'Baby, It's Cold Outside,' Seen As Sexist, Frozen Out By Radio Stations

[ruby sparks]

And there is no reason to not describe those troubling implications with a short expression like "a little bit rapey."

If we agree that no one in the song/scene crossed a line, but that the issue is that in real life, a line could be crossed in such situations if things happened differently, between two different people (who might have different intents and preferences, especially the woman perhaps) then try the following analogy: in a hypothetical film where an armed US policeman arrests a fleeing, unarmed black suspect in a legal, correct manner, should we say that the scene is a little bit 'unjustified-police-shootingy' because in real life, that's what could and sometimes does happen in such actual situations (if for example we were dealing with a 'bad' policeman or a policeman with bad judgement).

I might try to argue that this is a better example than the 'Home Alone' one you offered. In the former, there arguably is, at the outset, something morally wrong and inherently risky about abandoning a child. I'm not sure we can transfer that to the scene for this song, because there isn't anything inherently wrong with seduction involving persuasion, only a risk that if done 'wrong' it could lead to bad consequences. In other words, in the song scene there would/could be something wrong if things played out differently or if the woman really didn't want to stay, but in "Home Alone' there's already something wrong at the outset, in the premise. There is nothing inherently wrong with either seduction or the scene involving this song.

I ask this question purely for philosophical 'slight moral dilemma' purposes and not to suggest that you are necessarily wrong, not least because I partly instinctively agree with you.

 

[zorq]

And there is no reason to not describe those troubling implications with a short expression like "a little bit rapey."

If we agree that no one in the song/scene crossed a line, but that the issue is that in real life, a line could be crossed in such situations, try the following: in a hypothetical film where an armed US policeman arrests a fleeing black suspect in a legal, correct manner, should we say that the scene is a little bit 'unjustified-police-shootingy' because in real life, that's what could and sometimes does happen in such actual situations?

That's a horrible analogy.

There are lots of situations where two people are flirting that don't have anything in common with typical patterns of rape or date rape. And there are are lots of situations where police officers apprehend a fleeing black suspect that don't have anything in common with typical patterns of "unjustified police shooting." The ever so brief description of events in your hypothetical don't offer ANY suggestion of relationship to unjustified police shootings. You didn't even mention a gun being drawn or a shooting so ... in short, NO.


Let's try again.

Suppose there is an unarmed black suspect fleeing an armed police officer. Now let's suppose that the suspect hasn't committed any crimes but is running from the armed officer because the police officer didn't effectively identify themselves to the fleeing suspect who is partially deaf and has misunderstood the officer's commands as threats coming from what he thinks is an angry drunk. The suspect trips and the police officer jumps on top of the suspect attempting to restrain the suspect but the suspect fights back. The officer gets an elbow to the face and pulls out his service weapon. Finally the suspect is cowed into submission and the police officer handcuffs and arrests the suspect. The officer feels sheepish that he misidentified the suspect and was moments away from potentially killing the understandably confused man, but the suspect still goes to jail for resisting arrest and assaulting the police officer.

That's what I would call a little bit 'unjustified-police-shootingy'.
That is... if it wasn't such an unweildly expression.

 

[ruby sparks]

And there is no reason to not describe those troubling implications with a short expression like "a little bit rapey."

If we agree that no one in the song/scene crossed a line, but that the issue is that in real life, a line could be crossed in such situations, try the following: in a hypothetical film where an armed US policeman arrests a fleeing black suspect in a legal, correct manner, should we say that the scene is a little bit 'unjustified-police-shootingy' because in real life, that's what could and sometimes does happen in such actual situations?

That's a horrible analogy.

There are lots of situations where two people are flirting that don't have anything in common with typical patterns of rape or date rape. And there are are lots of situations where police officers apprehend a fleeing black suspect that don't have anything in common with typical patterns of "unjustified police shooting." The ever so brief description of events in your hypothetical don't offer ANY suggestion of relationship to unjustified police shootings. You didn't even mention a gun being drawn or a shooting so ... in short, NO.

Let's try again.

Suppose there is an unarmed black suspect fleeing an armed police officer. Now let's suppose that the suspect hasn't committed any crimes but is running from the armed officer because the police officer didn't effectively identify themselves to the fleeing suspect who is partially deaf and has misunderstood the officer's commands as threats coming from what he thinks is an angry drunk. The suspect trips and the police officer jumps on top of the suspect attempting to restrain the suspect but the suspect fights back. The officer gets an elbow to the face and pulls out his service weapon. Finally the suspect is cowed into submission and the police officer handcuffs and arrests the suspect. The officer feels sheepish that he misidentified the suspect and was moments away from potentially killing the understandably confused man, but the suspect still goes to jail for resisting arrest and assaulting the police officer.

That's what I would call a little bit 'unjustified-police-shootingy'.
That is... if it wasn't such an unweildly expression.

Ok, I think I accept that. Except that part of me still thinks that your revised scene is still not even a little bit 'unjustified-police-shootingy' at all.

ps I extensively edited my prior post while you were writing. Really bad habit of mine. I tried to bring up the idea of inherent 'wrongness'.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok, I think I accept that. Except that part of me still thinks that your revised scene is still not even a little bit 'unjustified-police-shootingy' at all.

What I'm trying to get at, zorq, is....one could argue that such an arrest scene would never, by any hypothetical, reasonable person, be justifiably called a little bit 'unjustified-police-shootingy'. Would it come up in a discussion on unjustified police shootings (other than to illustrate how to do something properly and reasonably)? It might be said that it relates to a possible or potential issue that could arise, if the scene were different, or in real life if the circumstances and events were different, or if the police officer in fact did something different, that's all. Which is surely not quite the same thing as the arrest scene being a little bit 'unjustified-police-shootingy'.

The OP song scene could therefore be better described as being relevant to a discussion on the issue of rape, but not itself rapey, at all, and saying the latter may have quite loaded implications that are undeserved (and do seem to be, when we examine the scene closely, and avoid misinterpretation of what it actually presents).

A caveat being that a man should (according to certain arguments) stop persuading when a woman says that she intends to go, even if she would prefer to stay. That, I think, could be a way into making the actual scene validly relevant to a discussion on date rape. I'm still not sure if it would fairly or reasonably mean that the scene could be described as itself rapey, at all. An adjective is a descriptive word which, I think, describes a property or attribute of something. Can an adjective be used to describe some aspect of something which isn't actually there?

In short, I'm going to say that calling the song/scene a little bit rapey is.....slightly controversial, and...unhelpful.

Or at best colloquial.

 

[zorq]

Ok, I think I accept that. Except that part of me still thinks that your revised scene is still not even a little bit 'unjustified-police-shootingy' at all.

What I'm trying to get at, zorq, is....one could argue that such an arrest scene would never, by any hypothetical, reasonable person, be justifiably called a little bit 'unjustified-police-shootingy'. Would it come up in a discussion on unjustified police shootings (other than to illustrate how to do something properly and reasonably)? It might be said that it relates to a possible or potential issue that could arise, if the scene were different, or in real life if the circumstances and events were different, or if the police officer in fact did something different, that's all. Which is surely not quite the same thing as the arrest scene being a little bit 'unjustified-police-shootingy'.

I don't know what to say except to say that I disagree. I can easily imagine a reasonable person bringing up this story in a conversation related to unjustified police shootings.

The OP song scene could therefore be better described as being relevant to a discussion on the issue of rape, but not itself rapey, at all, and saying the latter may have quite loaded implications that are undeserved (and do seem to be, when we examine the scene closely, and avoid misinterpretation of what it actually presents).

A caveat being that a man should (according to certain arguments) stop persuading when a woman says that she intends to go, even if she would prefer to stay. That, I think, could be a way into making the actual scene validly relevant to a discussion on date rape. I'm still not sure if it would fairly or reasonably mean that the scene could be described as itself rapey, at all. An adjective is a descriptive word which, I think, describes a property or attribute of something. Can an adjective be used to describe some aspect of something which isn't actually there?

In short, I'm going to say that calling the song/scene a little bit rapey is.....slightly controversial, and...unhelpful.

Or at best colloquial.

I disagree with your perception of the English language. You can eat a "nutty" candy bar that doesn't have any nuts if the person eating it is reminded of nuts. Vegans can enjoy "bacony" tofu or other such concoctions despite there being no bacon or pigs whatsoever in the manufacture process. There are words out there like "ragtimelike" that describe a music that ISN'T ragtime but has aspects similar to ragtime. The very word "reminiscent" is an adjective used to help describe something with attributes similar to that of something else despite that thing not being present.

I still don't know why you would impinge such an unhealthy attitude to the word "rapey."

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't know what to say except to say that I disagree. I can easily imagine a reasonable person bringing up this story in a conversation related to unjustified police shootings.

And I in turn can only say that I genuinely disagree, at least partly, with what you are saying there.

No, actually I think I could agree that someone could bring up the scene, in that it could be a relevant part of such a conversation but not as in the scene being an example of unjustified-police-shooteyness. Quite the opposite, I think. It would surely be a counter-example. I sincerely doubt I'll ever see it brought up in for example a thread here on the worrying behaviour of armed police. Which is surely the main relevant point.

I disagree with your perception of the English language. You can eat a "nutty" candy bar that doesn't have any nuts if the person eating it is reminded of nuts. Vegans can enjoy "bacony" tofu or other such concoctions despite there being no bacon or pigs whatsoever in the manufacture process. There are words out there like "ragtimelike" that describe a music that ISN'T ragtime but has aspects similar to ragtime. The very word "reminiscent" is an adjective used to help describe something with attributes similar to that of something else despite that thing not being present.

I still don't know why you would impinge such an unhealthy attitude to the word "rapey."

Hm. Perhaps one key difference is that unlike rapeyness and unjustified-police-shooteyness, none of those things are morally-damning? I'm going to suggest that that is a very relevant aspect of the matter, especially in things like the OP case.

But, setting that temporarily aside, let's even try just a mild example of something pejorative or morally non-neutral, since that mildness will make it harder for me to disagree. Suppose I say that to me, something you might say to me seems bitchy.

No. I'm still stuck. If it's not actually bitchy then it is only like the examples you gave and it is reminding me of something that could be or seems bitchy but isn't. So I'd be wrong to continue using the word bitchy after an examination and explanation that bitchyness is not there.

Or to go somewhere in-between in terms of immorality, we could use 'racist'? 'I think something you said is a little bit racist' for example. Now we are back in morally-damning claims territory, and, if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, and there's been a mistake, even if what you said is reminiscent of racism, by my initial interpretation. Bearing in mind that you might nonetheless have unintentionally or unknowingly said something which is actually racist. The implication of that to the OP being that it would make a difference if the writer unintentionally included something which is actually to do with rape, when I think we agree that he didn't.

In a nutshell, I think you are essentially still saying that if the song/scene were different, it would be rapey, or alternatively that it merely seems rapey, but actually isn't.

Believe me, I do think I can see your side of it. I'm disagreeing partly for the purposes of exploring a tricky issue and partly because I'm undecided as to my own opinion, bearing in mind that we agree that even if the song/scene is a bit rapey, it is neither rapey enough to ban or perhaps even make a big fuss about. I think we're on the same page in those respects?

 

[ZiprHead]

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/CJB9GP5gyAw[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

...

Are you claiming that the same people would be offended by any song in which two people are flirting?

No.

So why are they upset by this one?

Because of Bill Cosby and other such more modern incidents of putting "rape" drugs like Rohypnol into a woman's drink being incorrectly tied to the line, "Say, what's in this drink?"

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You can look at the song in any context you want to.

No, actually, you cannot. There is only ONE correct context, which is the one established by the artist, if, in fact any artist has gone on record to make such a declaration (or, in this case at least, the artist's daughter should suffice). The fact that few do is not relevant to the point.

But even if you do not accept--for some reason--that it is the artist who has the exclusive right to establish the context of their own work...

that is their prerogative and it doesn't make them wrong.

How is it an audience member's "prerogative" to determine what context the artist created their own work? That means I can tell you that the context of your comments are from the perspective of an albino African American living in 1880's England. Would I be wrong? Absolutely. Is it my "prerogative" to establish such a context? Absolutely not. That's absurd.

You are the author. You--and only you--have the exclusive right to establish (if it isn't already self-evident) the context of your creation.

And there is no reason to not describe those troubling implications with a short expression like "a little bit rapey."

Except that it is NOT in any way "rapey." You are simply wrong. And not just because the artist's daughter has provided the proper context, but because the lyrics themselves are self-evidently not describing a rape in any way.

Speaking of context, you referred to the line--in isolation--"The answer is no." Here, again, is the line in the context of the song (with other sections redacted to make the point:

I ought to say, no, no, no sir. At least I'm gonna say that I tried...I simply must go. The answer is no....But maybe just a cigarette more.

She very clearly has stated that she ought to say "no, no, no, sir" and leave--meaning she doesn't want to, but society is pressuring her to (as is immediately confirmed by her next line and the subsequent ones I omitted for brevity where she goes on to define exactly who is expecting her to say "no, no, no sir"). I ought to say "no," or at least I'm going to say that I did and leave to appease my family and the neighbors (i.e., society). So she does say it, resolves to go, but then decides to stay for "just a cigarette more."

So she is not saying "No" to stop anything that is happening against her will (as nothing is happening yet); she has stated that this is what she is expected to say so she's saying it in order to say that she did. It is clearly not what she wants, however, as again evidenced by the lyrics. This is not an interpretation. This is self-evidently true.

There is no mistaking this, so anyone that does is simply wrong. And yes, you--us, anyone--can be wrong; as noted above. So if anyone continues to argue that they are right in light of the proper context, it could only be out of hubris or stubbornness or the like, because there is clearly an objectively right and objectively wrong position based on both the lyrics and the affirmation of the artist's daughter just as there is if I were to declare it my prerogative to tell you that your comments are made in the context of the Ming dynasty. They are not. I would be wrong. Full stop.

 

[ruby sparks]

So why are they upset by this one?

Because of Bill Cosby and other such more modern incidents of putting "rape" drugs like Rohypnol into a woman's drink being incorrectly tied to the line, "Say, what's in this drink?"

And #MeToo I think.

And general raised awareness/alertness about rape in recent times (probably even before #MeToo but I am not sure).

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

(probably even before #MeToo but I am not sure).

Yes, before.

 

[ruby sparks]

(probably even before #MeToo but I am not sure).

Yes, before.

This song?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

(probably even before #MeToo but I am not sure).

Yes, before.

This song?

Yes. Ever since the accusations about Bill Cosby in particular, came to light, this song--and the line "Say, what's in this drink"--has been misconstrued as "rapey."

 

[Politesse]

So why are they upset by this one?

Because of Bill Cosby and other such more modern incidents of putting "rape" drugs like Rohypnol into a woman's drink being incorrectly tied to the line, "Say, what's in this drink?"

So, there's some sort of "objective" meaning to the song, that you have access to because you thought about it a certain way, and you therefore think it is fascist if people don't like jokes about getting women drunk and seducing them anymore?

 

[Toni]

So why are they upset by this one?

Because of Bill Cosby and other such more modern incidents of putting "rape" drugs like Rohypnol into a woman's drink being incorrectly tied to the line, "Say, what's in this drink?"

So, there's some sort of "objective" meaning to the song, that you have access to because you thought about it a certain way, and you therefore think it is fascist if people don't like jokes about getting women drunk and seducing them anymore?

Slipping someone a mickey (i.e. a drug) in a drink has been around a long time and was often referenced in movies about mobsters from at least the 30's forward.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Finn_(drugs)

The line about 'what's in my drink' works as a reference to that, sure but more probably as something a bit stronger than expected, alcohol wise. Like a spiked punch or spiked drink, with the spike being an extra shot, not drugs.

To me, that's the only really troubling thing about the song--not that it is nothing. If it were not sung as a duet, if it were not clear from the vocal inflections and manner of singing of the female partner that clearly signal her interest and interest in being convinced to stay--it would be a really creepy, inappropriate song. But context is everything. Lines can be read/delivered to give many different meanings, with a great deal of nuance.

Consider this:

Two friends are having a birthday lunch and the host(ess) offers a second--or first! piece of cake or candy. The guest is tempted, demures, will give in but needs to be coaxed. This will be familiar to many women. It's terrible if the guest has an eating disorder, carries shame about her weight, one way or another and worse if she'd diabetic. But for the most part, this is not unfamiliar between friends. Or: me urging my kids to take left overs after a big family holiday gathering.

But this is sex and people are much more cognizant of the fact that sometimes women are not just coaxed but possibly drugged or compelled into more physical involvement than they wish. I totally get that and how horrible it is, that it is rape, etc.

I just don't see it in the song. Because it's sung as a duet with the woman clearly hoping to be coaxed into staying. Which you can tell not by her lyrics but by her voice and inflections and the manner in which she sings.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So, there's some sort of "objective" meaning to the song, that you have access to because you thought about it a certain way, and you therefore think it is fascist if people don't like jokes about getting women drunk

It's NOT a joke about getting a woman drunk. The joke--which was common at the time due to the way society treated alcohol--is that there ISN'T alcohol in the drink, but she wishes there were so that she could use that as an excuse for having consensual sex, which is what she wants.

I'm not being a "fascist"; it's an objective fact, not an interpretation.

Regardless and once again, SHE is the one who asks for another drink. Here, once again, are the lyrics:

This evening has been so very nice. My mother will start to worry. My father will be pacing the floor. So really I'd better scurry, but maybe just a half a drink more.

The next sequence--where the line in question comes in--first continues the social concerns she's considering:

The neighbors might think. Say what's in this drink? I wish I knew how to break this spell. I ought to say, no, no, no sir. At least I'm gonna say that I tried. I really can't stay.

Then they both sing, in harmony:

But baby it's cold outside.

Back to the "fascist" comment, again, you do not have the right--or "prerogative"--to just assert any context you personally desire onto someone else's work.

Again, that would be like me saying that your comments must be understood in the context of a first century Jew. I can say that, but of course YOU would have the final--and therefore objectively true--say as to whether or not you were in fact either a first century Jew or speaking in the context of a first century Jew, yes?

It's not fucking rocket science.

 

[Politesse]

It's not fucking rocket science.

Yes, it's the woman's fault, I get it. When consent is for whatever reason dubious, it is always the woman's fault. I am perfectly aware of the position.

Again, that would be like me saying that your comments must be understood in the context of a first century Jew. I can say that, but of course YOU would have the final--and therefore objectively true--say as to whether or not you were in fact either a first century Jew or speaking in the context of a first century Jew, yes?

You're the one insisting that a 50's era worldview is the only suitable framework for interpreting the song, not me. Who is trying to assert past over present here, aside from you?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You're the one insisting that a 50's era worldview is the only suitable framework for interpreting the song, not me. Who is trying to assert past over present here, aside from you?

But that's when the song was written - why would you interpret it in a different way? If you interpret a song about a building collapsing as a 9/11 reference, but the song was written in the 1980s, you're just straight up interpreting it wrong.

 

[southernhybrid]

Here's another feminist defending the song as a feminist anthem.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/baby_its_cold_outside_should_be_a_feminist_anthem.html

Actually, this song should have a prominent place in our world, and people should not be offended. Many critics, with genuinely good intentions, say that the suggestive song is sexist, smirks at date rape, and should be silenced in this age of sex abuse victims screaming for stiff sentences. That's odd, because the Oscar-winning strain (1949) about snowbound loving adults doesn't sound much like rap.

The woman is making all the choices. She comes to visit the man, who clearly is pleased (Been hoping that you'd drop in). She has a great time (This evening has been so very nice. The welcome has been so nice and warm.). He persistently tries to persuade her to stay, presumably for the evening (But, baby, it's cold outside, Baby, it's bad out there. No cabs to be had out there.). She chooses to consume alcohol (Well, maybe just half a drink more.). She asks (Say, what's in this drink?), but the lyrics don't even hint that anything was added.

"Baby, It's Cold Outside" was the "I Am Woman" (hear me roar) of an earlier generation. It should be embraced as a feminist anthem, even though the concept of feminism was all but unknown then.

Uppity women, unite behind "Baby, It's Cold Outside." Please.

I don't even know where some of you men get off who are telling us women that this song is offensive to women.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It's not fucking rocket science.

Yes, it's the woman's fault,

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?