Canadian radio stations are pulling "Baby, It's Cold Outside" from their holiday playlists

Oct 25, 2017
11,006
USA
except that in the context of the song, her desires and concerns are two separate things. That's the part being glossed over. "I want to stay. It's not proper. what to do what to do. no I really shouldn't. ok maybe for a bit longer. ok I have to go. ok maybe I'll stay a bit longer yet." etc.

this is NOT him disregarding her concerns. it's him appealing to her desires. those are NOT the same thing.
"The answer is no" "Gosh your lips look delicious!"

Is this also appealing to her desires
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,170
Canada
This is like...the opposite of what they think it means.

Anyway, little trivia:

It's late
Time for bed
So I sit, and wait
For that gin and tonic
To go to your head
I know
It's a devious plan
But it's the only way that I know
To get those big bad car keys
Out of your hand
...

1987. Thoughts?
My first thought is that no one is playing a B-side from George Michael on the radio any time soon.
But beyond that, yeah, it ain't a great song for its context.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,506
It's him appealing to her desires with disregard to her very genuine and real concerns with excuses that may only give her a 50/50 chance of dodging the consequences.
and her making the same consideration. that is the entire point of the empowerment of the song. her consideration of saying "fuck it. I'll stay. don't care what people think."

"The answer is no" "Gosh your lips look delicious!"

Is this also appealing to her desires
hey look removing one single line from the context of ALL of the other lyrics surrounding it.

the back and forth flirtation at the root of the story of the song is not a "no means no" example and you know it. stop being disingenuous. it's literally as disingenuous as insisting that he roofied her drink........
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,528
I heard a version of this in the car on apple music's holiday playlist that was particularly creepy almost to the point of parody but it wasn't.
 
Oct 25, 2017
11,006
USA
and her making the same consideration. that is the entire point of the empowerment of the song. her consideration of saying "fuck it. I'll stay. don't care what people think."


hey look removing one single line from the context of ALL of the other lyrics surrounding it.

the back and forth flirtation at the root of the story of the song is not a "no means no" example and you know it. stop being disingenuous.
You're making the very dangerous mistake of equating flirting to "her saying no means yes". Don't do this. "The answer is no" means the answer is no, and he keeps pursuing. No one is being disingenuous, you're just picking and choosing a context that erases the signals she's giving throughout the song.

Lines from the song said:
I ought to say no, no, no sir (Mind if move in closer?)
Ah, you're very pushy you know?
I like to think of it as opportunistic
The answer is no (But baby it's cold outside)
You have to do mental gymnastics of the highest order to not see these lyrics as a major issue in 2018, regardless of what was originally intended. These lines are trash.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,170
Canada
and her making the same consideration. that is the entire point of the empowerment of the song. her consideration of saying "fuck it. I'll stay. don't care what people think."
And her making the consideration of the consequences of not following the social norms of being subservient to a man's wishes if she persists with saying no. She's caught between two misogynist social conventions here, the expectation that she should say yes to the man she's with so as not to be seen as a disagreeable woman and the societal expectation of her pre-marital virginity. Either situation comes with significant consequences.

You can't divorce the gender power dynamics from the 1940s from the song because they're inconvenient.
 
Oct 27, 2017
855
Ok, original point still stands. Are you for removing all misogynistic hip hop songs from radio stations?
Only one radio station removed it and they have the right to do so just like there are radio stations that opt not to play hip hop. Hell once driving in Florida I a radio station was playing a version of California girls with the snoop dog parts removed. Was snoop removed from all stations? NO
 
Dec 18, 2017
2,515
I did not say Only older and conservative I said SPECIALLY older and conservative.

nice way to ignore the rest of the post BTW
Sorry, no offense meant, but I usually ignore stuff that isn't really relevant to what I posted. I shared an amusing anecdote and wanted to clarify the demographics for you. Not interested in entertaining an argument about why that dude should mansplain to his friends.
 
Oct 27, 2017
414
I always roll my eyes when people defend Baby It's Cold Outside because of "nuance", then proceed to insist that their particular interpretation of the song is the only correct one. You want nuance? In the original sheet music for the song, the two parts were labeled "wolf" and "mouse" - the man and woman are literally predator and prey.

The feminist reinterpretation of the song others have referred to in this thread is, of course, a valid one, but it's not the only valid interpretation, and the fact that I overwhelmingly see it brought up as a defense by men is quite telling.

Additionally, while being aware of historical context is important, that is not a particularly good defense either. This song isn't aired in the context of a history lesson - it's entertainment, and essentially a celebration of gender roles in 1940s America. The lyrics of the song boil down to "no doesn't necessarily mean no", which is an absolutely fucking terrible message.
 
Oct 25, 2017
11,006
USA
I always roll my eyes when people defend Baby It's Cold Outside because of "nuance", then proceed to insist that their particular interpretation of the song is the only correct one. You want nuance? In the original sheet music for the song, the two parts were labeled "wolf" and "mouse" - the man and woman are literally predator and prey.

The feminist reinterpretation of the song others have referred to in this thread is, of course, a valid one, but it's not the only valid interpretation, and the fact that I overwhelmingly see it brought up as a defense by men is quite telling.

Additionally, while being aware of historical context is important, that is not a particularly good defense either. This song isn't aired in the context of a history lesson - it's entertainment, and essentially a celebration of gender roles in 1940s America. The lyrics of the song boil down to "no doesn't necessarily mean no", which is an absolutely fucking terrible message.
Which is why some people don't wanna hear it. This was seen as a valid way of pursuing women, not even that long ago. You have to be completely out of touch to argue that the lyrics in this song are acceptable in 2018, especially in the middle of the metoo movement.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,506
You have to do mental gymnastics of the highest order to not see these lyrics as a major issue in 2018, regardless of what was originally intended. These lines are trash.
but... you can't do that (disregard artistic intent). Problematic in 2018? of course. trash? no, because they were a product of their time.

white washing/sanitizing a culture's past carries significant consequences with it. it's worth pointing out how norms have changed, and something won't fly now. (even if she was ok with it, no means no. etc) but saying "This art should not be appreciated because NOW social norms are different" skirts genuine censorship. (and "skirts" is being very generous there. it's censorship)
 
Nov 2, 2017
2,841
California
In today's climate, you really do need to pay close attention and understand the gender roles of the time in order to not get the wrong idea about the song so I can see why it should be pulled. The drink line in particular still sounds pretty sketchy regardless of how I hear it.
 
Oct 27, 2017
855
And The Rolling Stones' "Brown Sugar" continues to air on the radio to this day.

Kinda ridiculous. Ban "Wonderful Christmastime" instead and replace it with this:

It's not a Ban! It's a radio station Choosing not to play it and many other stations most other station's in fact are allowing the song. Stop frigging using that word incorrectly.
 
Oct 25, 2017
11,006
USA
but... you can't do that (disregard artistic intent). Problematic in 2018? of course. trash? no, because they were a product of their time.

white washing/sanitizing a culture's past carries significant consequences with it. it's worth pointing out how norms have changed, and something won't fly now. (even if she was ok with it, no means no. etc) but saying "This art should not be appreciated because NOW social norms are different" skirts genuine censorship. (and "skirts" is being very generous there. it's censorship)
I didn't disregard the intent, I already said the writers aren't necessarily to blame because they created the song in a completely different cultural landscape. I said the original intent doesn't matter, because songs speak for themselves. Anytime you need to look up the background of a song to make sure it's not a product of sexual harassment or abuse, you're already losing. That means the written lyrics didn't age well. The writers had no way of knowing this.. but that's what happened.

It turns out many of the lyrics they wrote for the song are indeed straight trash. I don't use that word lightly either. The song ends up being "if you try hard enough, you'll be able to fuck her, even if she says no". As another poster stated before me, that's a horrendous message to send in 2018, even if unintentional.

Lol you must be joking. Refusing to listen to a song or put it on a playlist is not fucking censorship. It's not a ban or an erasure. Quite the opposite.. it's recognizing the history of the song and the context in which it was created and rejecting the product.. in a world and culture that's constantly in motion.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,170
Canada
but... you can't do that (disregard artistic intent). Problematic in 2018? of course. trash? no, because they were a product of their time.

white washing/sanitizing a culture's past carries significant consequences with it. it's worth pointing out how norms have changed, and something won't fly now. (even if she was ok with it, no means no. etc) but saying "This art should not be appreciated because NOW social norms are different" skirts genuine censorship. (and "skirts" is being very generous there. it's censorship)
The song isn't being erased from history, FFS. Certain radio stations have personally elected not to play it due to those changed norms and not wanting to send signals that what was acceptable in the 1940s is still acceptable by modern standards, which is entirely their prerogative to do.

You'll notice that most radio stations don't play anything from before the 1950s, with holiday music being the notable exception. And even the stuff they play from the 50s and 60s is VERY selective. There's a bunch of reasons for that, but the music not reflecting positively on modern sensibilities is at least one of them.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,360
Longwood, FL
Isnt that whole song about a woman who wants to stay with a man, but is worried about her reputation with the neighbors because Gender Double Standards? She comes up with excuses others could use against her, and he helps explain them away. In the end, they both consent and agree that yes, it IS cold outside and lets stay together. Fuck what everybody else thinks.
Outrage from people who can't or won't take time to understand the song and its lyrics. A song about external pressures to conform to what society deems, is an acceptable image of a proper woman.

The drink part, for anyone that watches old movies, is a winking excuse by the woman (towards the man) for her behavior and desire. She's fast falling for him, and the promise of the evening. She's giving into her desire. And in a coy, playful way she attributes all the reason to the drink.



This is why dating Era is the mess that it is.
This is my take on the issue as well.

It’s a catchy song, and my wife enjoys it. At the end of day, I don’t give a shit if some Canadian station doesn’t play it anymore.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,476
but... you can't do that (disregard artistic intent). Problematic in 2018? of course. trash? no, because they were a product of their time.

white washing/sanitizing a culture's past carries significant consequences with it. it's worth pointing out how norms have changed, and something won't fly now. (even if she was ok with it, no means no. etc) but saying "This art should not be appreciated because NOW social norms are different" skirts genuine censorship. (and "skirts" is being very generous there. it's censorship)
It perpetuates harmful ideas about consent, regardless of what was intended originally, because the artist’s intent is not blatantly obvious without research and a history lesson. Call it censorship or whatever you want to, but we have a responsibility to fight back against the notion of “no doesn’t always mean no” because of the incredibly real harm it continues to cause. It would be completely irresponsible to do otherwise, and I doubt the artist’s feelings will be hurt when we don’t interpret the song as he intended, considering he’s dead.
 
Oct 25, 2017
11,006
USA
It perpetuates harmful ideas about consent, regardless of what was intended originally, because the artist’s intent is not blatantly obvious without research and a history lesson. Call it censorship or whatever you want to, but we have a responsibility to fight back against the notion of “no doesn’t always mean no” because of the incredibly real harm it continues to cause. It would be completely irresponsible to do otherwise, and I doubt the artist’s feelings will be hurt when we don’t interpret the song as he intended, considering he’s dead.
It's important to understand that this is not censorship. Anybody who thinks it is needs to take a hard look at the misinformation they're spreading.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,681
I just don’t see it. It seems obvious to me she’s fighting not to stay because of the societal expectations for women back then, not because she doesn’t actually want to.
 

L Thammy

Spacenoid
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,297
Somehow I've never heard this song before, or at least at so infrequently that I don't remember hearing it. But I've read about this before so it must have been a point of discussion for a while. Not the type of guy to be excited about Christmas but I like the tune.

As for the controversy itself, it reminds me of The Honeymooners. I've heard a case about Ralph's "one of these days, Alice, bam! Right in the kisser" catchphrase which I think makes sense. It isn't suggesting that he's physically abuse, since "one of these days" implies that he's never actually hit her before. Alice never takes the threat seriously, which suggests that she doesn't believe there to be any actual weight behind it.

But even if the intent was to show that Ralph rather than Alice had the power, it still looks pretty horrendous to have a husband threatening to beat his wife in a comedy, and people might think that the threat is bad enough or that the topic isn't . I can understand that too, so I can't take an issue with people taking either side unless it's coupled with other questionable behaviour, like whining that others have the concern in the first place.

I'm in the same place with this song. I understand the arguments for what the song was intended to be, so okay, I can see how people would take it as an inoffensive song. I can also see how many of the song comes across very poorly anyway, and how at one of its lines sounds a lot worse now because the phrase in it is no longer familiar, and how you might not feel like the woman's unstated intentions justify how the man reacts to what she says. So I can understand why broadcasters might pull the song, even if it's just because they don't feel like it's worth the trouble of having to discuss it. I end up being more concerned with why someone would take a particular stance on this song rather than what the stance they take is.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
855
It's a self-imposed ban.

So...ban.
What?
By that definition a christian station is banning all non christian music. Don't try to play cute here you're specifically using the world to fear monger in the name of freedom of speech. if you weren't why were you using all radio stations in your stupid comparison?
 
Oct 27, 2017
855
I just don’t see it. It seems obvious to me she’s fighting not to stay because of the societal expectations for women back then, not because she doesn’t actually want to.
Regardless of it how her reason not to stay. How many times does she have to say NO before the guy respect her decision?
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,170
Canada
I just don’t see it. It seems obvious to me she’s fighting not to stay because of the societal expectations for women back then, not because she doesn’t actually want to.
So just because she wants to be there, it's OK to ignore a woman's protests, to consider them feigned objection regardless of their potential merit or to consider her real concerns as less important than anything else?

Her wanting to stay doesn't belittle or invalidate her other real concerns, considering the implications of them.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,411
UK
So the Cerys Mathews and Tom Jones version has the strangest music video interpretation right?

I think the director must have just seen Twin Peaks and thought the Lodge was rad.

 
Aug 2, 2018
32
The thread is about a radio station pulling a song because of its misogynistic message/tone. If you believe that should be the standard going forward and that any song open to interpretation of being problematic should be removed then why can’t we discuss other songs or genre of music that should also be removed according to this standard?
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,488
Omni
So the Cerys Mathews and Tom Jones version has the strangest music video interpretation right?

I think the director must have just seen Twin Peaks and thought the Lodge was rad.

Wtf lmao


This is the first time I seen this version , looks so bizarre lol

Looks like a Halloween music video
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,489
Portland, OR
If I was listening to the song in 40s, I would have a 40s perspective of it. If i'm listening to it in 2018, I have a 2018 perspective on it. And with that in mind, I'd rather not hear it, nor have any little girls hear lyrics like that and think its at all a construct of the current world they live in.
This is a good point as well. I remember loving Disney's Peter Pan when I was a kid. Last year I watched it with my own daughter and thought, yeah, we're never watching this again; I don't want a call from her daycare asking why she's singing "What Makes the Red Man Red." Context changes over time, so even things that were considered perfectly benign at some point in the past may be viewed differently by subsequent generations. If you have to contextualize why a song is not about rape every time you play it, maybe find something else to put in your holly jolly playlist.
 
Oct 27, 2017
617
but... you can't do that (disregard artistic intent). Problematic in 2018? of course. trash? no, because they were a product of their time.

white washing/sanitizing a culture's past carries significant consequences with it. it's worth pointing out how norms have changed, and something won't fly now. (even if she was ok with it, no means no. etc) but saying "This art should not be appreciated because NOW social norms are different" skirts genuine censorship. (and "skirts" is being very generous there. it's censorship)
Do you consider it censorship that the really old really hyper-racist cartoons aren't shown on TV any more? I mean, social norms were different back then, right?
 
Oct 27, 2017
541
I just don’t see it. It seems obvious to me she’s fighting not to stay because of the societal expectations for women back then, not because she doesn’t actually want to.
Why does her reason for saying no matter? She is allowed to say no. She does say no. He insists because he believes he knows better.

The message sent by the wolf catching the mouse in the end may have been cute and acceptable in it's time. It no longer is and people are allowed the freedom to play the song or not.
 
Oct 27, 2017
414
I just don’t see it. It seems obvious to me she’s fighting not to stay because of the societal expectations for women back then, not because she doesn’t actually want to.
The thing is, she says no again and again and again and again and again. Who gets to decide whether or not she actually means it? The man. Yes, it's reflective of gender dynamics in the 1940s, but that is not something that needs to be celebrated in 2018.
 
Oct 25, 2017
11,006
USA
The thread is about a radio station pulling a song because of its misogynistic message/tone. If you believe that should be the standard going forward and that any song open to interpretation of being problematic should be removed then why can’t we discuss other songs or genre of music that should also be removed according to this standard?
Are there other popular songs that discuss a woman saying no and being pursued anyways (via verbal manipulation)? This thread is specifically about the song itself (in the context of saying "no" and the current MeToo movement) and the radio station's choice not to play it. It seems to me if there are other songs you take issue with, maybe creating a separate thread would be a better course of action.
ban all christmas music
Literally not at all what is happening here.
 
Dec 8, 2017
1,105
My first thought is that no one is playing a B-side from George Michael on the radio any time soon.
But beyond that, yeah, it ain't a great song for its context.
You know your George Michael but you'd be wrong! Song just came up on the radio last night (late night lunar rotation but still).
What if someone notices and they extend the ban to Last Christmas !
Though he does say that "he remains a gentleman" after those verses.
 
Oct 27, 2017
855
The thread is about a radio station pulling a song because of its misogynistic message/tone. If you believe that should be the standard going forward and that any song open to interpretation of being problematic should be removed then why can’t we discuss other songs or genre of music that should also be removed according to this standard?
The standard should be that the station does what it thinks best and the public decides if they were right via the free market. Also like I said in the other post the problem with this specific song is not so much that it is insulting or misogynistic but that it normalizes the "No means yes" point of view that often results in date rape and sexual assault. Another option would be to play a message at the beginning of the song reminding men that the song is a product of its time and " No means No" Always