Gender and Sex

On the Bight Side, at Least the Coach Didn’t Order Them To Jump Out a Window…

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

I guess I understand how this could happen, but I don’t want to.

Student cheerleaders at Evans Middle School in Lubbock, Texas displeased their cheerleading coach by doing the “wrong cheer,” whatever than means, and she disciplined them by ordering the girls to do “bear crawls” and “crab walks” for miles on an outdoor track when in was nearly 100 degrees in Lubbock and the temperature on the track was well over a hundred. Some of the girls became sick under the sun, all of the cheerleaders ended up with first and second degree burns on their hands and knees, and at least one had to go to a burn center.

When they complained that the track was painful, the coach reportedly said that she didn’t care, and to keep crawling. Parents are furious, naturally, and the evil teacher has been placed on leave (she should be prosecuted—Special query for Humble Talent: Would it be unethical for me to add, “and should be shot”?), but what bothers me is that none of the girls had the sense, character and courage to refuse to accept the cruel punishment, and when the coach said that those who didn’t “crab walk” on the hot track would jeopardize their “cheer careers” (Remember, this is Texas, aka. Bizarro World), at least one girl—we would call her a “leader”—didn’t say, “Well take this cheer and shove it, I’m out of here!,” stop crawling, and walk away on her feet. Movie fans of the original “Carrie” will recall that the protagonist’s chief foe refused to do push-ups as her gym teacher’s punishment for mocking her vulnerable classmate in the shower. That character is a jerk, but she is a gutsy jerk.

Continue reading →

“Holy Fuck” Indeed. Stereotyping? What’s That? [Updated]

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Update: This video may be a parody, which raises further ethical issues that I discuss in the follow-up post. For now, I will leave this as written.]

_________________________

The most incompetent Presidential campaign in modern history hits a new low, raising the question, “How low can it go?” In addition to the hilarious selection of actors (these are all actors, you know, although that guy talking about how much weight he can lifts is terrible) to represent manly men, the ad is predicated on the theory that men are morons and won’t be turned off by the demeaning stereotypical assumptions it represents.

The equivalent ad aimed at women would have Vegas showgirls, strippers and Sydney Sweeney talking about the rights of the unborn.

What an insult. And what an indictment of Harris’s advisors and staff.

Two Faint Cheers For the Colorado Supreme Court in “Jerk vs. Jerk”

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

It looks like the political correctness Furies who have been swarming around Jack Phillips, the Masterpiece Cakeshop owner whose refusal to bake, decorate and sell same-sex wedding cakes had him targeted for destruction have finally been foiled.The Colorado Supreme Court has dismissed the latest lawsuit against him, though not on the merits. Legal Insurrection has detailed coverage and a retrospective on this almost decade-long drama here.

Remember the old Mad Magazine series called “Spy vs. Spy”? This has been “Jerk vs. Jerk.” I sided with the baker in the original lawsuit over the same-sex wedding cake, though holding even then that the adversaries were being unreasonable. Ethics Alarms advised one, “Oh, bake the damn cake!” and the other, “So find another bakery!” That battle got all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the baker won on what non-lawyers call “a technicality.” Then Phillips was targeted again, as LGTBQ activists apparently considered it a matter of honor to bend him to their will.

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce: The University of Kansas [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 43 Comments

No, what’s insane is for anyone to watch that video and misunderstand the clear meaning of what lecturer Phillip Lowcock said. I doubt anyone did misunderstand him. This manufactured scandal is conservatives acting like political correctness-addled progressives.

“[If you believe] guys are smarter than girls, you’ve got some serious problems. That’s what frustrates me,” Lowcock says in the video. “There are going to be some males in our society that will refuse to vote for a potential female president because they don’t think females are smart enough to be president. We could line all those guys up and shoot them. They clearly don’t understand the way the world works.”

And he clearly doesn’t understand how university administrators work in age of The Great Stupid. They are weenies. They sacrifice common sense and principles to avoid conflict.

I have read conservative piranha claiming that he said that any man who didn’t vote for Kamala Harris should be shot. No, he said that thinking that women aren’t smart enough to be President is an idiotic reason not to vote for a woman, and they “should be shot” means that such ignorant bigots are useless and a blight on the culture, which isn’t that far off the mark. Now, thinking Kamala isn’t smart enough to be President is something else, and completely reasonable, but Lowcock didn’t say that.

As for “Did I say that? Scratch that from the recording. I don’t want the deans hearing that I said that,” it’s obviously a joke, not a serious cover-up. His tone is humorous. I’ve been a stage director long enough to know when a line is not intended to be taken seriously.

Any conservative social media troll or university administrator who seriously thinks Lowcock’s comment was anything but facetious exaggeration and completely benign should be shot.

I wish Lowcock would stand his ground and refuse to be sacrificed to the God of Perpetual Offense, but he’s already groveling. This is how the censors break you: it’s like Winston Smith having the hungry rats at his face. No job is worth surrendering one’s self respect to save.

So…The Second Gentleman Running For First Gentleman Impregnated His Nanny During His First Marriage and Slapped a Date In the Face: Is That a Problem?

/ Jack Marshall / 34 Comments

By the established standards of the news media and the rest of the Axis of Unethical Conduct, it should be, don’t you think? But apparently not.

Huh.

A throbbing example of wildly varying standards in the media depending on whether they are covering Donald Trump or Kamala Harris just raised its warty head. Did you see that Doug Emhoff, Kamala Harris’s husband who was largely invisible until she pushed President Biden off the Democratic ticket, admitted he had an adulterous affair with his nanny and got her pregnant, leading to his divorce? That happened in August, after the slimy Daily Mail broke the scandal and Emhoff came clean to CNN. I missed it entirely, which means that, for example, the New York Times either ignored it or soft-peddled it because, well, you know. But the story burst on the social media scene this week after ex-Obama paid liar Jen Psaki, now a full-time Axis propagandist at MSNBC, interviewed Emhoff and gushed that he had “reshaped the perception of masculinity.” “Has that been an evolution for you and do you think that’s part of the role you might play as first gentleman?” Psaki continued. Yecchh. That was nauseating enough (no Vice-President’s spouse has the power, visibility or status to “reshape” anything), but Emhoff’s answer exploded heads from coast to coast.

Continue reading →

Here’s Your Ethics Challenge: Argue Convincingly That It Would Have Been More Ethical For This Horrible Couple To Abort The Baby…

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

Early favorites for “Parents of the Year”!

Darien Urban, 21, and Shalene Ehlers, 20, decided to sell their baby to a stranger while they were at a camp ground. (No, they weren’t married: why would you even ask?) As Mom explained later, having to deal with a baby while taking care of three dogs was just too much. All they asked for was a six-pack of beer and a thousand bucks. What a deal!

“I, Darien Urban and Shalene Ehlers, are signing our rights over to [Cody Martin] of our baby for $1,000 on 9/21/24,” their contract read. Good: these things should be legal. “After signing this there will be no changing y’all two’s minds and to never contact again,” it concluded.

Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce: Rep. Anthony D’Esposito (R-NY)

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Would it be unfair of me to write, “Now there’s a face you can trust!”? Sure it would, but I don’t care. He is exactly the kind of unethical politician that Congress has way, way too many of. He upsets me so much, I ended a sentence with a preposition.

Shortly after taking the oath of office following his election to Congress in 2022, D’Esposito hired his fiancée’s daughter to work as a “special assistant” in his district office at a salary that eventually reached $3,800 a month. Then D’Esposito hired a woman with whom he was having an affair. Devin Faas collected $2,000 a month for a part-time job in the same district office as his fiancée’s daughter. (Uh, this is not the smartest way to cheat on your beloved.) When D’Esposito’s fiancée discovered the affair with Faas in July of 2023, she broke up with him, and both of the dubious hires had to find other employment.

Apparently the lovebirds are back together again. That’s nice.

She’s an idiot.

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: The Offensive… Wristband?

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

Apparently a biological male who “identifies as female” plays on the Plymouth Regional High School girls’ soccer team in New Hampshire. When the team played its regional rival Bow High School, some Bow parents, protesting the presence of the player whom they regarded as a danger to the born-female players on the Bow team, wore wristbands like the ones above as a silent protest. The Bow High athletic director had told concerned parents before the contest that “in the wake of a federal judge’s ruling that the term ‘girl’ includes males who identify as female,” he felt he was powerless. (He’s a weenie. If he agreed with the parents, he could simply have his team refuse to play the Plymouth team, accept the consequences, and raise the issue.)

When the parents’ “XX” bands appeared at the game, school officials stopped the soccer match, ordered the parents to remove the wristbands, and even “issued [a] police-enforced ‘No Trespassing order’” against two parents who refused.

Continue reading →

From The Res Ipsa Loquitur Files: ‘Nah, Pro-Abortion Fanatics Haven’t Lost Their Minds’

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

I presume I don’t have to explain all of the ethics alarms pinged by this amazing tale from academia….

An event this week at Arizona State University, “Jenny Irish’s HATCH: A Speculative Future for Reproductive Rights” held both in person and via Zoom, featured Irish, an English professor at ASU, and Professor Angela Lober, director of the Academy of Lactation Programs [ Wait, WHAT???] at ASU’s Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation.

Professor Lober began the one-hour moderated discussion by stating that she “got into this space because the United States hates women and everything the female body does.” Okaaaay—that’s certainly not “misinformation”…or inflammatory. Lober went on to say a “lack of financial incentives in breastfeeding and maternal-child health care” was proof of this hostility and showed that economic interests often override health concerns.

Continue reading →

From the “Ethics Corrupters” File: “Law and Order SVU,” “Part 33.”

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

I got sick of “Law and Order: SVU” long ago, so this 2019 episode, from the 20th season (and it’s still going!) escaped my ethics radar until I reached it by accident this morning and had to watch the whole thing as an obligation to Ethics Alarms.

The episode titled “Part 33” is a perfect example of how popular culture is corrupting American values and ethics problem-solving skills with Hollywood’s constant propaganda opposing personal responsibility, the Rule of Law, and promoting emotion-based judgement rather than decisions based on fact and logic.

Continue reading →