Well, the Chris Matthews thing is bad enough...but the RealDoll? WTF. Actually, I'm not sure what to think about the RealDoll. I mean, many women use disembodied penises for self-gratification, and far be it from me to judge them, but somehow this just seems wrong. The mere usage of a term like "organic woman" reduces (once again) women to nothing more than objects. It's like, which model will you choose, synthetic, or organic? And the RealDoll Half Torso? If you thought the boobie cabinet and torso table were bad...

What do others think?

I love the Edwards'; Matthews is disgusting and once again, if he made a statement about race inequity being great or something about religious difference, he'd be fired. Since he's talking about "ball biting" and "Stepford Wives" its okay. Elizabeth Edwards totally saved John Edwards' ass when she stopped him from restating the joke that Kerry's been all over the right wing media for.

He well deserved the applause for the statement about Bush be-smirtching our rep around the world and bonus points for pointing to moral leadership, such as intervening in Dafur.

Big Crush, Edwards; Matthews, just another blow-hard with more media power than any feminist, unfortunately.

Let's see - Mathews mentions the Stepford Wives as if they were the good ol' days, the audience suddenly quiets down and then expresses its displeasure, and he cites them for being "PC" as if they are in the wrong? I think Tweety needs more trips into the real world instead of working in the isolation of his studio. But it seems like accusing others of being politically correct is the response of many white guys working in areas above their level of social competence.

Hey, even big stars like McBain have difficulty with comedy...

Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen, it's Up Late With McBain! I'm your host, Corporal Obengruppenfuhrer Wolfcastle. And now, here's McBain! [McBain walks out on stage]

McBain: Ja, thank you, ja. Let's hear it for my music guy, Skoey. That's some outfit, Skoey. It makes you look like a homosexual. [audience boos] Well, maybe you all are homosexuals, too. [audience boos]

WTF? There was an honesty in his tone that seemed a little too real. I'm not saying it would have been funny had he been joking, but I would have understood it in the context of the moment. Instead, it really seemed like he was serious. I don't watch Chris Matthews much, but I never minded him (accepting the fact that he is TV personality with a conservative bent) until just now. That was downright offensive.

But it seems like accusing others of being politically correct is the response of many white guys working in areas above their level of social competence.

Right on, Caitlyn. It's just a fancy way of saying, "You all are too damn sensitive! I have thoughts, and they'll remain unformed and unquestioned as long as I want them to."

Matthews must be wondering to himself: "George Carlin and Sarah Silverman are also politically incorrect... how do they get laughs? No, it must be the audience's fault."

Who am I kidding, he probably got the Don Imus "How To Make People Groan in Disapproval or Nervously Titter At Your Pathetic Serious-Then-Just-Kidding Schtick" self-help book.

norbiz, Matthews and Michael Richards both... damn those oversensitive audiences!

I really can't see his comments as anything but an awkward attempt to joke with Elizabeth Edwards about her forthrightness. The Stepford Wives reference actually seems intended to praise Edwards by contrasting her with submissive automatons. When most of the left gives a free pass to TV talking heads like Bill Maher who have a real problem with women's equality, I can't get too worked up about this lame joke.

What a turd. He sounds way too sincere about that women shouldn't be equals, just like the good old days schtick.

Elizabeth Edwards was gracious enough and smart enough not to tell him off on TV.

"What is it with equal marriages? Why do people marry their equals?"

Because, in Matthews' fantasy universe, if they didn't, there'd be a crapload of women identified as smart, strong specimens married to dumb, weak men. The patriarchy recoils at the thought of such an absurd coupling, and so, as it grudgingly acknowledges that a few women may indeed be something other than mere cum receptables, it allows a tiny number of exceptionally smart, extraordinarily strong, amazingly talented women to be elevated to the status of "equal" to your average man.

I give no free passes to anyone. Not even my brothers.

If it was a lame joke, he wouldn't have addressed the audience with the PC comment. He would have gone, "Come on, it was a joke!" They were all joking around, smiling and laughing, and his smile disappeared when he made that comment.

The funny thing is that even Laura Bush teases Dubya. Her public image is hardly that of a ball-biter.

The15th- "The left" may or may not give Maher a free pass, but this site is about something beyond party politics- feminism. Your point is irrelevant.

My take is that Matthews was pissed off that Elizabeth's intervention prevented him from getting something inflammatory out of John- and his frustration then centered on her being his wife. If Elizabeth had been there as another politician or commentator and done the same thing, I think Matthews' attack would have taken a different direction. The thing that bothers me is the attitude that if she disagrees with John, he must be henpecked- and you can see it on their faces. He's trying to shame both of them by pointing out the ways that he believes their marriage doesn't conform.
Good for the audience for recognizing it for what it was.

"When most of the left gives a free pass to TV talking heads like Bill Maher who have a real problem with women's equality, I can't get too worked up about this lame joke."

I don't know who these people are, but they ain't me. I cannot STAND that walking turd Bill Maher. His anti-war arguments aren't NEARLY enough to make me overlook his blinding anti-woman sentiments.

The 15th: Technically, I am "The Left," and I don't get HBO. I did not appreciate Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death, though.

Someone above mentioned that this joke just doesn't fit in the "context of the moment." Did anyone here actually see the whole thing? I was in the audience right behind Chris Matthews at that yesterday, and while I'm not a fan of his (and thought the joke was stupid) what this video doesn't show is that after we all stopped booing, either John or Elizabeth Edwards said something to the effect that the joke was dumb but that they got what he was trying to say because they've socialized with Chris and his wife and know how equal that relationship is, how fierce she is, how much respect he has for her, etc. Right after that, Chris Matthews asked Elizabeth some questions about the work she's done for women and women's rights. It was clear that he had a lot of respect for her.

I still think that the joke was out of line and sexist, and that the thing he said about P.C. was ridiculous (I mean, I was booing, too!) but I think it's a bit irresponsible to post just a clip of something if you don't know what happened right after, or to know and not say-- it was pretty clear that he thought no one was going to think he really meant that.

The commenter above who called it an awkward attempt to praise Elizabeth was exactly right. It didn't work, but I honestly think he meant it to come off of as anything but sexist. I'm not saying it wasn't-- I just think it's important to know more about the context.

So, what? It's okay to say something racist or sexist or antisemitic or just plain asshatish, as long as "some of my best friends are....."

Well-meaning people display bigotry all the time, and I think it's important to call them on it. No one is going to be perfect all the time, but when we screw up and say something stupid, we have to expect that people we respect may very well hand us our butts on platters and point out what a stupid thing we have done. And then we say "you're right, I should have realized."

It is by no means clear what Matthews thought, only what he didn't think. He didn't think : "whoops, that joke didn't work" or "they don't know about my egalitarian marriage". When he made the PC comment he just reinforced what an ass he is.

bill maher is hysterical but yeah he is anti woman in many many ways. but unlike many people here, i dont dismiss people bc of a single, or even a few comments. sometimes i think people take things too far. isfa- i have never seen someone over analyze something like this like you just did. i mean wow. that is not what happened at all. at some point, feminists, including myself, are going to have to start really focusing in on things that truly eat away at our equality-which is not over analysing what someone straightfowardly said on some random show. i am sure matthews is less then perfect in the sexism dept, but i think we need to keep things in context.

Katie- yeah, I know I'm being pretty over-analytical about it, and your point is well-taken. But I should clarify that I really identify with that feeling of being put down for disagreeing with a male partner in public- it makes some people really, really uncomfortable and they feel like commenting on it surprisingly often ("I know who wears the pants in that relationshi," etc.). I doubt I'm the only woman who has felt pressure to defer to her male partner in public for precisely this reason and THAT is a feminist concern.

I think Elizabeth Edwards handled that situation very well. It was obvious she didn't like what he said, but she kept her composure, only stopping him with his 'ball biting' crock.

I also love how John Edwards stated aloud that "she saved me" and then adding that it wasn't the first time. It may seem small, but it shows that he does respect and value what she has to say. Not that it was in question, but its nice to see/hear rationatliy triumphing over idiocracy.

Gotta say that link to the dolls resembling "women" as some sort of substitute was indigestible.
If I found one of those under some guy's bed I was interested in I would probably throw up on little-susie-fuck-me and leave promptly.

But not to worry, as the article mentions, she would get a "sponge bath."

Kaethe--
Nowhere did I say what I think he said is okay, or say anything, I think, that suggests that I think any type of bigotry is okay as long as it has a half-hearted personal anecdote to back it up. I thought people would be interested in knowing what happened further, and knowing that Matthews did try to make up for it with what he asked Elizabeth Edwards about her work. I'm not saying that it worked, or that it in anyway replaced a real apology, or that I think he's not an asshole-- I just don't think the implication given in the original post that Matthews is on level with men who replace women with dolls and feel great about it is a fair one.

That was hysterical. He made a stupid, offensive joke and everyone boo'd. What more could you ask for?

isfa-i know what you mean. some things hit closer to home then others. there is certainly an argument for the fact that its the small things, the subtle things (like little comments that talking heads say-as innocuous as they may seem), that really eat away at our equality and make changing the big picture impossible. ie-you can have equal work for equal pay, but that doesnt change attitudes or stop sexist catcalls on the street kinda thing.

Hmm. Chris Matthews and the RealDolls should have been separate posts. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less about another conservative media blowhard, but as a sci-fi geek, a discussion about the morality of "artificial people" would fascinate me.

Now, obviously, the RealDolls aren't androids, still less are they Blade Runner replicants. They have no minds, wills, or feelings of their own. They're nothing but full-body sex toys, or "teddy bears with benefits", and the first question is: What's wrong with that?

That's not a rhetorical question. If there *is* something wrong with a RealDoll, then what kind of sex toy *would* be okay? Less-realistic blow-up dolls? A fleshlight?

All of that having been said, I'm extremely creeped out by that article. Not because of the RealDolls themselves, but because their owners don't treat them like sex toys or "teddy bears with benefits". They invent personalities for them. Davecat keeps a picture of Sidore in his wallet, describes sex with her as like being with a woman who is "brimful of Quaaludes". That's not playing with a toy - that's establishing a relationship...with a "woman" who is exactly what you want her to be, and doesn't talk back. And that's what's wrong with it.

Seraph, I think that's precisely it... it's kind of like, when someone in a committed relationship chooses, consistently, to masturbate INSTEAD of having sex with his/her partner, we tend to think this points to a problem of sorts.

Similarly, when you have sex toys that look a lot like real people, it's also a problem. You use these toys to masturbate, not to have sex with a PERSON. Thus, it seems to me appropriate to use tools that approximate body parts, rather than whole persons. The reason is that when you masturbate, you're just doing it to get off. Accordingly, it's appropriate to use what's necessary/helpful to do so. When you need an entire PERSON, you're not just getting off; you're doing something more. This blurs the line between person and object. It makes a whole female body the equivalent of a vibrator. And this is why these dolls are problematic.

Similarly, when you have sex toys that look a lot like real people, it's also a problem. You use these toys to masturbate, not to have sex with a PERSON. Thus, it seems to me appropriate to use tools that approximate body parts, rather than whole persons. - TLF

That's exactly it. Sex toys are just tools in order to get some physical satisfaction. These guys are inventing entire personas for these dolls, and do things that would normally done with another autonomous human being. It gets even stranger when you realize that they have to clothe these things, clean them out, pose them, and so on.

This seems like an extreme result of the patriarchal belief that women are objects to be used. While this probably exists subconsciously in most men due to socialization, reality and interactions with women in their lives wins out.

Maybe it's for the best that the guys who believe women are objects keep themselves occupied with these things. That way they don't harm any women they may have had relationships with, due to their desire for control.

well i totally agree that chris's comments are ill advised but it does leave me wondering when sarcasm is appropriate. I am confident that John and chris are both heavily in favor of modern, equal marriages and that when chris refers to the "good ole days" that he does so with a heavy dose of sarcasm. Of course he forgets that although john and elizabeth may know him well enough to detect that sarcasm, we as the audience are left with only conjecture. But still i wonder if sarcasm is to be tolerated on sensitive topics.

the dolls go both ways. By that i mean that they make men like dolls for women as well. i agree with katie the sci-fi geek, its a sex toy which for the most part is fine but developing a relationship is sad. I think its more a product of our overly sexed culture and to some extent some empathy and compassion should be extended to those people who have been damaged to that degree. on the other hand having a full replica of a body can and does enhance masturbation because as we all know sex and simulated sex is about much more than genitalia or replicas of genitalia.

"when chris refers to the "good ole days" that he does so with a heavy dose of sarcasm."

And you know this... how?

The context did not make a great segue for sarcasm. The Colbert Report this was not. First he talks about her "biting" his balls, and then he makes a Stepford Wives remark, and clearly NOT in a "isn't-it-funny-how-other-people-actually-believe-this" way. It was not to mock sexists. It was to poke fun at Elizabeth and John, even if he meant it as a buddy. To say something like this with sarcasm, you need to accompany it with a big ol' eye roll, because there are PLENTY of people who actually buy this drivel. If it had been Barack Obama on stage and Chris had made a joke about "why can't we go back to the Jim Crow days" no one would think he was being sarcastic. They'd think he was a disgusting racist. People might have thrown things at him for a comment like that. I am pretty attuned to sarcasm, but nothing about this -- the words, the context, the attitude -- struck me as sarcastic.

I don't know, Law Fairy, "A Modest Proposal" was written in such a serious tone that Swift's friends didn't get the joke until he told them. Now it's seen as the epitome of satire.

Yes, bearcat, but I think the analogy only works if Chris Matthews' entire CAREER is the joke. I can only dream...

Plus, there are people who are considered sane, rational, even upstanding members of society who hold vaguely Stepford-ish views. I don't think the same can be said of people who advocate eating children.

First he talks about her "biting" his balls, and then he makes a Stepford Wives remark, and clearly NOT in a "isn't-it-funny-how-other-people-actually-believe-this" way. It was not to mock sexists. It was to poke fun at Elizabeth and John, even if he meant it as a buddy.

Word. On its face, even in the context of the entire interview this wasn't meant to be satire. It was just another annoyance in the long line of offensive humor this season.

That was hysterical. He made a stupid, offensive joke and everyone boo'd.free online games