What The Fuck Is Up With This Incredibly Sexist SNL Sketch?

SNL Sexist Tech Reporter Sketch

Hello, it’s me. Remember on Friday when we were talking about VICE‘s shitty interviews-as-dates series? Well, in that piece I argued that it was a faulty and harmful concept, mostly because female journalists are constantly portrayed as incapable of doing their job unless driven by some deeper/hidden sexual or romantic motive. The piece struck a nerve.

Yet, the day after it was published, SNL went ahead and aired a sketch that once again portrays female journalists as boy-crazed, vapid sluts. The female tech reporter played by Cecily Strong in the sketch is the butt of every joke, preening and primping in an attempt to get her co-host’s attention. Oh, and of course she works for Glamour Magazine, since women are only employed by female publications. She’s portrayed as an insipid, idiotic floozy. There’s no twist. There’s no redeeming quality. There’s no flip of the script. She even whips a jar out, asks her co-host to open it, and then begins suggestively sucking on the popsicle it contained.

That Strong willingly portrayed this gross stereotype of female journalist–a tech reporter, no less–is upsetting. But if these are the kind of roles that SNL writers are including for women, what’s the alternative? Meanwhile, Colin Jost gets to play the kind and gentle professional full of decorum. He’s the one who has to kindly fend off the boy-crazy woman! Sounds kind of similar to the time Jimmy Iovine thought women get so distracted talking about boys that they can’t find music on the big scary world wide web. Fuck this noise.

Around Brooklyn

See More

20 COMMENTS

  1. I’m pretty certain that as a writer, Cecily Strong write that character. I think you should put some owness on her for creating a sexist character. Your opinion implies that she was made to do that character. Either way, I’m not a very big fan of Strong. I think a lot of her characters arw sexist.

  2. Don’t they open the bit by saying she is a writer for Cosmo or Glamour or some crappy “sexist” magazine? You know, the ones with all of the “10 ways to flirt with a guy” or “21 ways to try to make yourself perfect”?

    Isn’t it just an, albeit poor, attempt to poke fun at traditional femininity? If anything those magazines are self-sexist.

    • Obviously didn’t read the article, but now I did. You kind of made my point. The only joke here would be to poke fun at ridiculous “Glamour” magazines and their lame attempts to act like they report on anything other than glamorous, unnecessary crap.

  3. Oh come ON! How often are men portrayed as sexual desperadoes guided only by their genitals instead of by their brains? Why isn’t there outrage about THIS pervasive stereotype?

  4. You obviously missed her character’s entire point. Personally I’m more offended by your tag “ban men”. And what’s with your headline containing the f-word like your some sort of badass?

  5. That was pretty funny actually. And I didn’t see it stereotyping women as much as making fun of those publications. Right? Why am I here right now?

    • Right? I was asking myself the same thing. The comments make more sense and are better reading than this article. No matter how you paint this world there will always be someone who is sexist, there will always be that one girl or guy who gives the rest of us a bad name (a slut/man whore, whatever). People need to quit getting so damn butt hurt over this stuff. The skit was to show that type of girl, you know the girl who thinks EVERY man wants to sleep with her…geez get your panties out of your ass Caitlin and laugh a little.

  6. I’m not sure I see a point here, if your GF has ever asked you to suffer through a few episodes of “Keeping up with the Kardashians” then this sketch seems rather light weight. To me the comedian Cecily Strong was portraying a stereo type to a level that was so over the top that it was cartoonish. Besides, her character wasn’t working for a tech magazine she worked for glamour so the juxtaposition was kind of funny in and of itself. Watch “Botched” sometime and you’ll see all sorts of real life (If you can call it that) bimbo’s who seem to be on a mission to fit this stereo type. And I have to ask: Would you be equally offended hid a sketch portray a fat sitting in his easy chair, drink a beer and clicking away the channels on his big screen TV? I don’t like the way men are portrayed but I have to admit some do fit their type to a tee. When the shoe fits wear it and this case exploit it for comedic purpose.

  7. Right. Because all women everywhere are always strong, independent feminist icons all the time and we, as a culture are never, ever allowed to parody or poke fun at their behavior in any way? Believe it or not, women can be just as screwed up and misguided as any other human being (I know, right? Who knew?), and, for well-adjusted individuals not looking to gin up false outrage or fill an opinion column, that can be a legitimate source of humor. Human behavior — it can be funny! For instance, faux-outrage prone, attention-seeking, wannabe feminists with a penchant for normative grammar who reinforce the notion that all feminists lack a sense of humor seem especially ripe for parody to me, no? Do better, Caitlin.
    #ban clickbaiting

  8. I think that jumping to that conclusion is a bit much. People can create a character and it not always be sexist. SNL is in the business of making people laugh, and the character they created was really funny!! It was just a character, and not a complete and total reflection of their views on gender roles in our society.

    Besides, it’s SNL after all. I wouldn’t take it so serious. It’s a comedy show, not the moral authority on gender roles today.

  9. Instead of outright calling it sexism, maybe you should sit a second and think analytically and see that MAYBE the whole point of this character was to satirize these types of women and the like.

LEAVE A REPLY