You know what's actually dumb? The idiot's version of critical thinking where there's only one specific correct interpretation of this song, which happens to be yours, and that because it was okay in 1944 means it's okay now. You don't get to shout "nuance!" and then immediately remove all nuance by insisting the status quo is correct and everyone who says otherwise is just wrong.I get the implications in the song on a surface level being a turn off, but this is kind of ridiculous to me.
It does seem to me like society at large has been dumbed down to the point where nuance is no longer a thing, and critical thinking, and analysis are no longer applied to popular media.
I think the best response instead of hiding the song from people is to actually educate them on its meaning. Or god forbid people actually do the work themselves. But no, everything has to be safe and sanitized. Can't have anything challenging anymore.
I think this is why we often have such huge divides when it comes to critic and audience reactions to media.
He's not physically raping her so it's not a problem? You have no idea what consent means.Why do you keep pushing that one single interpretation? The guy is only using words. He isn't physically stopping her from leaving, he isn't pushing her towards the bed, he isn't keeping her purse from her. They clearly have an ongoing relationship and this is a part of their routine. Everything about the creation of the actual song, the way it was used, and the intent behind it is playful and consensual. You have to jump through hoops to come up with a sexual assault interpretation by assigning malicious intent to the male and stripping all agency from the female, making her into someone who literally has no desire to be there and no ability to leave.
It is a good tool to use to highlight consent, context, and social dynamics (of the time, anyway) and how they can be misinterpreted, but certainly nothing about the classic versions of this song merit being pulled from the air (the Tom Jones version with a woman in a cage though....yikes).
He's not physically raping her so it's not a problem? You have no idea what consent means.
Can we stop with the argument that stuff like this is enough to drive good people away from "the left"? If they had one foot out the door already that's on them.The overreaction to this song was a mistake. When taken within context, the meaning of the song is very clear. This is one of those dumb shit issues that cause less-/non-left-leaning people to think of the left as ridiculous, and I have to say in this case I would agree.
So I can deliberately misinterpret old films and songs any way I want, completely ignoring context?What context? We're listening to the radio today, not back then.
Yep. Just people who don't want to have a conversation trying to shut it down.You know what's actually dumb? The idiot's version of critical thinking where there's only one specific correct interpretation of this song, which happens to be yours, and that because it was okay in 1944 means it's okay now. You don't get to shout "nuance!" and then immediately remove all nuance by insisting the status quo is correct and everyone who says otherwise is just wrong
So I can deliberately misinterpret old films and songs any way I want, completely ignoring context?
Damn. Didn't know I could just tell history to fuck off. This opens up so many possibilities for me.
Why do you keep pushing that one single interpretation? The guy is only using words. He isn't physically stopping her from leaving, he isn't pushing her towards the bed, he isn't keeping her purse from her. They clearly have an ongoing relationship and this is a part of their routine. Everything about the creation of the actual song, the way it was used, and the intent behind it is playful and consensual. You have to jump through hoops to come up with a sexual assault interpretation by assigning malicious intent to the male and stripping all agency from the female, making her into someone who literally has no desire to be there and no ability to leave.
It is a good tool to use to highlight consent, context, and social dynamics (of the time, anyway) and how they can be misinterpreted, but certainly nothing about the classic versions of this song merit being pulled from the air (the Tom Jones version with a woman in a cage though....yikes).
Oh so spicy!You deliberately misinterpret arguments, so moving on to film and music should be pretty easy.
Oh so spicy!
I don't think I misconstrued it, I just took his argument to it's logical conclusion.
He and others here say context doesn't matter anymore because it's 2018... This can be applied to everything and anything else.
The entire song before she says "The answer is no" she's been playing a game with the guy. He's batting away her excuses because it's obvious she wants to stay. She wants to stay and have sex but societal expectations did not give women the agency to control their sexuality back then. They were expected to say no to sex even if they wanted it. No shit she's gonna say no... but she doesn't believe in her "no" no more than he does!I don't know that that is what they're saying. I think people are saying that the context has changed and that toxic masculinity (not taking no for an answer and talking women into sex) is something that should be minimized.
In the 40s it could have been acceptable to push and push until a woman agreed to have sex. In <current year> it is less accepted and has led to certain men not understanding consent.
The wolf in this song catches the mouse. Mice in today's society who are uncomfortable with "the implication" have asked for this one song to not be played, and a business thought that it was a reasonable request.
For a long time, for all of the Nation's history in fact, this conversation never would have been taken seriously. People have talked about the implications of this song for a long time, this isn't something new, it's just that the tides are finally starting to turn to where people's voices are being listened to. Many more people are starting to understand the prevalence of things like rape culture and misogyny, and beyond that they are realizing how shitty it is and they want to change it. That's an overall net positive, because these are things that do have to be addressed for us to move our society forward in the right direction, and if the price of that is an old Christmas song that most people probably didn't give a shit about before they heard a station didn't want to play it, that's a small price to pay.Yeesh, it shit like this that really confirms that society is just way to sensitive these days.
Can you elaborate at all on why you find it dumb?
By interpretation, you mean that I'm describing what's happening in the song? That's not so much interpreting as being able to read.
Also, it doesn't really matter that he's not physically preventing her from leaving or hiding her things so she can't leave. She has very clearly verbally expressed her preference, and he continues browbeating her to try to change her mind. "No means no" is a model on the way out for a number of reasons, but situations like this are explicitly what it was meant to convey. He floated the idea, she said no, and it's important that he respect her agency by respecting that no instead of trying to bicker with her about why she should change her mind just because he's horny.
He's not physically raping her so it's not a problem? You have no idea what consent means.
What consent do you need to sit on a couch and talk to someone who can leave whenever they want? The song is practically on the level of
"Hey, try this chocolate éclair"
"No, I don't like chocolate"
"But this is fancy European chocolate, not that super sweet milk chocolate stuff"
"I'm pretty full from dinner"
"Aww, you look great, spoil yourself"
"But what if I break out?"
"Your skin is gorgeous"
"No, I really don't think so"
"Aww, come on, just a small bite, I promise you will like it"
"Ok, fine"
There is no force, threat of force, or anything else. The guy is just presenting an argument and the woman is responding with some excuses because while she WANTS to stay, she feels like she shouldn't.
"The answer is no"What consent do you need to sit on a couch and talk to someone who can leave whenever they want? The song is practically on the level of
"Hey, try this chocolate éclair"
"No, I don't like chocolate"
"But this is fancy European chocolate, not that super sweet milk chocolate stuff"
"I'm pretty full from dinner"
"Aww, you look great, spoil yourself"
"But what if I break out?"
"Your skin is gorgeous"
"No, I really don't think so"
"Aww, come on, just a small bite, I promise you will like it"
"Ok, fine"
There is no force, threat of force, or anything else. The guy is just presenting an argument and the woman is responding with some excuses because while she WANTS to stay, she feels like she shouldn't.
Wow, no reason to get insulting. I already said I understand the implications of the lyrics in modern culture. But you and I both know the intent of the song is not to be about date rape. My problem is people being unwilling to look further than what is on the surface. That kind of thinking, and criticism gets us nowhere.You know what's actually dumb? The idiot's version of critical thinking where there's only one specific correct interpretation of this song, which happens to be yours, and that because it was okay in 1944 means it's okay now. You don't get to shout "nuance!" and then immediately remove all nuance by insisting the status quo is correct and everyone who says otherwise is just wrong.
And yes, this song is a product of it's time, but it's played as light entertainment, not a history lesson. It should not be surprising that at least some people find that problematic.
I mean it was seemed pretty clear from how the song came to be that the song isn't supposed to be taken that way, and Neptune's Daughter reinforces that, but radio stations are free to play what they want. Not a favourite of mine anyway.
The only songs that should be on a good christmas playlist are:
Last Christmans (Wham)
Fairytale of New York (The Pogues & Kirsty McColl)
I Wish It Could Be Christmas Everyday (Wizzard)
Merry Xmas Everybody (Slade)
Christmas Wrapping (The Waitresses)
Merry Christmas Everyone (Shakin' Stevens) and Christmas Time - Don't Let the Bells End (The Darkness) are decent too
Citing audience input, CBC has reversed its decision to remove the holiday track Baby, It's Cold Outside from seasonal playlists.
"Last week, we decided to press pause to consider the different points of view on playing Baby, It's Cold Outside. Because we value our audience input, which was overwhelmingly to include the song, we have put it back on the two playlists where it had been removed," Chuck Thompson, CBC's head of public affairs, said in a statement Tuesday
Bell Media, which runs a pair of 24-hour Christmas stations, said it hadn't included Baby, It's Cold Outside on its playlist this year and didn't plan to reintroduce it in the future, according to a spokesperson.
Rogers, which operates several all-Christmas music stations, said last week it had removed the song without noting a reason why. There is no change to the earlier decision, Caitlin Decarie, communications manager for Rogers Radio, said Tuesday afternoon.
How is this so hard for people to understand. And I like the assumption that "well it must secretly be a yes" since she's making up excuses lol.
"The answer is no"How hard is it for you to understand that she does want to stay but she's worried about what others will think about her. They're both coming up with excuses so that they don't get shunned for their actions.
I actually think that going out on this kind of limb devalues the good work causes like "me too" do because it makes them look as if they're trying to latch on to anything that could remotely be related. People don't need to be making these kind of stretches.