Saturday Night Live’s recent sketch featuring Jon Hamm and Bowen Yang as gay parents sparked intense debate about the show’s evolving stance on cultural issues. The skit — which shows friends interrogating the couple about their sudden baby acquisition — uses absurd humor to highlight growing societal skepticism toward surrogacy and pronoun politics. Here’s what’s really happening:
### The Sketch Exposes Progressive Contradictions
The friends’ relentless questioning (“How did this happen?” “Who’s the mother?”) mirrors real-world concerns about surrogacy’s ethical pitfalls. The gay couple’s defensive responses — ranging from “We like to think of it as she stole us” to gender-role parodies — satirize activist talking points that sidestep biological realities. By portraying the baby’s origin as suspiciously vague, SNL indirectly critiques the commodification of children through third-party reproduction.
### A Calculated Pivot, Not Genuine Awakening
While conservatives celebrate the skit as a “vibe shift,” SNL’s motive appears more pragmatic than ideological. The show has hemorrhaged viewers by prioritizing woke messaging over humor. This episode’s viral success — driven by mockery of progressive parenting myths — suggests writers are testing edgier material to regain relevance. As one commentator noted: “SNL realized wokeness can’t sustain comedy”.
### Surrogacy Normalization vs. Cultural Pushback
The sketch walks a tightrope — laughing at surrogacy’s absurdities while avoiding outright condemnation. Lines like “People think they can ask gay people anything” frame ethical concerns as intrusive, not legitimate. However, the relentless questioning from “normal” characters signals growing public discomfort with child commodification, even as Hollywood keeps promoting it.
### Bottom Line
SNL hasn’t abandoned wokeness — it’s exploiting conservative skepticism for laughs while maintaining plausible deniability. The skit’s true message lies in its uncomfortable silences: no coherent defense of surrogacy emerges, just deflections and outrage. This reflects a broader cultural reckoning where even progressive institutions struggle to justify practices that treat children as accessories.
