23 votes

Are the lyrics to "Baby, It's Cold Outside" now too inappropriate for radio?

62 comments

  1. [3]
    Algernon_Asimov
    (edited )
    Link
    Context is king (or queen, depending on your point of view). I'll confess that I've never seen 'Neptune's Daughter', the 1949 movie in which this song first appeared. However, the plot summary on...
    • Exemplary

    Context is king (or queen, depending on your point of view).

    I'll confess that I've never seen 'Neptune's Daughter', the 1949 movie in which this song first appeared. However, the plot summary on Wikipedia provides some useful context:

    The following day, while giving a tour of the Neptune bathing suit factory, Eve meets José and warns him to stay away from her sister. José is confused by the warning but because he is attracted to Eve, he pretends to understand and agrees to break his presumed date with Betty. When José asks Eve to go on the date with him, she reluctantly consents and does so only to prevent him from pursuing her sister. Despite her best attempts to make her date with José a failure, Eve finds him attractive and enjoys her evening.

    Eve and José are the two people singing this song at the end of their date. And she likes him. It's a romantic comedy, and these two are the lead couple, and this is their first date. They end up together at the end the movie (of course!).

    I found this clip from the movie which shows the lead-in to the song as well as the song itself. It's quite illuminating viewing.

    Interestingly, Eve starts saying she has to leave just after José shows signs of no longer pursuing her. They sit on the couch, he tries to get close, she blocks him with "Salut?" and he sits beside her, dejected. She rolls her eyes in a very non-straightforward way, and starts: "You know, on second thoughts..." and starts to leave. She leaves when he stops chasing her. That's very suggestive. There's no indication that José is pressuring her. Quite the opposite: he's stopped. And she decides that's the time to leave. Is she giving up because she
    thinks he's no longer interested? Or is she starting another game?

    "Nice girls" of the 1940s did not sleep over at gentlemen's houses - and, if they did, they certainly didn't want people knowing about it (else they wouldn't be "nice girls" any more!). So, playing hard to get while trying to be gotten was sometimes part of the game: "Come, chase me! See how I'm running? You can't catch me. Oh, no! I ran so slowly that you caught me... how ever did that happen? <wink>"

    If we look at Eve's behaviour in this scene - particularly her facial expressions when she thinks José can't see them - we notice that she seems to be quite calculating and manipulative. She's playing a game.

    Even the opening line of the song, "I really can't stay", has an unusual intonation. It sounds almost like play-acting, like she's feeding José the first line in a script that he has to respond to. And he plays along. She throws him some lines to put up a fight, he responds by telling her it's cold outside, and she keeps giving in.

    There are some key lines from Eve in this song: "I ought to say no, no, no, sir. At least I'm gonna say that I tried." - and a few seconds later, she's lying back on the couch quite cooperatively while José starts leaning in for a kiss... until she's up and moving again. She needs to at least say that she tried to fend off the man's advances... while she gives in to them. She's playing him.

    Later, Eve moves to the door, and José blocks her and tells her to "Look out the window at that storm". He then immediately closes the curtains, because there's no storm outside. He knows that and she knows that. She even smiles as she turns away from the window. It's all part of the game.

    Her next few lines are all about what other people will think: "My sister will be suspicious. My brother will be there at the door. My maiden aunt's mind is vicious!" She's telling him that she's worried about how this will look to other people. It all comes back to her reputation.

    Halfway through this supposed struggle to leave, Eve sits on the couch, checks her mirror, and asks José for a comb! This is not the behaviour of someone who's desperate to leave.

    Shortly after that moment where she asks for a comb, she says something important: "You've really been grand, but don't you see...? There's bound to be talk tomorrow. At least there will be plenty implied." It's all about her reputation as a "nice girl".

    And, all the way through Eve's struggle to leave, she keeps saying "Ah, but it's cold outside." She goes along with José's game.

    This isn't a rape song. It's a song about the game that "nice girls" of the 1940s had to play in order to keep up appearances while still getting what they wanted.

    40 votes
    1. Amarok
      Link Parent
      I wonder how long it'll be until there's an edit-war and a copy of War & Peace in the talk page of that wp article as someone tries to reinvent reality to support their biased interpretations of a...

      I wonder how long it'll be until there's an edit-war and a copy of War & Peace in the talk page of that wp article as someone tries to reinvent reality to support their biased interpretations of a film they didn't know existed until yesterday. I was half expecting to find one there already. :P

      2 votes
    2. Levantus
      Link Parent
      This is incredible contextualization and really helps me understand the origin of the song. I appreciate you typing that out. I think art should always be looked at in-context with very few...

      This is incredible contextualization and really helps me understand the origin of the song. I appreciate you typing that out. I think art should always be looked at in-context with very few exceptions. It's an old-timey song and should be considered as such.

      1 vote
  2. [8]
    Wes
    Link
    Inappropriate? It seems like a song with a lovey-dovey couple. She knows she should be responsible and go home, but wants an excuse to stay. He's more than happy to provide that excuse. She ought...

    Inappropriate? It seems like a song with a lovey-dovey couple. She knows she should be responsible and go home, but wants an excuse to stay. He's more than happy to provide that excuse.

    I ought to say no, no, no sir

    She ought to. But she wants to stay. Come on now.

    35 votes
    1. [4]
      Chopincakes
      Link Parent
      There was a very brilliant article that I can't find now, by either a feminist historian or a linguist (or possibly just a random person, I don't remember) basically arguing this very same thing:...

      There was a very brilliant article that I can't find now, by either a feminist historian or a linguist (or possibly just a random person, I don't remember) basically arguing this very same thing: that it's very much a woman navigating the cultural norms of the time as to try to not come off as 'easy' and looking for pretenses to stay and have a good time.

      Completely changed my perspective of the whole song

      26 votes
      1. Catt
        Link Parent
        That's honestly always been my interpretation of this song. I think it's a cute song, but don't disagree that it deserves a conversation, no matter which side people fall on it.

        That's honestly always been my interpretation of this song. I think it's a cute song, but don't disagree that it deserves a conversation, no matter which side people fall on it.

        14 votes
    2. doug3465
      Link Parent
      Well if you’re gonna quote that there’s also

      Well if you’re gonna quote that there’s also

      the answer is no

      8 votes
    3. [2]
      nothis
      Link Parent
      That roofie joke, though!

      That roofie joke, though!

      1. aphoenix
        Link Parent
        It's not a roofie joke. At the time the song was written, casually drugging someone to date rape them wasn't a thing. In the common parlance of the 40s it was common to joke "Hey, what's in this...

        It's not a roofie joke. At the time the song was written, casually drugging someone to date rape them wasn't a thing.

        In the common parlance of the 40s it was common to joke "Hey, what's in this drink!" as an excuse for lowered inhibitions.

        19 votes
  3. [9]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. [6]
      Algernon_Asimov
      Link Parent
      They are not tags currently in use on Tildes, nor do I believe they will be widely used. Who would search for, or filter out, posts based on them being tagged "context matters"? Is that really a...

      How about ”context matters” and ”wilful misunderstanding”?

      They are not tags currently in use on Tildes, nor do I believe they will be widely used. Who would search for, or filter out, posts based on them being tagged "context matters"? Is that really a category that you would use to search for posts?

      Meanwhile, tags like "gender violence" and "rape culture" are tags that I believe people would use to search for, or filter out, posts.

      I'm happy to change the tags to something more useful - but, as I said, I don't think "context matters” and ”wilful misunderstanding” are useful. What are some actual search-based categories that this post would fit under (that people would actually use)?

      9 votes
      1. [5]
        psi
        Link Parent
        How about adding "political correctness" or "censorship" or something of that ilk then? You risk biasing the discussion by suggesting the only controversy here is gender violence when the issue is...

        How about adding "political correctness" or "censorship" or something of that ilk then? You risk biasing the discussion by suggesting the only controversy here is gender violence when the issue is actually more nuanced.

        9 votes
        1. [3]
          Catt
          Link Parent
          While I do find the original tags a bit harsh, I think censorship is harsh in the other direction. And sort of think political correctness is trivializing. But maybe it makes sense to throw them...

          While I do find the original tags a bit harsh, I think censorship is harsh in the other direction. And sort of think political correctness is trivializing.

          But maybe it makes sense to throw them all on and let the reader decide...Though I personally believe the tags are really for sorting and not making statements...

          8 votes
          1. psi
            Link Parent
            I agree that none of the tags really feel quite right and that censorship is a bit too emphatic. That said, political correctness does seem to be the underlying issue here: how should we treat a...

            While I do find the original tags a bit harsh, I think censorship is harsh in the other direction. And sort of think political correctness is trivializing.

            I agree that none of the tags really feel quite right and that censorship is a bit too emphatic. That said, political correctness does seem to be the underlying issue here: how should we treat a song that sounds inappropriate at face value (and would definitely be inappropriate if produced today)?

            Though I personally believe the tags are really for sorting and not making statements...

            Yup, definitely agree. I'm not trying to be the tag police, and I certainly don't think there should be Fairness Doctrine standards on tags; I just think the currents tags are kinda misleading.

            4 votes
          2. Algernon_Asimov
            Link Parent
            Exactly.

            Though I personally believe the tags are really for sorting and not making statements...

            Exactly.

            4 votes
        2. Algernon_Asimov
          Link Parent
          I see @aphoenix has already done this. Thank you for the suggestion, and thanks to them for doing it.

          How about adding "political correctness"

          I see @aphoenix has already done this. Thank you for the suggestion, and thanks to them for doing it.

          1 vote
    2. nothis
      Link Parent
      It's ironic that you bring up "context" but dismiss the context of a modern interpretation.

      It's ironic that you bring up "context" but dismiss the context of a modern interpretation.

      3 votes
    3. Heichou
      Link Parent
      I agree completely. This is an issue that is being inflated to a level of urgency that it does not warrant. It's just a case of trigger happy activists who won't do their research before they find...

      I agree completely. This is an issue that is being inflated to a level of urgency that it does not warrant. It's just a case of trigger happy activists who won't do their research before they find a new "enemy" to target

  4. [28]
    Heichou
    (edited )
    Link
    I feel that in an attempt to make everything around us safe or more palatable for the general populace (an effort I'm far from being a fan of), we very much risk censoring or all together...

    I feel that in an attempt to make everything around us safe or more palatable for the general populace (an effort I'm far from being a fan of), we very much risk censoring or all together destroying history in an attempt to paint a coat of "kindness" and "acceptance" on everything we come into contact with. That isn't to say that I don't have my reservations about this song - like most traditional/classic Christmas tunes I love to make fun of them mercilessly and this one is no exception - but what exactly do we have to gain here by removing one Christmas classic from all radio stations? There is a lot of literature that was made in a different time, much like this song. Much of that literature, especially from the same time as the song, has much the same values and beliefs held in those writings as those that appear to be held in the song. It was a different time, and we know that we've since moved on. Should we even attempt to retroactively punish dead artists for simply creating in a time period that they don't know was "wrong"?

    I believe that, and yes I'm aware of the upcoming slippery slope fallacy, to crack down on historic/aged time pieces like this one would be an insult to our history and art itself. Are we to start censoring or burning everything that doesn't fit this zeitgeist that these people are creating? Where do we stop? Do we attempt to erase absolutely everything that happened in the past just because it doesn't align with what we believe to be correct today? To be honest, many people would say "So what? It's one stupid Christmas song?", but that's exactly what terrifies me. If people push so hard as to get a single Christmas song off the radio, then they have the power to not only create problems where there may be none, but also to make radical changes in support of their beliefs, and anybody who does not agree with them is racist, sexist, misogynist, etc. Do we really need to be advocating to remove a decades old Christmas song off the radio? Aren't there more pressing matters that we should be contributing to with this same kind of vigor? It's madness honestly, to go about changing anything people want with little more basis than, "It makes me feel uncomfortable", and any attempt to debate to the contrary is met with admonition and condemnation. With someone's feelings being the only reason for the removal or censorship of something, at what point do we tell people that we can't operate like that? I'm afraid that, unchecked, this might lead to the rewriting or the censorship of history or seemingly inoffensive things for the sake of a small but loud enough group.

    17 votes
    1. [11]
      Whom
      Link Parent
      Do you not see a meaningful difference between trying to get something out of rotation in the here and now and destroying the past? Shouldn't that be part of learning and moving on? If we...

      Do you not see a meaningful difference between trying to get something out of rotation in the here and now and destroying the past? Shouldn't that be part of learning and moving on? If we recognize that something is harmful and wrong, maybe we shouldn't have it playing in Walmart or in between Christmas specials. I don't see how that's burning the past, if anything it's giving it the attention it deserves and allowing us to re-evaluate that art and what we want to do with it.

      Like for something much more clear cut...say, The Birth of a Nation, it's not gone. It's still talked about for its technical influence as well as a way to talk about race in early film. But you're not seeing it played as casual entertainment on the level of any other movie. It occupies a different space, but it's still part of history. We recognize it for what it's worth, but we've moved on in the modern day. What's wrong with that?

      No comment on the song itself from me, though. I can go either way on that.

      25 votes
      1. [10]
        Heichou
        Link Parent
        I think in this particular instance, unless we destroy every Christmas song and make new ones, it's kind of arbitrary to remove a single song from airplay. Especially considering that this song's...

        I think in this particular instance, unless we destroy every Christmas song and make new ones, it's kind of arbitrary to remove a single song from airplay. Especially considering that this song's lyrics are being taken far too literally by people who don't seem to be willing to think a little harder about things before declaring them distasteful or primitive by today's standards. There are a few comments in the thread expanding on the song's meaning, but the fact is that the lyrics are not to be taken literally, and that the dialogue is the woman trying to fight her feelings and fight against social norms.

        The only reason, I think, that people are getting riled up about this, is that it's played every year. There are plenty of songs from the past decade that objectify and paint women in a far worse light but nobody seems to raise a stink about those because they play for 3 months then disappear (well, most do. There are still some "classics" that get airplay.) I don't think it's fair to make this song a monster because people try to latch onto and remove anything they deem racist or sexist. It's a song for christ's sake! They have meanings behind them! Symbolism, metaphors and all that jazz have been present in music since the inception of lyrics, and even before that in poems. It's just ridiculous and seems to be the result of the afraid and uneducated.

        If your argument is that we need to throw off the past to move on, which is a sentiment I do agree with, then if this song isn't okay, then they're all not okay. We can't just throw one out on the basis of it being primitive when the other Christmas classics are older or just as old. This seems like the mass targeting of a piece of art by people who either don't understand or won't understand it

        1 vote
        1. [9]
          Gaywallet
          Link Parent
          Can you expand upon this thought? The subtext of this statement seems to be that "only people who are willfully ignorant could consider this song distasteful" - is that correct? Why is this a...

          Especially considering that this song's lyrics are being taken far too literally by people who don't seem to be willing to think a little harder about things before declaring them distasteful or primitive by today's standards.

          Can you expand upon this thought? The subtext of this statement seems to be that "only people who are willfully ignorant could consider this song distasteful" - is that correct?

          the fact is that the lyrics are not to be taken literally, and that the dialogue is the woman trying to fight her feelings and fight against social norms.

          Why is this a "fact"? How are you positive that the real message is a woman trying to fight her feelings against the social norms? Is it not possible, that like many other works of art, this could be written as satire to point out the issues with cultural norms and what is expected out of a social interaction?

          There are plenty of songs from the past decade that objectify and paint women in a far worse light but nobody seems to raise a stink about those because they play for 3 months then disappear

          Last I checked many of these do get people riled up (just go browse music forums), they just don't all go viral. Given that Christmas is an important holiday for a large chunk of the population on earth, this doesn't really surprise me.

          It's a song for christ's sake! They have meanings behind them!

          I believe that's exactly the artists intent - to get people to think a little bit more about what's going on.

          This seems like the mass targeting of a piece of art by people who either don't understand or won't understand it

          I'm not targeting it but I'm not claiming to understand it either. What makes you more educated or understanding of the artists intent? Can you please help me understand?

          3 votes
          1. [8]
            Heichou
            Link Parent
            I feel that even if this song is satire on cultural norms as you posited, that still gives it a great reason to remain a Christmas song and to not be thrown away. The point of most music is that...

            I feel that even if this song is satire on cultural norms as you posited, that still gives it a great reason to remain a Christmas song and to not be thrown away. The point of most music is that it is subjective and you are meant to derive your own meaning from it, but that isn't to say there's no incorrect way to derive meaning from a song. There's definitely more meaning behind this song than "Heyyyy baby you should stay a little longer even though you're uncomfortable hehe". Mainly the issue I take with it is this: What threat is this song actively posing to society? Does an issue this small warrant something this big? I could be incorrect in assuming this, but I don't think most people hear this song and go "God, I wish we were back in the good old days where I could beat and mistreat women". This is a song is toted around as a classic, and as such, carries the connotation of being from an older time and is now a novelty piece, if you will. People know it's old and doesn't reflect the views of society today, if they choose to take this song at face value.

            The biggest concern I hold over all is: Why? Why are we targeting this song? What change do we hope to bring about by removing a song from airplay that plays for roughly 3 months a year? Is there some kind of cultural reawakening that threatens to send treatment of women back to that of the 30's/40's? What, honestly, do we change by removing and disavowing a song that we already know as archaic? It seems unnecessary and hateful. People are attacking it just because they know that they can remove it if they yell loud enough. It's worrisome to me, that people can remove anything from the public eye if they deem it distasteful. And it doesn't even have to be a majority agreement on how distasteful it is, as long as you're a small but loud enough group, it will get changed. Under different circumstances, that would be an incredibly powerful and motivational sentiment, but in this scenario, it's terrifying that we're unifying for all the wrong reasons. The removal of this song won't change a damn thing. And that's what is most annoying. Believe me, I hate Christmas music. The preservation of this song doesn't matter to me. But the way and the reason it's being discontinued is awful and without good intentions

            4 votes
            1. [7]
              Gaywallet
              Link Parent
              Sadly people often site satire to prove the point that the satire was trying to disprove. People don't always understand the intent of the artist, nor do people always understand the intent of,...

              I feel that even if this song is satire on cultural norms as you posited, that still gives it a great reason to remain a Christmas song and to not be thrown away.

              Sadly people often site satire to prove the point that the satire was trying to disprove. People don't always understand the intent of the artist, nor do people always understand the intent of, well, anything communicated - communication is extremely difficult, especially when present in a medium so short in nature and offered without express explanation.

              What threat is this song actively posing to society?

              Since this has been discussed elsewhere, I'm not going to address this question, but I do want to point out that I'm not sure that it has to pose a threat to be removed. We remove stuff all the time because we don't want people to be consuming it or we deem its not worth consuming.

              Does an issue this small warrant something this big?

              I would caution against using such reductionist wording. Of the people who are outraged by this song and believe it's talking about rape, I'm sure some are victims of rape and will be quite irritated by your connotation that rape is a "small issue".

              I don't think most people hear this song and go "God, I wish we were back in the good old days where I could beat and mistreat women".

              This is a perfect example of tolerance of intolerance and one of the guiding principles of this site. It's not about the majority; it's about the people who are at risk of, currently being, or have been brainwashed into a dangerous cult or society. These people are the minority but giving them a platform to speak publicly on only grows their numbers by making it seem acceptable behavior.

              Why? Why are we targeting this song? What change do we hope to bring about by removing a song from airplay that plays for roughly 3 months a year?

              If you draw an analogy of this to any other civil rights movements, many have asked the same questions about plenty of issues that seemed trivial to others at the time. Every step, no matter how small, is still a step towards progress.

              It's worrisome to me, that people can remove anything from the public eye if they deem it distasteful.

              While I agree in general with the sentiment, I disagree that people can remove anything from the public eye if they deem it distasteful. I think our presidency is proof of this - his very definition of "fake news" is news he thinks is distasteful... and yet we still keep churning it out despite Trump being the loudest person on the planet right now.

              The removal of this song won't change a damn thing.

              I'd be careful with making strong statements like that without omniscience. We have no idea what the removal of this song will do.

              2 votes
              1. [6]
                Heichou
                Link Parent
                I understand that this song could be misconstrued to be about "rape culture", but I don't think that it's okay to remove something just because they personally feel uncomfortable with it. I think...

                I understand that this song could be misconstrued to be about "rape culture", but I don't think that it's okay to remove something just because they personally feel uncomfortable with it. I think it's important to let people know when they're making a mountain out of a molehill lest we continue to make rash and not very well thought out decisions in the heat of the moment. I'm all for keeping peoples' emotions in mind when making decisions, but emotion isn't ever logical and we can't make decisions based purely on emotions. I think the very nature of the song is subjective, like most songs, but we shouldn't admonish it for only one of its possible meanings. That, to me, is going too far. Somebody could construe any number of things from a song, but I feel like with this kind of support, it wouldn't matter whether or not the lyrics alluded to any kind of abuse. It seems like even suggesting to tell someone that what they feel isn't rational is tantamount to telling them to off themselves. Nothing is done without purpose. I don't think everything needs to be demonized like this

                2 votes
                1. [5]
                  Gaywallet
                  Link Parent
                  It's not being removed - people are choosing to comply with the requests of individuals. There's no ban on the song or repercussions for playing it, just people opting out. And we're venturing...

                  I don't think that it's okay to remove something just because they personally feel uncomfortable with it.

                  It's not being removed - people are choosing to comply with the requests of individuals. There's no ban on the song or repercussions for playing it, just people opting out.

                  I think it's important to let people know when they're making a mountain out of a molehill

                  And we're venturing back into the subjective here - this isn't a molehill to some of these individuals and it's not nice to be reductionist about it. It may not be important to you but that doesn't mean it's not important to others. Furthermore, it might be an objectively important thing (in fact, signs point to it being so, given that people are actually paying attention to it rather than brushing it off as a conspiracy theory or something with no proof) and neither you nor I have the credibility to really claim that it is or isn't objectively important.

                  I think the very nature of the song is subjective, like most songs, but we shouldn't admonish it for only one of its possible meanings.

                  People do this all the time with all kinds of art. What makes this any different?

                  It seems like even suggesting to tell someone that what they feel isn't rational is tantamount to telling them to off themselves.

                  Don't ever tell someone what they feel. You have no authority, knowledge, or insight to the matter. You are not them. You cannot know how they feel. Of course they got pissed off.

                  A side note - it is both reasonable and logical for humans to experience emotions. It's actually quite rare for an emotion to be irrational.

                  3 votes
                  1. [4]
                    Heichou
                    Link Parent
                    I feel like we have two polarizingly different opinions on this and won't see eye to eye on this matter. I'm okay with agreeing to disagree

                    I feel like we have two polarizingly different opinions on this and won't see eye to eye on this matter. I'm okay with agreeing to disagree

                    2 votes
                    1. [3]
                      Gaywallet
                      Link Parent
                      That would be pretty tough as I have no opinion on this matter. I'm mostly here to just understand your thought process. (:

                      That would be pretty tough as I have no opinion on this matter. I'm mostly here to just understand your thought process. (:

                      1 vote
                      1. [2]
                        Heichou
                        Link Parent
                        To be honest I'm a very emotionally repressed person and probably can't understand this kind of argument. I tend to lean very hard into objectivity and logic because I just can't empathize on the...

                        To be honest I'm a very emotionally repressed person and probably can't understand this kind of argument. I tend to lean very hard into objectivity and logic because I just can't empathize on the same level as most people. I've got my own issues lol

                        1 vote
                        1. Gaywallet
                          Link Parent
                          For what it's worth I would describe myself as very emotionally repressed as well (been called a robot plenty of times in my life). It's possible to learn and understand human emotion without...

                          For what it's worth I would describe myself as very emotionally repressed as well (been called a robot plenty of times in my life). It's possible to learn and understand human emotion without necessarily being a particularly keen experiencer of emotion.

                          1 vote
    2. [16]
      nothis
      Link Parent
      While I generally agree that it's a little ridiculous to start banning Christmas songs that can be interpreted as vaguely problematic, I find the OUTRAGE over the (proposed?) ban a little...

      While I generally agree that it's a little ridiculous to start banning Christmas songs that can be interpreted as vaguely problematic, I find the OUTRAGE over the (proposed?) ban a little hypocritical as well. On the one hand, it is supposedly a harmless song that has no real impact on society. On the other, banning it is literally a slippery slope to fascism because keeping awkward culture from the 40s alive is highly important to society. So what is it?

      Where do we stop?

      So, here's an idea: We know. We know where to stop. It's not a difficult problem. In fact, I find it a bit disingenuous to pretend it's an unsolved problem. We stop at burning books. We stop at denying the existence of things that make us feel uncomfortable. That's not in contradiction to questioning what should be in the playlist of an afternoon Christmas song block on local radio.

      6 votes
      1. aphoenix
        Link Parent
        I think we also stop at banning a quite innocent song about two lovers trying to make socially acceptable time for each other.

        I think we also stop at banning a quite innocent song about two lovers trying to make socially acceptable time for each other.

        4 votes
      2. [14]
        Heichou
        Link Parent
        To you, yes, that is where we stop. However, that isn't to say other people think just like you. It's comforting to believe that others may be just as calm and critical thinking as ourselves, but...

        To you, yes, that is where we stop. However, that isn't to say other people think just like you. It's comforting to believe that others may be just as calm and critical thinking as ourselves, but it's rarely the case. While we truly may never get to bool burning, there are still many things before that threshold that would still be worrying and unjust to have removed. I just think that there's no good reason to remove this song. It doesn't solve any problems, so why are people making a stink about it? It's useless

        1. [13]
          nothis
          Link Parent
          See, IMO it's just as alarmist to say other people automatically think the opposite. The way I see it, the "OMG censorship" trend is an invention of right-wing libertarianism which somehow found a...

          However, that isn't to say other people think just like you.

          See, IMO it's just as alarmist to say other people automatically think the opposite.

          The way I see it, the "OMG censorship" trend is an invention of right-wing libertarianism which somehow found a way to get a lot of people on their side by being the guys opposing the "crazy feminists". It's fear-mongering in the name of "free speech" and "anti-censorship" but it somehow seems to be very concerned with protecting the place of hatred in society. Almost all the things that now trigger "censorship" cries are traditionally left-wing issues like gender rights, sexual violence and racism and they mostly tend to originate in universities and urban environments which aren't known for being repressive in any way. Things like the much mocked "trigger warnings" aren't there to ban certain topics from being discussed, it's about giving people with certain traumas a warning... because they're being discussed.

          We "censor" a lot of things. News anchors might "censor" themselves from calling an obese person a "fat, disgusting pig" on live TV or arguing that the Holocaust was totally cool. Also somehow even the most right-wing figures in politics do not use the n-word in public or make fun of disabled people. Asking "where do we draw the line" implies that there should be no line while there clearly is. There always is a line society agrees upon. So what I really see as the reason why there is so much OUTRAGE over "censorship" is that the line is, indeed, being redrawn.

          We used to only be concerned with what the majority of people finds to be shocking or offensive, it's basic manners that help society function. Same reason we're not supposed to yell insults at each other all the time, even though we have a constitutional right to it. So the line was re-adjusted several times over the past few decades, over race, sexuality, etc. The question is, what minority is "too small" or obscure to not consider when drawing the line? IMO it's not that unreasonable to say "none". This is why we're now discussing transgender rights (a ridiculously tiny part of the general public), for example. This is why we have a conversation about what pronoun a transgender person wants to be called. This is why we ask ourselves if playing a cheery Christmas song with subtly implied rape might not be appropriate.

          But all of this is a line for what we consider appropriate language in normal social interactions. It's not about what books to burn or what parties to be made illegal. It's about defining a standard to not be an asshole in 2018.

          6 votes
          1. [12]
            Heichou
            Link Parent
            My concern with the "Don't be an asshole" argument is that it effectively silences any and all debate or arguments from the opposition. It's an ad hominem in the most holier than thou way. I'm...

            My concern with the "Don't be an asshole" argument is that it effectively silences any and all debate or arguments from the opposition. It's an ad hominem in the most holier than thou way. I'm afraid that any and all arguments could be brute forced with "it's just manners dude" or "don't be a dick" to immediately paint the opposition in a negative light for even attempting to refute that manners or kindness don't belong in a debate setting. I get your concerns about censorship being a fearmongered pavlov reaction buzzword, but in my eyes, all labels are stupid. I don't even understand what "alarmist" means. I think that I'm allowed to believe what I believe without being lumped into a group that makes me easier to hate or disregard entirely. To me, this isn't an issue of politics. This is an issue of wanting to end hate towards something that doesn't deserve it. I don't think it's fair in saying the song bothers some people and should be wholly removed. People should learn to separate their construed meaning from a song. Not everything needs to be made a spectacle. We have a lot more issues that we can devote this much energy to

            2 votes
            1. [3]
              nothis
              Link Parent
              Manners or kindness don't belong in a debate setting? What if it's literally a debate about manners and kindness. Is that not allowed to exist?

              Manners or kindness don't belong in a debate setting? What if it's literally a debate about manners and kindness. Is that not allowed to exist?

              2 votes
              1. [2]
                Heichou
                Link Parent
                It would be an extremely frivolous and subjective debate, as many different people have many kinds of ideas of manners and kindness. Thankfully, we are not debating about those two

                It would be an extremely frivolous and subjective debate, as many different people have many kinds of ideas of manners and kindness. Thankfully, we are not debating about those two

                1. nothis
                  Link Parent
                  I believe we are debating those two, that's what makes it so complicated. I can appreciate a dedication to hard data, rational thinking and science but when we're discussing social issues,...

                  I believe we are debating those two, that's what makes it so complicated.

                  I can appreciate a dedication to hard data, rational thinking and science but when we're discussing social issues, sometimes no "hard data" exists or we wouldn't even know how to formulate any good standards for it. These problems exist, often at the very core of anything political and we still have to develop tools to navigate any discussion about it. You often literally cannot disconnect them from emotional issues because they are emotional issues.

                  Honestly, I don't think the song needs to be banned. But on the other hand, just dismissing any discussion about what songs are appropriate on a radio Chrismas playlist as an attack on free speech just doesn't feel right to me. Any similarities to the forces that lead to book burning are superficial at best and doing "cold, hard logic" that amounts to "situation A includes B, therefore anything that reminds us of B leads to A" when in reality there's dozens of more factors at play is misleading. There's shades of gray at work and squeezing them into binary logic seems disingenuous to me. It's a social issue embedded in an incredibly complex web of context. "People put feelings over rational thought" is one of them but I wouldn't even list it close to the most important ones.

                  4 votes
            2. [8]
              Whom
              Link Parent
              You've said elsewhere that the meaning is subjective (which I agree with). If the meaning is subjective and there isn't some objective measure of what the song means, and we have to "separate...

              People should learn to separate their construed meaning from a song.

              You've said elsewhere that the meaning is subjective (which I agree with). If the meaning is subjective and there isn't some objective measure of what the song means, and we have to "separate [our] construed meaning from a song," what ground is there to judge any art? I don't see how you can hold both of those positions without coming to the conclusion that we can't stop praising and distributing anything because people can feel differently about things.

              1. [7]
                Heichou
                Link Parent
                I agree wholeheartedly with what you said. I did contradict myself a tad. My biggest concern is that a world of safe and inoffensive song lyrics leads to creative and artistic stagnation. What use...

                I agree wholeheartedly with what you said. I did contradict myself a tad. My biggest concern is that a world of safe and inoffensive song lyrics leads to creative and artistic stagnation. What use is there to create lyrics that don't challenge or inspire different ways of thinking? Sure there do exist songs that are inherently problematic, but you can decipher those at a glance. But if we have to create songs in such a way that it might not offend somebody, in a way we didn't think is applicable to what we wrote, what can we do? We shouldn't have to walk on eggshells. I just don't think we should be forced to say what others tell us to on the basis of "commom decency" or something along those lines. My speech and artistic freedom is being challenged, but in such a way that to even defend myself would dig me a deeper hole. I'm worried about the bigger picture here

                1. [6]
                  Whom
                  Link Parent
                  In my view, the possibility for backlash or being disregarded for being any number of bad things is what being on the edge means. Playing that game inherently means you have the possibility of...

                  In my view, the possibility for backlash or being disregarded for being any number of bad things is what being on the edge means. Playing that game inherently means you have the possibility of pissing people off or losing / failing to gain an audience, and it always has. Brushing up against taboo always carries certain risks, that's a large part of why it's interesting. It helps that ongoing cultural conversation of what's okay and what isn't. If someone makes a song which advocates for Nazism and they're told to get fucked, even though I hate that person, I also recognize that the process of telling them to fuck off is an essential way for us to figure out our lines of morality.

                  I do think it's a bit silly to act like people shifting their views on a song that is entrenched in values that are well-established and long-lasting makes it so that we have to avoid challenging people in new art, though. There is nothing less challenging or evocative than a song that has worked its way into tradition.

                  1 vote
                  1. [5]
                    Heichou
                    Link Parent
                    I do get the "on the edge" thing. The Dead Kennedy's did that very well with "Nazi Punks Fuck Off" and "I Kill Children". But I feel like that edge is slowly disappearing and anything too risqué...

                    I do get the "on the edge" thing. The Dead Kennedy's did that very well with "Nazi Punks Fuck Off" and "I Kill Children". But I feel like that edge is slowly disappearing and anything too risqué is being punished. I'm just afraid of losing the ability to write about pressing issues for fear of being labeled too radical or insensitive. In short, I just really don't appreciate the idea of being told how to speak. I get that as a society, we should all adapt a moral compass, but you can't ever say "Wait hold on we're taking it too far" without looking Ike a bad guy. I'm just afraid it's going shift too far to the point where dissension from that norm is perceived as undeniably evil. It's the future I'm worried about

                    1. [4]
                      Whom
                      (edited )
                      Link Parent
                      "What if my morals and the things I want to create which express them are someday not considered okay anymore?" is a problem everyone has to deal with if they want to live with other people as...

                      "What if my morals and the things I want to create which express them are someday not considered okay anymore?" is a problem everyone has to deal with if they want to live with other people as part of any society. You should engage in the conversation of where those values move (like discussing "is this song something we should continue to use?"), but trying to resist that process itself is both silly and futile. I know you said you did, but I'm not sure you do fully get the "on the edge" thing. Being punished in some way for being too risqué is part of that whole game! What would it mean to be on the edge if there were no social repercussions or if you didn't get people mad at you? The problem is and should always be what we consider to be too far out there, not doing it in the first place. That push and pull is a very useful tool for society at large.

                      The edge disappearing is a very strange thing to think...you might just mean that the parts of the edge that you value are disappearing. There's things pushing boundaries, for better and for worse, in all directions.

                      1 vote
                      1. [3]
                        Heichou
                        Link Parent
                        I guess the problem lies in me not seeing the edge in this particular instance. I very well may never be able to. I just don't think of this song when I think of songs on the edge. I think more of...

                        I guess the problem lies in me not seeing the edge in this particular instance. I very well may never be able to. I just don't think of this song when I think of songs on the edge. I think more of "This Is America" by Gambino

                        1. [2]
                          Whom
                          Link Parent
                          The word itself probably doesn't apply, since we usually use the term to refer to things that are pushing off in a wild new direction rather than going further toward tradition and the historical...

                          The word itself probably doesn't apply, since we usually use the term to refer to things that are pushing off in a wild new direction rather than going further toward tradition and the historical status quo than is considered acceptable in currentyear. I just think the concept is similar either way.

                          And yeah, I still don't want to argue this particular case. I'm fine if, as a society, we decide it isn't okay...but I'm not really crusading for that. It's not a priority in my life.

                          1 vote
                          1. Heichou
                            Link Parent
                            I have to agree. This might just be one incident but as it stands I'm fighting for something completely off topic now. For my sake I should stop arguing lol

                            I have to agree. This might just be one incident but as it stands I'm fighting for something completely off topic now. For my sake I should stop arguing lol

  5. [3]
    somewaffles
    Link
    Is this not like the starbucks cup thing last year (or whenever it was?) One organization makes a statement, one person makes a says they disagree, then the media picks it up as if there were...

    Is this not like the starbucks cup thing last year (or whenever it was?) One organization makes a statement, one person makes a says they disagree, then the media picks it up as if there were thousands of people frothing at the mouth about it. The whole "debate" feels manufactured to me. Some radio station decided not to play it, great, I will hear the song on every other station for the next 30 days.

    9 votes
    1. [2]
      goodbetterbestbested
      Link Parent
      It is 100% manufactured. Some random person writes a tongue-in-cheek article about Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer on Huffington Post and that gets just as much coverage as the G8 Summit. It is...

      It is 100% manufactured. Some random person writes a tongue-in-cheek article about Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer on Huffington Post and that gets just as much coverage as the G8 Summit. It is sickening to me how many people fall into this trap: this stuff is meaningless and there is no real basis of support for banning this song. It is a total distraction from the rape of our societies and our planet by politicians.

      6 votes
      1. Amarok
        Link Parent
        Every time I see stories like this I feel like it gets harder for me to take the entire political correctness concept seriously. Maybe that's even the point, I don't know. It seems like most of...

        Every time I see stories like this I feel like it gets harder for me to take the entire political correctness concept seriously. Maybe that's even the point, I don't know. It seems like most of the time when I do hear about something like this, and look into it, all I find are thin-skinned overreactions, misinterpretations, and an army of pedants bickering on both sides of the non-issue.

        I'm more of Denis Leary's mindset. In my head, every single time, I hear "Shut the fuck up! NEXT."

        3 votes
  6. [4]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. [3]
      Algernon_Asimov
      Link Parent
      Yes, but they don't constantly remove songs "after listeners complained the tune was too 'rapey'." There's the newsworthy part of the story - not that the radio station removed a song from its...

      A single local radio station chose to remove a single song from its playlists.

      This is something radio stations do constantly.

      Yes, but they don't constantly remove songs "after listeners complained the tune was too 'rapey'." There's the newsworthy part of the story - not that the radio station removed a song from its playlist, but that the station's listeners complained about the song due to its perceived "rapey" nature. This song has been around for 70 years, and now people are complaining about its "rapey" lyrics. That's news.

      And somebody somewhere got more money than they would have if they hadn't baited us in the first place.

      Just for context, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is fully owned and fully funded by the Australian government. It's our national public broadcaster. It's not permitted, by its charter, to make money from commercial advertising. There's no revenue going to the ABC from you clicking on its page. I'm not sure if anyone makes money from that click.

      2 votes
      1. endgame
        Link Parent
        No direct revenue. I'm fairly confident that the ABC would use pageview metrics to justify its budget, either when cuts are proposed or when asking for more money. High pageviews are a way for the...

        There's no revenue going to the ABC from you clicking on its page.

        No direct revenue. I'm fairly confident that the ABC would use pageview metrics to justify its budget, either when cuts are proposed or when asking for more money. High pageviews are a way for the ABC to look good, and so I think the incentive to write clickbait is still in play.

        1 vote
      2. [2]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. Catt
          Link Parent
          I actually read this story a few days ago on CBC (Canadian equivalent to the ABC mentioned). Though I do agree it's gotten more attention than issues closer to my own heart, I disagree that this...

          I see no reason for an Australian news organization, especially a non-profit, to convey this to its readership. I see no reason for it to move past the stage of local news.

          I actually read this story a few days ago on CBC (Canadian equivalent to the ABC mentioned). Though I do agree it's gotten more attention than issues closer to my own heart, I disagree that this should stay local news. We live in a very globalized world with a lot of shared media, especially English-speaking movies, songs and such. Since we already share the content, sharing the commentary is logical.

  7. edward
    Link
    It's a stupid meme image, but I kind of agree with every point. Overall my opinion is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, there are songs with worse lyrics and by worse people on the radio the rest of the year.

    It's a stupid meme image, but I kind of agree with every point.

    Overall my opinion is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, there are songs with worse lyrics and by worse people on the radio the rest of the year.

    7 votes
  8. Archimedes
    Link
    The appropriateness of the song can certainly be debated, but the decision to play it or not should ultimately lie with the radio station. Different stations curate their content differently and...

    The appropriateness of the song can certainly be debated, but the decision to play it or not should ultimately lie with the radio station. Different stations curate their content differently and should be able to choose what is appropriate for their audiences.

    6 votes
  9. Emerald_Knight
    Link
    I have a fairly balanced point of view on this, I think: Anyone who has actually done their research on the subject will know that the song isn't inappropriate from a historical context. Women had...
    • Exemplary

    I have a fairly balanced point of view on this, I think:

    Anyone who has actually done their research on the subject will know that the song isn't inappropriate from a historical context. Women had to play coy for their own reputations' sake. In that context, it's actually pretty cute.

    On the other hand, that sort of expectation of coyness isn't as widespread as it used to be. Instead, in a modern context the song now loses its original meaning. Young girls who aren't being taught that they have to be coy, that they instead have the right to bodily autonomy and sexual liberation, will now receive a vastly different message from the song, a message that encourages and perpetuates rape culture.

    Whether or not the song should still be played should probably be a judgement call left to the individual radio stations, but the generational context shift is absolutely an important point to consider when making that judgment call. Regardless of the decision made, I think it's important for parents to discuss the contextual shift with their children--both girls and boys--to help them understand why it was okay in the song but not okay now.

    2 votes
  10. [5]
    mb3077
    Link
    Meanwhile kids are singing along rap songs that with lyrics like 'nut in her eye' or 'get a train going on her' or 'yeah I lied to you but don't you lie to me'. No one seems to bat an eye about...

    Meanwhile kids are singing along rap songs that with lyrics like 'nut in her eye' or 'get a train going on her' or 'yeah I lied to you but don't you lie to me'.
    No one seems to bat an eye about those, because at the end of the day we all know that it's the listener's responsibility to decide if something is wrong or right.
    If someone roofies a woman because they heard some song on the radio with lyrics that can be interpreted into roofying, then that person is fucked to begin with.

    1. [4]
      Algernon_Asimov
      Link Parent
      I don't think anyone's worried that someone's going to listen to 'Baby, It's Cold Outside', and then rush out and start spiking people's drinks. There's a reason it's called "rape culture" and not...

      If someone roofies a woman because they heard some song on the radio with lyrics that can be interpreted into roofying, then that person is fucked to begin with.

      I don't think anyone's worried that someone's going to listen to 'Baby, It's Cold Outside', and then rush out and start spiking people's drinks.

      There's a reason it's called "rape culture" and not "rape training": it's a culture in which rape is permitted and even encouraged, rather than specific training. And, while this song might not be part of that culture, there are other songs which are part of that culture: songs which implicitly or explicitly reinforce the idea that it's okay for a man to force himself on a woman or coerce the woman to have sex.

      An individual song may be problematic, but it's not going to suddenly make a boy/man turn rapist. However, if someone hears enough of these songs, they subconsciously get the idea that there's nothing wrong with rape - people sing and rap about it, so it must be okay! So, when they get into a moment where they're required to use a bit of restraint and self-control... they might not stop, because they've been conditioned to believe that a man can push a woman into doing something she doesn't want to do.

      3 votes
      1. [3]
        papasquat
        Link Parent
        I've heard this idea said before, but has there been any solid evidence showing this effect? It makes sense I suppose, but similar studies about violent video games or movies making people more...

        I've heard this idea said before, but has there been any solid evidence showing this effect? It makes sense I suppose, but similar studies about violent video games or movies making people more violent have proven inconclusive at best. This idea seems similar enough to make me skeptical. Do you know if this has ever been experimentally studied?

        2 votes
        1. [2]
          Algernon_Asimov
          Link Parent
          I've had some time to look for studies about rape culture. I also checked the Wikipedia page about rape culture. I can't find a lot of work on this idea that a culture which depicts rape as...

          I've had some time to look for studies about rape culture. I also checked the Wikipedia page about rape culture. I can't find a lot of work on this idea that a culture which depicts rape as acceptable leads to more rapes (although, I'll admit that's partly because I'm not a scholar in this area, and partly because I don't have access to the full studies that I can read summaries of). However, I did find a few interesting tidbits.

          Does Rape Culture Predict Rape? Evidence from U.S. Newspapers, 2000–2013

          We offer the first quantitative analysis of rape culture in the United States. Observers have long worried that biased news coverage of rape — which blames victims, empathizes with perpetrators, implies consent, and questions victims' credibility — may deter victims from coming forward, and ultimately increase the incidence of rape. We present a theory of how rape culture might shape the preferences and choices of perpetrators, victims and law enforcement, and test this theory with data on news stories about rape published in U.S. newspapers between 2000 and 2013. We find that rape culture in the media predicts both the frequency of rape and its pursuit through the local criminal justice system. In jurisdictions where rape culture was more prevalent, there were more documented rape cases, but authorities were less vigilant in pursuing them.

          Sexual Face of Violence: Rapists on Rape

          Interviews were conducted with a group of men, including rapists, to explore their experiences, feelings, and attitudes. The author found that rape emerges from a culture that involves the domination and objectivication of women. As an act of sexual violence, rape reflects the masculine role as dominant and controlling. A "rape culture" exists in which rape is often not acknowledged as a crime and its victims are frequently blamed and held responsible for their own violation.

          Cultural myths and supports for rape.

          Tested hypotheses derived from social psychological and feminist theory that acceptance of rape myths can be predicted from attitudes such as sex role stereotyping, adversarial sexual beliefs, sexual conservatism, and acceptance of interpersonal violence. Personality characteristics, background characteristics, and personal exposure to rape, rape victims, and rapists are other factors used in predictions. Results from regression analysis of interview data from 598 randomly selected adults indicate that the higher the sex role stereotyping, adversarial sexual beliefs, and acceptance of interpersonal violence, the greater an S's acceptance of rape myths.

          There does seem to be some support for the hypothesis that a culture which implicitly supports violence against women can lead to more women being raped.

          1 vote
          1. papasquat
            Link Parent
            Cool, thank you for the information. I'm at work right now but I'll read over these when I get some free time tonight.

            Cool, thank you for the information. I'm at work right now but I'll read over these when I get some free time tonight.