MoJo Interview: Comedian Sarah Haskins

Comedian Sarah Haskins on cougars, comedy, and Maureen Dowd.

Photo courtesy current.com

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


To listen to the podcast of this interview, click here.

For more free Mother Jones podcasts, subscribe here or in the iTunes Store.

Sarah Haskins is a correspondent for Current TV’s “infoMania” where she stars in the recurring “Target Women” segments. Her brand of feminist comedy has made her a darling of the lady-blogs, where every new “Target Women” is eagerly anticipated. Before she became an internet celebrity, Sarah was a regular in Chicago’s famed improv circuit. The comedian sat down with Mother Jones to talk about cougars, cleaning products, and Michelle Obama.

Mother Jones: So Sarah, how did you get to be so funny?

Sarah Haskins: Many, many years of study. Also I hated being embarrassed, and that’s when you learn to tell jokes.

MJ: Of all the sketches you’ve done, what’s your favorite?

SH: Target Women segments generally target products and entertainment and ideas marketed primarily towards women. We make fun of those by using their own media and joking around with it. So for cleaning products, we amassed a bunch of cleaning commercials and looked at the themes that ran through them. One of the primary themes is that all these cleaning supplies are sexual and romantic substitutes. So the Swiffer comes to seduce the woman away from her old mop. The sponge has this sexy Spanish accent like Javier Bardem. They’re stand-ins for a husband and a satisfying adult sexual relationship.

MJ: Do you actually watch Lifetime and the WE network all day looking for this stuff or does it kind of find you?

SH: I’m lucky that if there’s something egregious, people who have been watching the show or other people in the office will suggest that I watch it and I don’t have to watch it alone. There are a couple of production assistants here, my editor Dylan Osbourne, and another production coordinator, so between the five of us we watch a lot of terrible, terrible TV.

MJ: I saw that you just tweeted, three minutes before our interview started, asking for a definition of “cougars.” How often do you crowdsource?

SH: This is one of the first times that I’ve done it. I’m asking because I’m watching the show The Cougar on TV Land about one cougar who in a The Bachelor style situation with 20 20-year-old guys. It’s completely ridiculous and hilarious, but the show doesn’t provide a definition of “cougar.” If a 30-year-old woman dates a 20-year old-guy, is she a cougar? I want to understand the cultural zeitgeist of cougardom. What’s your definition of a cougar?

MJ: I think cougar implies something predatory.

SH: Yes, and do guys actually want that? Is there some status to getting a cougar?

MJ: Bagging a cougar.

SH: Yeah, bagging a cougar.

MJ: I don’t know. Is this a potential piece?

SH: Yeah, this is a potential Target Women. Is she living the dream or is she living the nightmare? I don’t know about how I’d feel about living in a house with twenty 20-year-olds.

MJ: The problem is that any older woman gets classified as a cougar. Sarah Palin: mother of five, total cougar.

SH: It’s hard to know if that’s good thing or a bad thing. We used to just grow old and be spinsters. Now we have a lot of options: We can be spinsters or cougars.

MJ: One of the words that you reclaim in your comedy is the word “Lady.” The “ladies” are the group of women specifically targeted by marketing—the ones eating yogurt while watching Army Wives— but for you the word also becomes a term of solidarity and resistance. When did you start using the word “Lady”?

SH: I started using the word “Lady” as a joke, and to point out how some things are very obviously marketed to women and yet they don’t mention that. Like cleaning products—it’s so rare to see a guy in a cleaning commercial. Everything about the domestic sphere is still primarily aimed at women as if women were still, in every family, absolutely responsible for the care of the home, and working women didn’t exist. Other silly efforts to market at women include Sarah Palin. The Republicans so transparently chose her because she was a woman and there was this misguided idea that all the angry Hillary Clinton voters would flock to her.

MJ: Speaking of ladies and politics, what do think of the job First Lady Michelle Obama has done so far and how the media has portrayed her?

SH: Oh those arms right! I think Michelle Obama is fantastic and fantastically brilliant but it is difficult. We all saw what happened when Hillary Clinton came in as a First Lady and was very assertive and all the negative backlash from that. We have to remember that First Lady is not an elected position. It’s up to her to decide what to do, it’s not like there are actually responsibilities that come with it, constitutionally.

MJ: I found that Maureen Dowd column to be totally insincere.

SH: Which Maureen Dowd column because she’s driving me nuts in all of them! But I don’t think Maureen Dowd could make a straight point these days if she wanted to. Her tweeting column drove me nuts and I’m not even a wildly enthusiastic tweeter but I don’t think it’s the downfall of civilization because you can completely ignore it if you like whereas somehow I can’t seem to ignore Maureen Dowd!

MJ: I was wondering if you saw your work as journalistic. If an organization like Media Matters is dedicated to calling out conservative BS in the media, are you kind of like a feminist Media Matters?

SH: It’s great if that’s a byproduct of what I do, but I certainly don’t consider myself a watchdog—I’m more of a comedian first. But I don’t go out there with an axe to grind. I think that’s often something that can put you in a position of being really polarizing or coming across as sort of preachy. I try to avoid going out there on a mission specifically. I like it to happen more organically.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate