech genius trope, like “Die Hard,” “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” and many others.)
Now Madison Avenue or their corporate clients apparently want American to believe that inter-racial marriage is the norm. I literally could not care less who people marry, but I just sat through four TV ads in a row featuring black and white couples. I failed at my admittedly limited attempt to find out what current percentage of American married couples are bi-racial, but the last study, which is nine years old, found that less than 9% of married couples consisted of a white and an African American spouse. That’s great, but the popular culture should be reflecting society, not using its power to manipulate it according to its own agenda.
2. Take this, for example:
This is part of new “woke” Gillette campaign. “Go out there and slay the day!” says the corporate tweet accompanying the photo.
Funny, I’ve been told that obesity has become a serious public health problem in the U.S. Fat-shaming is wrong—the Woke still constantly insult the President by calling him fat, and that babe in the photo makes him look like Chris Sale—but fat glorification is irresponsible. But hey, what’s consistency when the idea is to virtue-signal like crazy? “[We’re]committed to representing beautiful women of all shapes, sizes, and skin types because ALL types of beautiful skin deserve to be shown. We love Anna because she lives out loud and loves her skin no matter how the “rules” say she should display” says Gillette.
3. At the risk of losing you forever, let me send you to Ann Althouse’s blog where she does a marvelous job defenestrating a New York Times hack who uses this meme…
…to make a typical contrived Trump-hate argument. Without stealing Ann’s thunder—she doesn’t focus on this—I’ll make one comment about the Times’s hack’s argument. He writes in part,
“The entire event is at once silly, trivial, offensive and, thanks to Donald Trump’s Twitter feed, something we’re now begrudgingly made to pay attention to.”
Incredibly, in a sick clone of the Clinton-enabling of more than 20 years ago, good progressives are once again arguing that to hold a powerful figure to account for sexual assault and harassment is “silly,” because it’s their powerful figure. This is the unethical conservative argument, you hypocritical morons.
4. And if you want to be taken more seriously, stop calling yourself “Muffett.” I mentioned this story in the previous post, but it bears emphasis. Notre Dame women’s basketball coach Muffet McGraw announced that she would not hire another man for her coaching staff.
She cited the rationalizations you would expect—“Men run the world. Men have the power. Men make the decisions. It’s always the man that is the stronger one”—and she cited the usual list of dubious feminist arguments, like the phony “pay gap.” When asked why should it matter if the coach is a man or a woman, as long as they’re qualified, Muffett answered,
“When you look at men’s basketball, 99 percent of the jobs go to men, why shouldn’t 100 or 99 percent of the jobs in women’s basketball go to women?”
Oh, I’d say the jobs go to men because only men play men’s basketball, which is in all ways a more difficult, demanding game than women’s basketball. Her argument is like saying that since only professional baseball players go on to manage professional baseball teams, only coaches who never played professional baseball should be allowed to coach Little League teams.
Prejudice, discrimination and bigotry don’t solve gender bias, they perpetuate it.
5. And now, on a humorous note…A poacher hunting rhinos in South Africa’s Kruger National Park was trampled to death by an elephant and then eaten by lions. Once again, we have George Will’s favorite concept, condign justice.
Four of the now-digested man’s colleagues fled the game reserve and were arrested by police . Is it unethical not to feel pity for the poacher’s fate? No. Is it cruel to smile at the story? Not in my book. It sounds like a Gary Larson cartoon come to life.
6. Aren’t teacher unions wonderful? They’ll even fight for the right of teachers to have sex with students. Rhode Island is one of a few states where it is legal for teachers or other school employees to have sexual relations with their students if the kids are 16. An investigation by USA Today also found the state lax in its policies regrading information about teachers who are predators. Now the two largest teachers unions, the NEA the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) are opposing a proposed law that would make teacher-student sex a crime.
James Parisi of UFT actually made this argument in the bill’s hearing: Why single out school employees? Why doesn’t the law include the clergy, or legislators, or “store managers”? Why? WHY? Because the state doesn’t require parents to entrust their children to clergy, or legislators, or “store managers, that’s why. Because teachers are supposedly professionals that parents and students are supposed to and have to trust not to take advantage of their positions. (We don’t have to trust the clergy, and my advice is not to.)
The UFT was able to come up with an even worse argument: a teacher using a student as a sex toy didn’t need to be a crime; the loss of the teaching job and a state teaching license is punishment enough.