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

[ronburgundy]

The issues regarding this song are replayed each Christmas season and we can see how extremists act about it. So, let's put things in perspective...

Back in Dec 2016, Liza Lemanski and her husband redid the song to be a version about consenting where the woman has the same lines but the guy puts no pressure on her, just agrees.

"Pressure", such as in the case of providing factual information about the weather relevant to making an informed choice, is in no way an undermining of "consent". Even when that information is provided to increase the odds that the person makes a choice in one's own favor, no undermining of consent or choice has taken place. Given the non-existence of choice that is free from influence, every choice is entirely the product of influences. Thus, efforts to influence the relative appeal of various options is in no way an undermining of choice. Choice is only undermined when choice options are externally removed, such as by physical force that prevents executing the option of leaving.

In fact, all of her reasons in favor of leaving are nothing but her referring to external pressures put on her to make that choice, from her mother, father, brother, sister, aunt, and judgmental prudish neighbors, in contrast to what she actually wants to do if not for those pressures. What the guy in the song is doing is providing her with fact-based reasons to ignore those other external pressures on her and do what she clearly would prefer.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Death threats.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, saying you got death threats over something posted on the internet is like saying you had trouble parking at a mall on Black Friday. People make death threats over every little thing. It’s not an indication that there was any actual threat of death.

Really? No one is making death threats over people singing the original, just the modified. So your claim is false.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Koy, you (male)

Oh ffs. My gender has ZERO to do with what is or is not proper context of a cherry-picked line from a song.

Once again, am I allowed to tell YOU that your vows now mean the opposite because of my experiences on 9/11? Just answer that question and all else is addressed.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Death threats.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, saying you got death threats over something posted on the internet is like saying you had trouble parking at a mall on Black Friday. People make death threats over every little thing. It’s not an indication that there was any actual threat of death.

Really? No one is making death threats over people singing the original, just the modified. So your claim is false.

I’m saying the death threats are too trivial to be a point in favour of anything.

 

[ronburgundy]

Death threats.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, saying you got death threats over something posted on the internet is like saying you had trouble parking at a mall on Black Friday. People make death threats over every little thing. It’s not an indication that there was any actual threat of death.

Really? No one is making death threats over people singing the original, just the modified. So your claim is false.

I’m saying the death threats are too trivial to be a point in favour of anything.

Even if the threats were more than just empty social media bluster, they would have no relevance to whether the original song is about date rape (which it isn't) or whether the alternate version is the result of irrational PC over-reaction and an awful song that deserved it's fate in the trash bin (which it is).

 

[Rhea]

Koy, you (male)

Oh ffs. My gender has ZERO to do with what is or is not proper context of a cherry-picked line from a song.

But your gender has everything to do with whether you are informed about how the song will ring in the ears of many women. Just as you are claiming that a person's age (have they been there? Do the understand the context of the times?) allows them to interpret what the song means.

You've claimed that understanding the context of the times is critical, but understanding the context of the genders is "OFFS" irrelevant? Does that make sense? It doesn't; the song will mean something significantly different to men and women. Even in the times.

Once again, am I allowed to tell YOU that your vows now mean the opposite because of my experiences on 9/11? Just answer that question and all else is addressed.

That was a non-sequitur and does not comport with my scenario as I brought it up. I did not use my experience to ask that question. It's your straw-man. Knock it down yourself.

 

[Derec]

It looks like that feminists and Islamists agree yet again.

How ‘Baby, It’s Cold Outside’ Went From Parlor Act to Problematic

One of the earliest critiques came from Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian writer whose work influenced modern Sunni Islamism and who went on to become a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Upon visiting Greeley, Colo., in 1949, Mr. Qutb wrote angrily about a church dance where the minister dimmed the lights and went to the gramophone to put on “Baby, It’s Cold Outside.”
“The ‘Father’ waited until he saw people getting into the rhythm of that erotic song,” Mr. Qutb wrote in an article for an Egyptian magazine, according to a translation by John C. Calvert, a history professor at Creighton University in Omaha.

"Haram" is Arabic for "problematic", probably ...

Congratulations, feminists. You are only 69^* years behind Islamic "thought" on this song.


^* I wonder if that number is triggering.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I’m saying the death threats are too trivial to be a point in favour of anything.

Even if the threats were more than just empty social media bluster, they would have no relevance to whether the original song is about date rape (which it isn't) or whether the alternate version is the result of irrational PC over-reaction and an awful song that deserved it's fate in the trash bin (which it is).

Date rape?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The issues regarding this song are replayed each Christmas season and we can see how extremists act about it. So, let's put things in perspective...

Back in Dec 2016, Liza Lemanski and her husband redid the song to be a version about consenting where the woman has the same lines but the guy puts no pressure on her, just agrees.

"Pressure", such as in the case of providing factual information about the weather relevant to making an informed choice, is in no way an undermining of "consent".

That isn't all that was said in the song, though he said it over and over, which in and of itself can become an annoyance.

Choice is only undermined when choice options are externally removed, such as by physical force that prevents executing the option of leaving.

Physical force isn't the only way to pressure someone.

... all of her reasons in favor of leaving are nothing but her referring to external pressures ...

Some reasons she did not state at all and at least one shows her thoughts on internal moral reckoning. Therefore, your conclusion is unfounded.

 

[ZiprHead]

It looks like that feminists and Islamists agree yet again.

How ‘Baby, It’s Cold Outside’ Went From Parlor Act to Problematic

One of the earliest critiques came from Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian writer whose work influenced modern Sunni Islamism and who went on to become a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Upon visiting Greeley, Colo., in 1949, Mr. Qutb wrote angrily about a church dance where the minister dimmed the lights and went to the gramophone to put on “Baby, It’s Cold Outside.”
“The ‘Father’ waited until he saw people getting into the rhythm of that erotic song,” Mr. Qutb wrote in an article for an Egyptian magazine, according to a translation by John C. Calvert, a history professor at Creighton University in Omaha.

"Haram" is Arabic for "problematic", probably ...

Congratulations, feminists. You are only 69^* years behind Islamic "thought" on this song.


^* I wonder if that number is triggering.

Okay. The thread has now seriously gone OTT.

 

[ronburgundy]

That isn't all that was said in the song, though he said it over and over, which in and of itself can become an annoyance.

Oh yeah, he also told her how beautiful she was, that he wanted her to stay, asked her to put on a record while he poured the drink she requested, and asked her permission to "move in closer."
What a monster! Attention men, never tell your date that she is beautiful, it somehow robs her of her will and ability to make a choice. Oh, and your not allowed to have opinions and feelings, because that also somehow robs other people from having their own.

Choice is only undermined when choice options are externally removed, such as by physical force that prevents executing the option of leaving.

Physical force isn't the only way to pressure someone.

Of course not. Most of the song is about all the external pressure she is getting from the other people to leave.
But "pressure" in the form of information about what other people think or feel doesn't undermine consent, it informs it.
Consent and choice are only undermined when some form of force or threat of force is used to remove choice options from consideration.
The threats of moral condemnation she fears from her "suspicious" sister, aunt's "viscous" mind, and what the neighbors will "think" and "talk" about if she stays are far closer to coercive than the reasons he gives her for staying.

... all of her reasons in favor of leaving are nothing but her referring to external pressures ...

Some reasons she did not state at all and at least one shows her thoughts on internal moral reckoning. Therefore, your conclusion is unfounded.

Ah, so there are reasons she doesn't state at all, but you with your omniscience know she has these other secret reasons, even though every reason she does state for leaving refers to pressure being put on her from other people.
Gee, with "reasoning" like that, at least you'll never have to worry about reaching a conclusion that doesn't serve your political agenda.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

But your gender has everything to do with whether you are informed about how the song will ring in the ears of many women.

You are attempting to use gender as an ad hominem cudgel. Ignorance is never an excuse—especially when it results in censorship—no matter what your gender.

Just as you are claiming that a person's age (have they been there? Do the understand the context of the times?) allows them to interpret what the song means.

Incorrect. The context of the times is just one element. The context of the lyrics is another. There are only two lines that are triggering all of this ignorance. One is “Say what’s in this drink” and the other is “The answer is no.” The context of the times properly explains the drink line; the context of the lyrics properly explains the answer is “no” line.

As I pointed out before, had the line simply been, “The answer is I don’t know” (which is justifiable based on all of the other lines), there would be no connection to the “No means no” movement. And if you understand the drink line was a common ironic joke (or simply remove it), then we have removed any modern day objection to the song and no way to misconstrue the OTHER lyrics and therefore the song’s context as a whole, not its individual parts.

Once again, am I allowed to tell YOU that your vows now mean the opposite because of my experiences on 9/11? Just answer that question and all else is addressed.

That was a non-sequitur

No, it isn’t in the slightest. It follows directly from what you are arguing. Ignorance and my experience allows me to dictate to YOU what your vows mean.

That is 100% identical to the situation you are defending; that a person’s experience—combined with an ignorance of the proper context—allows them to cherry pick certain lines, take them out of context (both of the times and of the song) and dictate to others what the song means in light to both their ignorance and their experiences.

Here, let’s make it even simpler: Because of my experiences on 9/11, your vow to love and protect your spouse now must forever mean the opposite; that you do not love your spouse, because you failed to protect them (as I did my own) on that horrible day.

Follow? You said to your spouse on your wedding day—that just happens to have been on 9/11 1996, let’s say—that you promise to love and protect him. Fast forward twenty years. You don’t know me. On 9/11/2001 my wife had died in the tower collapse. I watch your wedding video. I turn to you and say, “I failed to protect my wife on 9/11[2001], therefore your vows to your spouse on 9/11[1996] mean that you also failed to protect your spouse which in turn must mean you didn’t love him as I have concluded about my own experience.”

As you should be able to plainly see, that is all preposterous. I have no grounds to say that and inflict upon you my own reactions to my experiences or to insist that your vows must forever change to suit my misconception of them, because I am suffering from survivor guilt and have concluded that my failure to protect my wife on that day must mean that I didn’t love her, so therefore your vow—that line—must mean the opposite of what you meant when you said it.

Regardless of the fact that my pain and the trigger of your vows may be real to me, I am wrong. Your vows don’t change with my experience and the context (either of the time or the vows) doesn’t alter at all. I am simply wrong.

That doesn’t change the pain, of course, but then this isn’t about that; it’s about literary criticism and/or justifying censorship as a result, not whether or not some people may or may not have their trauma triggered in various ways, so kindly stop trying to imply that I because I am a man I can’t understand what some women are going through and therefore my arguments fail.

You may decide that you personally don’t want to ever show me your wedding video again—knowing that it may trigger me—but that’s a different matter than me being justified in dictating to you and everyone else that your vows mean the opposite because of my own experiences and that everyone must now forever think that you said to your husband on your wedding day, “I don’t love you and I will fail to protect you.”

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Oh yeah, he also told her how beautiful she was, that he wanted her to stay, asked her to put on a record while he poured the drink she requested, and asked her permission to "move in closer."
What a monster! Attention men, never tell your date that she is beautiful, it somehow robs her of her will and ability to make a choice. Oh, and your not allowed to have opinions and feelings, because that also somehow robs other people from having their own.

You are deliberately misconstruing what I wrote by finding innocuous counterexamples of what you wrote. It is apparently not possible to have a rational discussion with you because then you exaggerate my position afterward. I have already stated that the song is not impacting people and this discussion is only academic but there you go.

Let's get this back on track to YOUR claim instead of faking positions by me. You implied that the extent of his "pressure" was merely commenting on the weather, but this implied assertion is false, regardless of your continued minimization of counterexamples.

So, let's look at some counterexamples that might be seen as pressuring:
Wolf: "what's the sense in hurtin' my pride?"
Wolf: "oh baby don't hold out"
Wolf: "how can you do this thing to me?"
Wolf: "think of my lifelong sorrow"
Wolf: "get over that old out"

Not to mention that he tells her it's cold outside like 20 times, including that she's going to die of pneumonia.

Physical force isn't the only way to pressure someone.

Of course not. Most of the song is about all the external pressure she is getting from the other people to leave.

Most of her words are about multiple reasons why she'd rather not stay and some of her words are about why she might like to stay.

She starts with the following:
Mouse: "I really can't stay."

Is it completely inappropriate to then counter, Wolf: I'd love it if you could stay a little longer? No, it's okay to assert your desires once, twice, maybe even 3 times. To exaggerate circumstances and focus on externalities some 30 times in order to scare someone about your feelings being hurt or them dying is a little inappropriate, though.

But "pressure" in the form of information about what other people think or feel doesn't undermine consent, it informs it.

Why are you jumping to consent? You again are putting words in my mouth I didn't say. What I actually wrote was that there is a continuum between two people in a healthy relationship asserting themselves to inappropriate pressure to coercion. You are jumping to coercion and consent, while I was writing about pressure.

In fact, you twisted what I wrote. I was writing about how the new rewrite of the song had no pressure at all. You then jumped all over that to conclude I was writing that the original was non-consenting and filled with pressure. What I wrote instead is that I think the original promotes an unrealistic portrayal of how to act and I made a distinction between message intending to be sent and message being received. Anyway...

Consent and choice are only undermined when some form of force or threat of force is used to remove choice options from consideration.

I am not sure why we need to jump to a discussion about consent, but I think you are being too narrow. Options can also be removed from consideration by manipulation of the options or manipulation of the thought processes involved in deliberation, such as but not limited to lying and slipping someone drugs. Also, again there is a message intended to be sent and a message received. So, a person can seem to be threatening and coercive but not intend to be threatening and coercive. That is why affirmative consent is important. Why would you want to sleep with someone who was scared or tricked into it but you didn't know that?

The threats of moral condemnation she fears from her "suspicious" sister, aunt's "viscous" mind, and what the neighbors will "think" and "talk" about if she stays are far closer to coercive than the reasons he gives her for staying.

Outside this song, written decades ago by a man in a patriarchal society, imagine a conversation between two persons:

Woman: I gotta go.
Man: But it's cold outside.
Woman: I gotta get home to my kids. The babysitter is there but I need to leave.
Man: But it's cold outside.
Woman: You've been great and I had a nice time but I need to leave.
​

Do you really believe the woman only has to go home because of the kids? Do you really believe she _has_ to go? Or does she not want stay any longer and she's giving a litany of excuses to leave? I recommend understanding social cues better if you don't get this.

You're at a wedding reception with your wife. You want to leave and whisper to your wife. She agrees. 30 minutes later you're being polite to the bridge and groom talking about how you HAVE to leave due to external reasons, like the kids, or work in the morning, or ...

That's life and social intelligence for you.

Now, when a person tells you "I can't stay," like I wrote 1, 2, or 3 times you can assert yourself, but some 30? Take a hint.

I know we discussed in another thread how women make better leaders because they are on average more socially and emotionally intelligent, but men need to also think with their heads.

... all of her reasons in favor of leaving are nothing but her referring to external pressures ...

Some reasons she did not state at all and at least one shows her thoughts on internal moral reckoning. Therefore, your conclusion is unfounded.

Ah, so there are reasons she doesn't state at all, but you with your omniscience know she has these other secret reasons, even though every reason she does state for leaving refers to pressure being put on her from other people.
Gee, with "reasoning" like that, at least you'll never have to worry about reaching a conclusion that doesn't serve your political agenda.

No, I don't know all her reasons. You are assuming they only had to do with the literal world of external persons who put undue pressure on her. Instead, what I said was I have a link to a re-write of the song and said it contained no pressure. You assumed I was saying the original contained pressure. I think the original contains ambiguities and if it were a real situation, it'd be inappropriate, but since it's a hypothetical fiction from a time long ago, it has no bearing on whether people in the present would be following such message.

I have no problems with this re-write:

I really can't stay/(Baby I'm fine with that)

I've got to go away (Baby I'm cool with that)

This evening has been (Been hoping you get home safe)

So very nice (I'm glad you had a real good time)

My mother will start to worry (Call her so she knows that you're coming)

Father will be pacing the floor (Better get your car a-humming)

So really I'd better scurry (No rush)

Should I use the front or back door? (Which one are you pulling towards more?)

The neighbors might think (That you're a real nice girl)

What is this drink? (Pomegranate La Croix)

I wish I knew how (Maybe I can help you out)

To break this spell (I don't know what you're talking about)

I ought to say no, no, no (you reserve the right to say no)


At least I'm gonna say that I tried (you reserve the right to say no)

I really can't stay (...Well you don't have to)

Baby it's cold outside

I've got to get home (Do you know how to get there from here)

Say, where is my coat (I'll go and grab it my dear)

You've really been grand (We'll have to do this again)

Yes I agree (How 'bout the Cheesecake Factory?)

We're bound to be talking tomorrow (Text me at your earliest convenience)

At least I have been getting that vibe (Unless I catch pneumonia and die)

I'll be on my way (Thanks for the great night)

But because of your "political agenda" (your phrase) you chose to attack me and take my position out of context.

 

[ruby sparks]

I’m saying the death threats are too trivial to be a point in favour of anything.

That depends who's making them. For example, is the person making the threat a man or a woman? If the latter, it has to be taken more seriously, because in that case death threat means death threat.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Outside this song, written decades ago by a man in a patriarchal society, imagine a conversation between two persons:

Woman: I gotta go.
Man: But it's cold outside.
Woman: I gotta get home to my kids. The babysitter is there but I need to leave.
Man: But it's cold outside.
Woman: You've been great and I had a nice time but I need to leave.

Except that’s not an accurate representation of the song. A more accurate representation would be:

Woman: I don’t want to go, but my family will slut-shame me if I stay.
Man: Well, it is cold outside.
Woman: This has been great and you’ve been wonderful, but what will the neighbors think of me?
Man: Who cares what they think?
Woman: I do, so, I have to go. But then again, it is cold outside, so maybe I’ll stay for just one more drink?
Man: I’ll pour!
Woman: On second thought, I had a nice time but a “good” girl would leave, so I’m going to say no to staying and leave. Though, no matter what I do, people are going to imply that I am a “bad” girl, so maybe I’ll stay for just one more cigarette.

Etc.

 

[RavenSky]

Outside this song, written decades ago by a man in a patriarchal society, imagine a conversation between two persons:

Woman: I gotta go.
Man: But it's cold outside.
Woman: I gotta get home to my kids. The babysitter is there but I need to leave.
Man: But it's cold outside.
Woman: You've been great and I had a nice time but I need to leave.

Except that’s not an accurate representation of the song. A more accurate representation would be:

Woman: I don’t want to go, but my family will slut-shame me if I stay.
Man: Well, it is cold outside.
Woman: This has been great and you’ve been wonderful, but what will the neighbors think of me?
Man: Who cares what they think?
Woman: I do, so, I have to go. But then again, it is cold outside, so maybe I’ll stay for just one more drink?
Man: I’ll pour!
Woman: On second thought, I had a nice time but a “good” girl would leave, so I’m going to say no to staying and leave. Though, no matter what I do, people are going to imply that I am a “bad” girl, so maybe I’ll stay for just one more cigarette.

Etc.

No. That's what you WANT it to say.

It is NOT what it says.

Here is a clue: When a woman gives you a dozen reasons that she "really must go"... it doesn't matter what you want to believe - you are obligated to take the words at face value.

 

[Rhea]

Here is a clue: When a woman gives you a dozen reasons that she "really must go"... it doesn't matter what you want to believe - you are obligated to take the words at face value.

Now granting that this is indeed a song, the above is simply a clue as to why many women find the song a little creepy. Yes it's just a song. But it's a song that feels a lot like a number of encounters many women have had that were NOT running along consenually swimmingly. Sooooo the song feels a little icky. It just does. And that's real. And it's something that a lot of women understand all too well. And we see a lot of people (mostly men) saying, "you're not correct in feeling that way." And we think, mmm-hmmmm.

An analogy to this is the freakishly annoying religionists trying to evangelize, "but if only you'd try!" followed by, "You're not trying right!" Mmm-hmmmm. Go away.

 

[ruby sparks]

Here is a clue: When a woman gives you a dozen reasons that she "really must go"... it doesn't matter what you want to believe - you are obligated to take the words at face value.

Now granting that this is indeed a song, the above is simply a clue as to why many women find the song a little creepy. Yes it's just a song. But it's a song that feels a lot like a number of encounters many women have had that were NOT running along consenually swimmingly. Sooooo the song feels a little icky. It just does. And that's real. And it's something that a lot of women understand all too well. And we see a lot of people (mostly men) saying, "you're not correct in feeling that way." And we think, mmm-hmmmm.

An analogy to this is the freakishly annoying religionists trying to evangelize, "but if only you'd try!" followed by, "You're not trying right!" Mmm-hmmmm. Go away.

I don't quite know how or why anyone would try to split opinion on this song along gender lines, not least because even just the posts in this thread show that it doesn't, and I would suspect that the wider picture beyond this thread is similar.

That said, I personally do agree about the song feeling at least a little icky, for similar reasons to yours. Well, maybe not the song itself. As zorq might say if he were still here, it may seem icky but there's no actual ick in it (well, no rapey-ick perhaps). But it's not real life. It's just a song. With a Hollywood ending.

 

[RavenSky]

Here is a clue: When a woman gives you a dozen reasons that she "really must go"... it doesn't matter what you want to believe - you are obligated to take the words at face value.

Now granting that this is indeed a song, the above is simply a clue as to why many women find the song a little creepy. Yes it's just a song. But it's a song that feels a lot like a number of encounters many women have had that were NOT running along consenually swimmingly. Sooooo the song feels a little icky. It just does. And that's real. And it's something that a lot of women understand all too well. And we see a lot of people (mostly men) saying, "you're not correct in feeling that way." And we think, mmm-hmmmm.

An analogy to this is the freakishly annoying religionists trying to evangelize, "but if only you'd try!" followed by, "You're not trying right!" Mmm-hmmmm. Go away.

^^^ That.

I'm just tired of adding the caveat of "yes, we know it is just a song that was written way back when some men applied the "pressure" (and wouldn't take "no" for an answer) while the women got blamed and shamed..."

 

[Rhea]

I don't quite know how or why anyone would try to split opinion on this song along gender lines, not least because even just the posts in this thread show that it doesn't, and I would suspect that the wider picture beyond this thread is similar.

One doesn’t have to try that hard. Or at all, really. I never claimed it split perfectly along gender lines. I even said explicitly that it didn’t.

That said, I personally do agree about the song feeling at least a little icky, for similar reasons to yours. Well, maybe not the song itself. As zorq might say if he were still here, it may seem icky but there's no actual ick in it (well, no rapey-ick perhaps). But it's not real life. It's just a song. With a Hollywood ending.

If by “hollywood ending” you mean an ending that reinforces to listeners that he was right to pressure her all along - look how that turned out for him.