Martha Plimpton Slams Shane Gillis’ ‘Really F—g Stupid’ ‘SNL’ Monologue: ‘He Deserves a Spanking From His Mom’
Martha Plimpton criticised Shane Gillis’ opening monologue on “Saturday Night Live”, calling his remarks about women’s gym clothes “really stupid” and saying he deserved “a spanking from his mom”. Her comments add to the backlash over a joke that many viewers considered misogynistic.
Plimpton also questioned the lack of women in a group of people shown deciding which sketches make it to air, after watching a documentary about “SNL” creator Lorne Michaels. She said more women should be involved in those decisions and praised cast member Kenan Thompson. Actor Dan Levy had also objected to Gillis’ joke, arguing that women wearing short shorts at the gym does not make them whores.
- Martha Plimpton condemned Shane Gillis’ “SNL” monologue.
- A joke about women’s gym clothes prompted criticism.
- Plimpton called for more women in “SNL” decision-making.
New here? Start with this
Saturday Night Live is a long-running American comedy show, broadcast live and built around sketches and a guest host. Its opening monologue is a short stand-up routine, and jokes on the programme can prompt public debate about their subject and tone.
Shane Gillis is a comedian who has hosted the show, while Martha Plimpton is an actor who has commented on his monologue. Lorne Michaels created SNL and oversees its production; decisions about which sketches are shown are made by people working on the programme.
The discussion touches on how comedy portrays women and who has influence over what appears on television. Dan Levy is among the other public figures who have responded to the joke.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Critics may argue that jokes linking women’s gym clothing to their sexual respectability reinforce a familiar double standard: women are judged for what they wear, while the joke shifts blame from the judgement to the women. Plimpton’s concern about who decides which sketches air also raises a fair question about whether a more diverse group of decision-makers would catch such assumptions and broaden the comedy’s perspective.
The case against
Defenders may argue that comedy can use deliberately crude or provocative language without endorsing its premise, and that a joke should be judged in the context of the performance rather than treated as a literal statement about women. They may also see Plimpton’s criticism as one interpretation of the bit, while maintaining that sketch selection is a creative process and that representation alone does not determine whether a joke is fair or funny.