Cleveland radio station bans Christmas song

[dtilque]

@ElvisL1ves

I’d accept banning “The Little Drummer Boy” if it meant keeping “Baby, It’s Cold Outside”. I’d ban it anyway, though, so maybe that doesn’t count.

I’d ban the whole kit and caboodle of them. As I said, I was disappointed the last word in the subject line was not plural. I hate pretty much all Christmas music, but yeah, that one is one of the worst.

[DrDeth]

@Baker

Cite?

This thread and a bunch of FB posts and articles, like the OP.

I mean they announced it, right?

[Gyrate]

@Penfeather

Flanders and Swann’s “Madeira, M’Dear” hasn’t dated well, either, being very explicitly about date rape:

Ngg…sort of. Yes, he’s trying to get her drunk to take advantage of her…but as the section you quote indicates, she leaves (out into the “cool midnight air”) but then comes back of her own volition, knowing perfectly well what awaits. And awakes with “a smile on her lips”. So while the man was clearly willing to ply her with alcohol to, at the very least, lower her inhibitions, in this particular instance the woman had full agency.

[Corry_El]

@Just_Asking_Questions

The station isn’t any where near me, so I don’t care.

And I find it insane that people don’t allow for changes in the times. A LOT of offensive stuff used to be more mainstream, and we rightly have stopped using those things. The justification that “it used to mean this” doesn’t acknowledge that we are no longer living in the past. “It” now means something else, and you have to accept that.

It’s all a matter of degree. When you have to closely analyze then debate what about the song is ‘creepy’ it’s a good sign IMO things have gotten carried away. Which they very obviously have IMO, and polls tend to show large majorities agree, PC in general (and this is one form) has gotten carried away.

I think when one has to prepare a fall back position of ‘well I really don’t care’ (nobody in their right might really cares what a Cleveland radio station plays) ‘it’s not a big deal’, I think that’s just another indication how weak the argument is for this kind of book burning.

It also would not be entirely trivial if the ban were extended and included the best performances of this song by jazz artists, vocal/instrumental renditions, some are really quite good. Whereas, sure, the playing of cheezy versions of Christmas songs non-stop on the radio is annoying to a lot of people to begin, traditionalist even religious people. I flee it when possible.

Still, this is overboard. One small case of overboard in a big series of them, but still.

[Boozahol_Squid_P.I]

@Acsenray

That pretty much establishes that the song itself has a reprehensible point of view.

Nonsense. It establishes that the song has a sense of humor.

[Guinastasia]

How about not liking it because it’s kind of a stupid song? That and I’m tired of all the bitching about it.

[clairobscur]

@BigT

It’s not just the “what’s in this drink?” line. It’s all of the lyrics. Everything the woman says is a polite no that deflects blame, which is not an uncommon way to say no to avoid the guy getting angry at you. Consider “I’m not looking for a relationship right now” or “It’s not you, it’s me.” It’s the same sort of thing.

Some have brought up the idea that it is token resistance to save face. But I see two problems with that. The first is just how many of these she has to give. It just seems like she would have given in long before this. Heck, in the actual lyrics, she never actually does give in. And, when she does give in, it’s just “okay, one more drink.” She never says yes, just acting like she was badgered into it because he wouldn’t stop countering her polite excuses.

The intended meaning of the song in context is blatantly obvious. She has no desire whatsoever to leave.

Now, if you absolutely intend to read it totally literally and without taking account neither the intended meaning nor the context of the time, I would point out that if the song doesn’t literally say that she wants to stay, it doesn’t say anywhere that the man wants to have sex, either. He’s only worried that she might catch a cold or something if she gets out. If you’re perfectly able and feel allowed to infer that the song is about a romantic encounter and eventually sex despite it not being mentioned, you’re perfectly able too to infer the other intended meaning despite it not being mentioned either.

You’re trying to have it both ways by accepting the intended but not expressed meaning and making inferences when it serves your argumentation (he wants to have sex with her, basically) and refusing to do so when it doesn’t (she wants to have sex with him, basically). Either you take it literally, and he’s just worried that she might become ill if she goes out, or you take the intended meaning and cultural context into account, and they both want to spend the night together.

Then there’s the second problem: the underlying idea of the token no is problematic. It was basically the thing that was used to justify not taking “no” for an answer, saying that, even if she says no, she doesn’t really mean it. You had men require an unequivocal “no” while women were encouraged to never be directly negative and hurt the guy.

And? Any song, movie, book that refers to cultural traits that you consider now as problematic shouldn’t be played, projected, published? Should we immediately shred all cultural production that is older than about 10 years, because it’s necessarily going to include such references? And do so again every ten years so that everything we listen to, watch or read is up to date with the current mores? That’s what the radio station seems to think is appropriate. Do you agree? If not, what should be done about this alleged “problem”? Preface the song with a 30 minutes long lecture about gender relations and common memes in the 50s?

Even without that, what you guys are saying is still embracing a sexist system. Why did women have to give a token no in your framework? Because people would think badly of her. But why that? Because women weren’t allowed to control their bodies and have sex with who they wanted. They were judged as sluts and whores for enjoying sex. The entire trope was based on the sexist mores of the day.

And? Nobody has said otherwise. People have in fact specifically pointed out that the song was about this.

And I won’t act like “You’re just reading too much into it.” or “It’s old, so it’s fine.” No, it’s old, and I get there was no nefarious intent, but it still is problematic. And that’s okay.

No, it’s not problematic anymore than, say, watching any movie from the 50s or reading any book written more than 50 years ago. If this is problematic, then all past artistic production is problematic. There’s zero problem with people being confronted with the novel concepts that the world was different when Shakespeare was witting, that not everything is always spelled out in clear and unambiguous terms, that context matters, and that not every work of art is an educational project intended to teach them how to live their life.

What is problematic is when people, seemingly either unable or unwilling to comprehend such things, demand ban and censorship of anything that isn’t strictly tailored to conform to and flatter their views and expectations. Or when people who perfectly understand that make deliberate efforts to find issues by taking context and intent into account when it suits their argument and not when it doesn’t so that they can find a nefarious message that isn’t there.

[clairobscur]

Oh, and by the way, this is another example of virtue signaling. The radio station executives very probably don’t give a shit about what what a 70 yo old song says and very probably also understand its context, or so I hope even though things might be worst than I think. But they want to please the ban-everything-that-I-don’t-understand-and-find-offensive-as-a-result crowd by showing how virtuous a radio station they are.

[clairobscur]

@Mtgman

There’s still that pressure from society, in some ways it’s expanded. Especially with social media where someone can be effectively libeled anonymously and instantly. But in other ways it’s lessened. There’s less judgment about cohabitating(living in sin) or hooking up or having friends with benefits. Fetishes and kinks are openly discussed and even celebrated in certain ways(50 Shades of Gray anyone?). There’s less social opprobrium now than at almost any other time in history.

But recently there has been a more and more prevalent sex-negative attitude. Even though there might have been more hang ups 30 years ago and less overt talk about some things, there was a general attitude, except in the most conservative crowd, that sex was a good thing and that going towards more sexual expression and more sexual freedom was the proper path. Nowadays, sexuality is more and more presented as a minefield that you must navigate extremely cautiously, with any misstep having the potential to destroy your and your partner psyche and soul.

[DrDeth]

@clairobscur

Oh, and by the way, this is another example of virtue signaling. The radio station executives very probably don’t give a shit about what what a 70 yo old song says and very probably also understand its context, or so I hope even though things might be worst than I think. But they want to please the ban-everything-that-I-don’t-understand-and-find-offensive-as-a-result crowd by showing how virtuous a radio station they are.

No, it was a publicity stunt.