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

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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.

I think I get it. Poli is a Christian apologist, so selectively changing context to suit the argument is a matter of course.

 

[Politesse]

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.

Songs referencing bombings and burning towers were unpopular on the radio after 9/11 too. "What it meant in yesteryear" isn't a big consideration for a radio station, nor would it make sense for it to be.

 

[Politesse]

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.

I think I get it. Poli is a Christian apologist, so selectively changing context to suit the argument is a matter of course.

I'm not selectively changing anything; this conversation started in 2018. It's still going in 2018. 2018 is the natural context .

Also, that's a ridiculous fail of a personal attack. Since when have I been an "apologist" for anything? You've known me a long time Koy; going on eight years or so? If I am still plotting to eventually make some attempt at proving Christianity to you and converting you, I sure am playing a long game! Merely having a faith does not automatically make one a proselytizer.

 

[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.

Songs referencing bombings and burning towers were unpopular on the radio after 9/11 too. "What it meant in yesteryear" isn't a big consideration for a radio station, nor would it make sense for it to be.

But that completely ignores the question. When you're interpreting what a song was about, the context in which it was written is central to a valid interpretation. If you ignore that context when coming up with an interpretation, you're really not doing anything except doing interpretations wrong.

You're not coming up with an "alternative way of looking at it", you're making a mistake as a result of excluding key data.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'm not selectively changing anything

Of course you are. You are selectively changing the context of a song written in 1944 to 2018.

To whit:

this conversation started in 2018. It's still going in 2018. 2018 is the natural context .

The conversation's context is not the issue; the song's context is the issue. How is it possible to place a song written in 1944 into the context of 2018 unless and until you first understand its 1944 context?

Also, that's a ridiculous fail of a personal attack.

How is noting that you are a Christian apologist a personal attack?

Since when have I been an "apologist" for anything?

Literally ever since I have known you, which you point out is going on eight years now. If it were possible to do a search for the number of times I have pointed out your apologia--or that I consider you to be a Christian apologist-- it would likely number into the thousands.

If I am still plotting to eventually make some attempt at proving Christianity to you and converting you, I sure am playing a long game! Merely having a faith does not automatically make one a proselytizer.

Do you not understand what an apologist does? It is not synonymous with proselytizer, but thank you for ironically demonstrating how you selectively change context to suit your argument exactly as I stated, thus affirming that it was not a "personal attack" and was instead an observation of demonstrable fact.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Songs referencing bombings and burning towers were unpopular on the radio after 9/11 too. "What it meant in yesteryear" isn't a big consideration for a radio station, nor would it make sense for it to be.

But that completely ignores the question.

Actually, it selectively changes the context to suit Poli's argument. I love it when things work out synergistically like that.

 

[Politesse]

Songs referencing bombings and burning towers were unpopular on the radio after 9/11 too. "What it meant in yesteryear" isn't a big consideration for a radio station, nor would it make sense for it to be.

But that completely ignores the question. When you're interpreting what a song was about, the context in which it was written is central to a valid interpretation. If you ignore that context when coming up with an interpretation, you're really not doing anything except doing interpretations wrong.

You're not coming up with an "alternative way of looking at it", you're making a mistake as a result of excluding key data.

We're talking about what to play and not play on a radio station. Not analyzing the work in an English class. If you want to have a conversation about "Death of the Author", we can chat about that, but it is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

He wasn't criticizing the woman's decision, but your interpretation of the song, given the fact that the woman was clearly expressing a desire to stay. And you actually seem to get that now, but you seem have this weird way of blaming the man for convincing her to stay, as if she were somehow too weak-willed to realize she shouldn't be agreeing with him. Seriously, I don't think that you are perfectly aware of what this sexual banter is about. It isn't just another story about a man behaving like a scoundrel and imposing his will on a defenseless woman.

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?

Actually, he doesn't need to insist on a 40's or 50's era worldview. The song was written in 1944, but it is still popular with people of all ages today. The only thing dated about the song is that social attitudes have become more accepting of extramarital sex. Koy has done an excellent job of explaining why the lyrics are incompatible with the "rapey" interpretation that some folks here are trying to read into the song.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Songs referencing bombings and burning towers were unpopular on the radio after 9/11 too. "What it meant in yesteryear" isn't a big consideration for a radio station, nor would it make sense for it to be.

But that completely ignores the question. When you're interpreting what a song was about, the context in which it was written is central to a valid interpretation. If you ignore that context when coming up with an interpretation, you're really not doing anything except doing interpretations wrong.

You're not coming up with an "alternative way of looking at it", you're making a mistake as a result of excluding key data.

We're talking about what to play and not play on a radio station. Not analyzing the work in an English class. If you want to have a conversation about "Death of the Author", we can chat about that, but it is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Exactly. And the reason stated as to why it shouldn’t be played on the radio is because it supports a rape culture. The question of whether or not it does that (ie - interpreting what the song is about) is the key aspect in that conversation.

Someone can assert that TV stations shouldn’t air the Rocky movies because they encourage sex slavery, but unless they can demonstrate that these movies actually do that, their request to ban them for this reason should be denied c

 

[zorq]

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.

No actually you CAN. The context of the artist's intent is only one of many. And it isn't usually the most important one. There is a reason so many authors and artists refuse to discuss the the intent they had for their work. They want the consumers of their art to draw their own conclusions make their own connections and be inspired in their own way. But that is mostly besides the point.

There is only one correct context for determining what an artist intended a work of art to mean and that is the one that you are insisting on. But there are many other contexts that people might find useful for examining a work of art in. We might want to compare themes of a song against another popular song at the time. We might want to examine a song in the context of drug or alcohol culture. We might want to speculate as to what the people in another region of the world who have not experienced this song might react to it. And, of course, we might want to examine what the lyrics of a song mean to the people right here and now in 2018. None of these contexts are "incorrect."

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...

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.

No. You aren't wrong about this, but that isn't what I'm suggesting. Choosing to look at a work of art in a new context doesn't change the context of the original artist. This isn't a hostile take over. Things have different implications in different contexts and 2018 is a different context from 1950.

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.

The author doesn't have a right to force anyone to accept "their context" either in the present or in perpetuity.

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.

Rapey isn't rape. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Bacony isn't bacon. They are two different words for a reason.

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.

No... that is definitely an interpretation. You are allowed to interpret it that way but that isn't the only way to interpret it. Personally, I think it could be either a legitimate refusal or a token one. But then... I'm not a mind reader of women, real OR fictional. It would be a troubling policy to take all female resistance as token. In your "THE AUTHOR IS ALWAYS RIGHT" context. Sure. It's token. But that isn't the only context.

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.

There is more than one context we are allowed to look at things.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

Yes, Mickey Finns were around at and before 1944. As I understand it, they were almost always associated with drugging someone for the purpose of robbing them. I don't actually know of any cases where it was used for date rape. That said, the reason for no cases (if indeed there weren't any recorded, which may be incorrect) could be because no charges were ever made, rape not being taken as seriously and probably being even more under-reported than today, not that Mickey Finns were not used for that purpose. Personally, I'd be amazed if they weren't used for that purpose, as well as for robbery.

In that song though, I do not believe that was either the intended or received meaning of the line. I think the date rape drug meaning has been superimposed in recent times.

Actually, I tend to lean towards thinking that the intended and received meaning of the song up until recent times didn't even have to do with suggesting that he was trying to ply her with overly-strong alcohol, given the explanation offered that the line was commonly used to refer to situations where people implied that they might be acting or about to act unusually and pretending that it was the drink that made them do it.

All that said, I may, actually, have more concerns about the song than you. Which I admit feels...unexpected.

It's a very fine line between saying the song (or scene) is rapey or isn't rapey. There are ways I consider that 'allegation' valid. I am just having trouble putting my reasons for saying that into words. Or to put it another way, while I agree than a ban is ott and that too much fuss is being made and that maybe the song itself isn't actually rapey...I can see where there is a valid issue at least, worth discussing. I would, for example, not be inclined to say that there's nothing at all wrong with the song/scene.

There is something slightly troubling me about the song/scene, but I actually think I just can't work out what it is that's troubling me or whether I should be troubled about it or not.

 

[ruby sparks]

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

Drat. Can I just ask you please not to make this any more complicated than it already is? Now I'm worried that I'm actually in denial that the song is really about female empowerment, which I find threatening, and that I'm resorting to damage limitation using benevolent and patronising sexism as a (fragile, male) ego defence mechanism!

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[RavenSky]

Zorq, you have completely misconstrued the song...

My problem with this is that you are not a mind reader. You don't really know what the woman in this song, the man in this song or any other person out there is really thinking. If a person's words can be misconstrued to be innocent or malevolent we are all forced to take them at their word regardless of their true intentions (which you are in no position to divine). When a woman says "No." It isn't polite to continue pushing. When a man continues to insist on sex regardless of the objections presented we are forced to wonder if he might have forced the issue into escalating levels of emotional, physical, and eventually sexual abuse if the target of his desire refused to give in.

So when we take the people in the song at their word, it IS "a little bit rapey."

Exactly

 

[RavenSky]

Next up: Let's go after Mark Twain again and see if we can get Huckleberry Finn banned for its blatant racist language.

Was waiting for this one, because it is always thrown out during this topic.

Is some of the language in Huckleberry Finn racist? Yes. Is it a product of its time? Yes. Am I calling for it to be banned? No.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

Both of these assumptions are a load of baloney. Discussion about this song and others being a little bit rapey pre-date both #MeToo and Bill Cosby being outed as a rapist.

 

[RavenSky]

I think I get it. Poli is a Christian apologist, so selectively changing context to suit the argument is a matter of course.

Sort of like Godwin's Law, as soon as you try the "You are a Christian apologist" line as an attempted insult, you lost the fucking argument. Delete your account.

 

[RavenSky]

View attachment 19299

 

[thebeave]

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.

As you may have noticed, men don't always know what offends women or why. We often have to rely on what women tell us is offensive and take their word for it. The feminist in the video below tells us that the song is offensive (fast forward to the 5:15 mark, if you don't want to watch the whole thing). Why should we believe the feminist you have cited above, versus the more famous and prominent feminist in the video below? Perhaps if all you feminists would get your story straight as to whether these types of things are "female empowerment" or "rapey", us men wouldn't be such lost souls.

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

 

[Copernicus]

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







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

As you may have noticed, men don't always know what offends women or why. We often have to rely on what women tell us is offensive and take their word for it. The feminist in the video below tells us that the song is offensive (fast forward to the 5:15 mark, if you don't want to watch the whole thing). Why should we believe the feminist you have cited above, versus the more famous and prominent feminist in the video below? Perhaps if all you feminists would get your story straight as to whether these types of things are "female empowerment" or "rapey", us men wouldn't be such lost souls.

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

First of all, this commentator is not a spokesperson for feminists or even women. She is just imposing her own imaginary interpretation on the meaning of the words in the song. She takes the female "mouse" character as being manipulated or intimidated by the male "wolf" character into staying when she really, really just doesn't want to stay. However, if you read other lyrics surrounding the excerpted lines that she calls attention to, it becomes clear that the so-called "mouse" is actually looking for ways to be convinced to stay with the "wolf", which accounts for the fact that both the "mouse" and the "wolf" end up singing in happy harmony. In other words, this song is about seduction, not exploitation. And this commentator could at least do a little research to discover how the name "Loesser" is pronounced.

My wife has been following the controversy surrounding this song with great amusement. The way she sees it, most women would end up remaining virgins into their 40s, if they really expected men to always be waiting for explicit consent before expressing their feelings openly. If the "mouse" woman in the song really did not want the "wolf" man's attentions, she really did have the option of just leaving rather than asking for another cigarette and another drink.