Because for all intents and purposes, most of them have already been voluntarily excluded from several radio stations.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?
Why would they extend the ban to a completely different song with entirely different lyrics from a band that just happens to include George Michael? That situation you're describing beggars belief.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.
I'm just going to point out that you're free to post a thread or otherwise start a discussion about any other song that you find concerning. The existence of one conversation does not somehow mean that other conversation is not allowed to happen.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.
Literally not at all what is happening here.
Why the shell game? Why can’t you just say you support the removal of all problematic music from the radio? Do you think it’s some sort of gotcha statement I’m after? Just looking for a little consistency.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
Good postOutrage 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.
For starters is not being removed from the radio It is being removed from a Few stations. Looking for consistency well then why don't you have an issue with christian stations not playing Eminem? Stop overflowing the issue, just let the station be and listen to the song trough other station's or itunes.
What are you even trying to do here. "Problematic" is incredibly subjective. Do I wish there were less misogynistic songs on the radio? Yes and I wish radio stations would pick and choose songs that have less or none of it. But I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
Man, that was just a joke in the light of, say, the recent calls to boycott the whole lovecraftian horror genre because of the author's ideas and other such exhortations to dismiss some artist's entire production because of their stance on certain topics.
That's because literally no one is saying it. You just weirdly believe we are for some reason. Again, "offensive" and "problematic" are almost meaningless descriptors in this context. I still have no clue as what point you're trying to make.The original quote I posted made a joke pointing out that most people raising a fuss about this will gladly go back to listening to music filled with other misogynistic tones without batting an eye. I simply expanded on that and was asking if those in favor of removing this song support removal of all offensive songs. Why stop at one? But everyone seems to dance around saying all offensive music should be removed.
Don't bother engaging with that poster, it's not a good-faith argument. People do this all the time, pretend to critique any kind of advocacy or social change because it isn't perfect or consistent enough, when their real goal is to deflect from the current discussion to shut it down.
You realize that when you put the song in context, the woman in it really wants to stay but is actually struggling against that time's cultural and societal norms, as well as an overbearing and controlling family?2 additional things:
Yeah, Santa Baby has had a reputation for depicting women as materialistic gold-diggers using their feminine wiles to get what they want for a while now, so I imagine that's going to be the next one down. And I'm OK with that, if only because it's not a terribly great song.
Also, while a lot of the discussion is around the woman in this song, we haven't spent a lot of time about how the song re-enforces toxic masculinity.
Fellas defending this song, do you really want a song that furthers the stereotype that men view sex like a Man Scout merit badge and that a man's pride is so easily wounded by not getting with someone he wants to bone?
This is likely a big part of their rationale behind the pull for anyone wondering why they haven't nuked half of rap and metal from the airwaves.
I love how catchy "Baby, It's Cold Outside" is but clearly has disturbing lyrics. Maybe someone can write an alternative version?
During the 1940s, when Hollywood celebrities attended parties, they were expected to perform. In 1944, Frank Loesser wrote "Baby, It's Cold Outside" for his wife, Lynn Garland, and himself to sing at a housewarming party in New York City at the Navarro Hotel. They sang the song to indicate to guests that it was time to leave. Loesser often introduced himself as the "evil of two Loessers" because of the role he played in the song.
Garland wrote that after the first performance, "We become instant parlor room stars. We got invited to all the best parties for years on the basis of 'Baby.' It was our ticket to caviar and truffles. Parties were built around our being the closing act." In 1948, after years of performing the song, Loesser sold it to MGM for the 1949 romantic comedy Neptune's Daughter. Garland was furious, and wrote, "I felt as betrayed as if I'd caught him in bed with another woman."
In the film, "Baby, It's Cold Outside" was sung by Esther Williams and Ricardo Montalbán, then by Betty Garrett and Red Skelton, who reversed the roles. The song won the Academy Award.
Because "she wants it" is an adequate justification to ignore someone saying no, amirite?You realize that when you put the song in context, the woman in it really wants to stay but is actually struggling against that time's cultural and societal norms, as well as an overbearing and controlling family?
That's why in it, at the end, the duet combines and they both sing "It's cold outside", among other things.
I'm totally down if it ends in the bear eating them both
And again you are leaving the whole context off.Because "she wants it" is an adequate justification to ignore someone saying no, amirite?
Again, as I said earlier in the thread, the man in this song has (either unknowingly or willfully) put her in the impossible position of either persisting with blatantly saying no to a man's advances, which was unheard of in the 1940s, or risking being branded a slut and shunned for life by her family and peers, which is the least terrible thing that happened to women branded that way in the 1940s. And neither situation has a happy ending in the "historical context" people love to bang on about.
As feminist blog Persephone Magazine noted in 2010, the song’s historical context matters. At the time they were written, an unmarried woman staying the night at her beau’s was cause for scandal. It’s this fear we see reflected in the lyrics, more than any aversion on the part of the woman to staying the night.
She never expresses any personal distaste at the idea, rather pointing out that her “sister will be suspicious,” her “maiden aunt’s mind is vicious.” Really, then, we are hearing a battle between his entreaties and her reputation.
In this light, the song could be read as an advocacy for women’s sexual liberation rather than a tune about date rape.
I wouldn't inherently take this as an excuse . If the song said hey quit grabbing me. But c'mon doll don't be such a prude .... it would be offensive anyway
Stupid people have been banning art for puritanical and uneducated ideological reasons for a long time. It's one of things humans are really good at.
And ruin everything by not trying to recreate the childhood Christmas visions of baby boomers every year? We already let Mariah Carey slip through. Have you gone mad?
Radio stations deciding not to play songs for moral reasons is censorship. This is even more blatant when the radio station is owned by a sovereign nation.
Choosing to remove a song from a particular playlist is not censorship. They're exercising their free speech in taking a stance on the content in the song. They're not pretending like it doesn't exist or keeping anyone from actually hearing said song, or hiding it. They decided to keep it off of their own playlists for ethical reasons.Radio stations deciding not to play songs for moral reasons is censorship. This is even more blatant when the radio station is owned by a sovereign nation.
The CBC, Rogers, and Bell banning a song is censorship. The BBC used to make or break artists. If you had objectionable material like references to illegal narcotics, your recording career was shot and your single would never hit the charts.
You have a misunderstanding of what radio censorship is and how the consolidation of radio stations in the 90s made censorship much easier.
In this particular circumstance, Baby It's Cold Outside is already established as a classic covered by many of the greatest Jazz singers of the 20th century and a song which has proven its merit to be on rotation. So, that's something we don't have to worry about. I believe you are objectively wrong in this circumstance though.
I agree that the drink line is overblown. But the disregard for consent is still present and the fact that they ended up married is not worthy of creating an exemption. Again, it's the 1940s, unmarried women were considered a blight on society at worst and a cautionary tale at best.And again you are leaving the whole context off.
This was written by a couple (married) duet, obviously to be sung by engaged / dating people in the context of the 40s.
If anything, the song is actually progressive because it features a Woman going against the societal norm of the times, and although saying No to cover the appearances of what is expected of her by society and her family, she very much wants to stay and even uses the common (back then) excuse for "inappropriate" behavior that the drink must contain more alcohol than she thought. But-but date rape pill right? In a 1940's song to be played at parties by a married couple?