Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center actually pays Alex Christy to hate-watch late-night comedy shows so he can loudly complain that right-wingers like him get made fun of too much (which is to say, at all). He did this again in an April 14 post:
ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live! conducted a series of man-on-the-street interviews for Thursday’s how where a reporter asked a series of men questions about women’s bodies that they naturally did not know the answers to. The point was not just to laugh at men who can’t identify cat toys or confuse the rectum for the ovaries, but to attack pro-lifers.
At the end of his monologue, Kimmel introduced the segment, “It's getting extra crazy between the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade and the judge who ruled against the abortion pills. There are a lot of people, mostly men telling mostly women what they can and can't do with their bodies which got us thinking about how little men know about the female anatomy.”
Kimmel added, “Speaking for myself, I don't know a whole lot of it. We did this once before. The results were not surprising but with all the new focus we decided to try it again. We went out on Hollywood Boulevard, we asked men walking by questions about women's bodies and then, well, here's what they had to say.”
What followed was a massive non-sequitur.
[...]
One man could not tell the difference between the uterus and the bladder or between the ovaries and the rectum. Another had no clue how tampons work, while another thought that a cat toy was something that was inserted into the vagina. The segment ended with the failed tampon explainer detonating a tiny firecracker under the impression is was an “ultra” tampon.
Of course, Christy was not at all amused by any of this. Rather then understand that the point was to note that men who generally know little about women's bodies are trying to regulate women's bodies, he white about the who man-on-the-street process and insisted it was all irrelevant anyway:
Man-on-the-street interview are always suspicious because there is no way of knowing who is truly clueless and who was willing to play a role in exchange for being on TV or how many people knew the correct answer, but who were naturally not shown. Either way, a man (or woman) not knowing how many eggs a woman is born with has nothing to do with abortion opinions. People know what an abortion is and that has nothing to do with the length of the vaginal canal.
Should a man with such an obviously deficient sense of humor -- and clearly believes his and his employer's political beliefs must be exempt from being made fun of -- really serve as an effective joke policeman? Are his techniques state-of-the-art training at joke police academy?
