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

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I am arguing from the context of a living human in 2018. And when we look at the lyrics of the song from this context they sound "a little bit rapey."

Meaningless semantics.

That DOES IN NO WAY change the context of the song as it was written 70+ years ago.

Good, then you're done.

So let's recap. Some people--in 2018--have misconstrued the lyrics to be "a little bit rapey." But the proper context--and the lyrics themselves--prove this is false.

End of discussion.

Once again, we are not Freshmen in college and this isn't Logic & Language 101 so you can shelve the unnecessary pedantics. This is a straightforward issue of ignorance and a lack of intellectual vigor on the part of some people at a radio station (and here and elsewhere as well, apparently) ALL of which is easily rectified by simply reading all of the lyrics and doing ten seconds of secondary research.

 

[ruby sparks]

We are discussing whether or not a radio station should be obliged to play a song that they think might (however mistakenly) offend their listeners.

And off the charts. I was not discussing any such thing as to a radio station's obligation. Others may have been itt, but I was not.

I don't think anyone was discussing that.

 

[zorq]

I am arguing from the context of a living human in 2018. And when we look at the lyrics of the song from this context they sound "a little bit rapey."

Meaningless semantics.

That DOES IN NO WAY change the context of the song as it was written 70+ years ago.

Good, then you're done.

So let's recap. Some people--in 2018--have misconstrued the lyrics to be "a little bit rapey." But the proper context--and the lyrics themselves--prove this is false.

End of discussion.

Once again, we are not Freshmen in college and this isn't Logic & Language 101 so you can shelve the unnecessary pedantics. This is a straightforward issue of ignorance and a lack of intellectual vigor on the part of some people at a radio station (and here and elsewhere as well, apparently) ALL of which is easily rectified by simply reading all of the lyrics and doing ten seconds of secondary research.

You disappoint me.

There is no one true interpretation of a work of art.

The director of "The birth of a Nation" didn't think his movie was racist. Is he right?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You disappoint me.

Right back atchya.

There is no one true interpretation of a work of art.

I'm sorry, are you seriously arguing that "a little bit rapey" is an expression of artistic interpretation?

 

[zorq]

You disappoint me.

Right back atchya.

There is no one true interpretation of a work of art.

I'm sorry, are you seriously arguing that "a little bit rapey" is an expression of artistic interpretation?

Why didn't you answer my final question in the previous post?

To answer your question, YES. It can be! But that is not exactly what I was arguing.

 

[Politesse]

We are discussing whether or not a radio station should be obliged to play a song that they think might (however mistakenly) offend their listeners.

And off the charts. I was not discussing any such thing as to a radio station's obligation. Others may have been itt, but I was not.

I don't think anyone was discussing that.

Go back and read the OP article. The thing everyone is enraged about is that two radio stations decided to not play a song. If you don't want to force them to play the song, what the hell DO you want? An apology from the station head for offending you?

 

[J842P]

Remember, we aren't discussing whether to jail the author of the song for rape. We are discussing whether or not a radio station should be obliged to play a song that they think might (however mistakenly) offend their listeners.

No one is discussing that. We are discussing whether or not the radio station and their hypothetical listeners are being reasonable.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't think anyone was discussing that.

Go back and read the OP article. The thing everyone is enraged about is that two radio stations decided to not play a song. If you don't want to force them to play the song, what the hell DO you want? An apology from the station head for offending you?

Everybody includes more than just the people who got mad when the station decided not to play a song. The initial enraged people--the ones who started this controversy--were those who complained to the radio station about playing a song that offended them. Apparently, that group includes you, since you seem to sympathize with their interpretation of the song lyrics. Then a second group of people became enraged by the fact that they found nothing whatsoever offensive in this traditional song. The woman in the song plainly does not say anything to suggest that she considers the man's advances unwelcome. She only sings about what others will think of her, if she succumbs to temptation. There is nothing rapey in the song lyrics, just a little sexual banter.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't think anyone was discussing that.

Go back and read the OP article. The thing everyone is enraged about is that two radio stations decided to not play a song. If you don't want to force them to play the song, what the hell DO you want? An apology from the station head for offending you?

I think you have it oddly the wrong way around if you think that the main issue is or was about forcing a radio station to play a song. Neat attempted repackaging though.

 

[ruby sparks]

Remember, we aren't discussing whether to jail the author of the song for rape. We are discussing whether or not a radio station should be obliged to play a song that they think might (however mistakenly) offend their listeners.

No one is discussing that. We are discussing whether or not the radio station and their hypothetical listeners are being reasonable.

Exactly.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I don't think anyone was discussing that.

Go back and read the OP article. The thing everyone is enraged about is that two radio stations decided to not play a song. If you don't want to force them to play the song, what the hell DO you want? An apology from the station head for offending you?

I think you have it oddly the wrong way around if you think that the main issue is or was about forcing a radio station to play a song. Neat attempted repackaging though.

I prefer to call it "selectively shifting the context to suit the argument." Like something a Christian apologist would do.

 

[Politesse]

Aaaaaand back on the ignore list....

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

From the lyrics: "Say what's in this drink?"

WOW!

What about if the song was about one of Bill Cosby's roofie episodes? Would it be okay to be against hearing the song? Or does that make someone Hitler?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

YES. It can be! But that is not exactly what I was arguing.

Oh, joy, so you were being unnecessarily pedantic. How ironic.

Do you understand what it means to be unnecessarily pedantic? Do you understand that this is not a freshman classroom and that the better context would be a master's thesis? You aren't telling anyone something new. Certainly not me. I am an artist, in fact. I know perfectly well the distinctions I am making, which is precisely why I am making them.

This is not about a general principle. At least, not what I am talking about. This is about whether or not THIS SONG is about rape or in any way condoning rape or even a "little bit rapey" and how to properly determine such a thing by examining the lyrics, understanding their context and factoring in something that is actually rare; the artist's daughter informing us precisely what the artist was saying.

What YOU are instead talking about--at least in regard to our interactions--is more akin to psychoanalysis than artistic interpretation. Which is why I ignored your DW Griffith question. It isn't relevant. We--I--am not interested in attempting to psychoanalyze Frank Loesser.

Again, it's not that complicated. The song is not about rape or condoning rape or in any way "a little bit rapey." That is simply an incorrect assessment based primarily on ignorance--and, yes, sure, a little Freudian projection if you like.

But if you insist on unnecessarily repeating "artistic interpretation" as if we're all idiot freshmen, then be sure to also repeat the fact that it is possible to be wrong in one's artistic interpretation. Yes, wrong. It is not always or just axiomatically a purely subjective endeavor. Once again and for auld lang syne, if I were to say that the context of your argument must be understood in terms of how Nazis viewed artistic interpretation as the will of the state (just to throw in some fascism to piss off Poli), would I be correct?

Not, "do I have the right to think anything I want?" That's not the question. We ALL know this is the case. Would I be correct--in the intellectually honest, as close as can be established to being objectively the case sense--in stating that YOUR argument is only understandable in terms of Nazi Germany?

I'll save you the bother. No, I would not be correct. I would be wrong. It may be interesting on its own to explore and blah blah blah, but when it comes to the quetion of whether or not the proper context of YOUR argument is Nazi Germany? I would be wrong. There is no shame in being wrong. Many many many people--myself abundantly included--have been, can be and currently are wrong.

Again, there is no principle involved here that needs to be defended. I am NOT saying that idiot freshmen can't dream their dreamy little dreams about whatever the fuck they want. This is about sophistry; about misconstruing--primarily and apparently out of plain old ordinary ignorance that can easily be rectified--context, not whether or not Miro's use of bright colors constitutes a symbolic vocabulary of communication.

Thus, in regard to the OP and the context of 2018 (and all it entails) and, in general, every fucking thing ever, the only proper response to any such sophistry is, "You need to read the lyrics in their entirety and within their proper context, not merely isolate/cherry pick ones out of context and then base any conclusions on what you've taken out of context."

So, actually, there, I was wrong. There is a principle involved. Sophistry is the issue (that I am addressing) as it relates to the arguments about whether or not this song is "a little bit rapey"; not the general idea of freedom of artistic interpretation.

Crystal clear?

 

[ruby sparks]

I slightly hesitate to say it, and either of you might disagree with me, but I think you're both partly right.

And isn't that a potentially lovely way to resolve disputes at Christmastime?

Or, to put it another way, it's surely what Jesus would have said. No wait.......

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Aaaaaand back on the ignore list....

Shooting the messenger? Bad form.

 

[zorq]

YES. It can be! But that is not exactly what I was arguing.

Oh, joy, so you were being unnecessarily pedantic. How ironic.
...
What YOU are instead talking about--at least in regard to our interactions--is more akin to psychoanalysis than artistic interpretation. Which is why I ignored your DW Griffith question. It isn't relevant. We--I--am not interested in attempting to psychoanalyze Frank Loesser.
...
Crystal clear?

Eh, not really. We are still talking past each-other.

And as I said in the bit you quoted, artistic interpretation isn't really what I was talking about. I just like to answer real questions people ask me.

Let's stick with DW Griffith question if you don't mind, since you haven't bothered to answer it yet. What is the "proper, better, context" for understanding The Birth of a Nation? I take it from your evasion of the question that you don't think the "proper context" for evaluating the racism in that work of art is the "artist's intent." Or is it?

If you feel you need to continue talking down to me go ahead, as long as we keep making progress.

BTW, I still think the crux of our disagreement really lies in the perceived semantic problems. We disagree on the meaning of "a little bit rapey," but this context detour is worth exploring.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

YES. It can be! But that is not exactly what I was arguing.

Oh, joy, so you were being unnecessarily pedantic. How ironic.
...
What YOU are instead talking about--at least in regard to our interactions--is more akin to psychoanalysis than artistic interpretation. Which is why I ignored your DW Griffith question. It isn't relevant. We--I--am not interested in attempting to psychoanalyze Frank Loesser.
...
Crystal clear?

Eh, not really. We are still talking past each-other.

No, I think that you are just being unnecessarily pedantic.

Let's stick with DW Griffiths question if you don't mind, since you haven't bothered to answer it yet.

I told you precisely why and that hasn't changed. I am not interested in attempting to psychoanalyze Griffith.

What is the "proper, better, context" for understanding The Birth of a Nation?

"Understanding" what aspect of the film? Are you asking me if Griffith used stereotypical depictions of African Americans because he personally was a racist and wanted to infuse his film with his politics as, once again, that would be asking me to psychoanalyze Griffith, not necessarily offer my artistic interpretation of the film's imagery or the like?

Do you now understand the distinction?

I take it from your evasion of the question

I evaded nothing. I stated clearly why the question as asked had nothing to do with artistic interpretation and was instead a request to psychoanalyze the artist.

Why are you continuing to evade MY question about proper context?

If you feel you need to continue talking down to me go ahead, as long as we keep making progress.

Irony. Big fan.

BTW, I still think the crux of our disagreement really lies in the perceived semantic problems. We disagree on the meaning of "a little bit rapey," but this context detour is worth exploring.

I disagree on both counts. "A little bit rapey" implies rape. That's unmistakeable.

Now, kindly, pretty please, with sugar on top, address MY point about how wrong I would be to argue that YOUR position is in the context of Nazi Germany.

Am I correct? Are you arguing in the context of Nazi Germany? Yes or no.

And yes, it is most definitely a "yes or no" question, unless, once again, you are veering into unnecessary pedantry as if we are all freshmen again. No one here is, so please stop talking down as if we were.

And finally, in regard to avoiding questions, do you understand the distinction between sophistry and artistic interpretation?

 

[ruby sparks]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpDnr2s9yxQ[/YOUTUBE]

1) "All I want for Christmas is you" - complaint is that it implies all a woman needs is a man.
My response is, "how insensitive of you to just assume the "you" is a man.. and she "wants" not "needs".

2) "I saw mommy kissing Santa Clause" - complaint is that kid has to watch mommy cheat on daddy
My response is, "That WAS daddy, you dumbass... or do you still believe that Santa is a real guy? that's the irony of the song that makes it so cute... Mommy kisses Santa all the time.

3) "Dreaming of a White Christmas" - Stereotypes the types of gifts for boys and girls
My response is, "Yes. Boys tend to have different interests than Girls. Nothing there implies it is illegal or unethical for either to desire the other, and the choices were based on the reality of the time".

4) "Santa Baby" - complaint is that the woman is asking Santa for expensive materialistic things.
My response is, "Wait a minute, I thought women were supposed to be able to want whatever they want... are we going back to only little dolls and makeup kits are for girls... which is it??"

5) "Cold outside" - Complaint is that it is "Rapey" sounding because he is trying to talk her into not leaving.
My response is, "if women are too weak to protect themselves from verbal persuasion, then should they really be allowed to vote and manage finances and make any kind of important decisions on their own, without a man taking responsibility for them and assuring that they are not being manipulated by another man?"

Not her finest moment or most persuasive video, imo.

 

[zorq]

Eh, not really. We are still talking past each-other.

No, I think that you are just being unnecessarily pedantic.

Let's stick with DW Griffiths question if you don't mind, since you haven't bothered to answer it yet.

I told you precisely why and that hasn't changed. I am not interested in attempting to psychoanalyze Griffith.

What is the "proper, better, context" for understanding The Birth of a Nation?

"Understanding" what aspect of the film? Are you asking me if Griffith used stereotypical depictions of African Americans because he personally was a racist and wanted to infuse his film with his politics as, once again, that would be asking me to psychoanalyze Griffith, not necessarily offer my artistic interpretation of the film's imagery or the like?

Do you now understand the distinction?

I will ask you again.
If we want to determine if the movie "The Birth of a Nation" can be labeled "racist," What is the proper context for us to start with in order to figure out the answer?

I'm not asking you to psychoanalyze Griffith. You have indicated that the best way to understand if the song "Baby it's cold outside" has sexist or "rapey" undertones or overtones is to analyze it from the context in which it was written and you seem to put heavy weight on the information we have on that artist's intent. "The Birth of a Nation" either follows the same pattern or it doesn't. Please indicate whether the "artist's intent" is the "proper" or "better" context in which to evaluate the racism in "The Birth of a Nation."

I take it from your evasion of the question

I evaded nothing. I stated clearly why the question as asked had nothing to do with artistic interpretation and was instead a request to psychoanalyze the artist.

It's was a yes or no question and you couldn't bother to type the at most three characters required to offer your opinion.

Why are you continuing to evade MY question about proper context?

I didn't think I needed to considering you answered them for me.

If you feel you need to continue talking down to me go ahead, as long as we keep making progress.

Irony. Big fan.

When people aren't communicating effectively, it sometimes helps to change tactics.

BTW, I still think the crux of our disagreement really lies in the perceived semantic problems. We disagree on the meaning of "a little bit rapey," but this context detour is worth exploring.

I disagree on both counts. "A little bit rapey" implies rape. That's unmistakeable.

Sadly, that's not how language works.
For now I'd prefer to focus on the context though. I've already presented my case on semantics.

Now, kindly, pretty please, with sugar on top, address MY point about how wrong I would be to argue that YOUR position is in the context of Nazi Germany.

Am I correct? Are you arguing in the context of Nazi Germany? Yes or no.

And yes, it is most definitely a "yes or no" question, unless, once again, you are veering into unnecessary pedantry as if we are all freshmen again. No one here is, so please stop talking down as if we were.

And finally, in regard to avoiding questions, do you understand the distinction between sophistry and artistic interpretation?

No, I'm not arguing in the context of Nazi Germany. Yes, I understand the difference between sophistry and artistic interpretation.