Good call. I think I’d heard of Garfunkel and Oates prior to this thread - at most with the vague sense they were a musical comedy act - but now I’ve been prompted to listen to at least a dozen of their songs and if Pregnant Women are Smug is to be viewed negatively, it’s only in comparison to their other work. Personally, pregnancy doesn’t really resonate with me as a topic for comedy, not because I hold it in any kind of reverence, but because I find it kind of disinteresting.
I have fewer than zero problems with this.
What is the next step in the conversation?
What is the next thought?
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. It is impossible to have less problems than zero. 
Later on in the thread, this was discussed further. A basic reply can be found in BigT’s post here
It is supposed to mean I not only have no problem with it, I see it as a good thing.
Yep. I have a credit from iTunes and guess how I’m using some of it?
I’m not saying all or most or even a significant number walk around like that all the time. I’m saying that every single pregnant woman I have ever personally known has had at least one moment where that’s happened, even the ones who are normally perfectly nice, sane, unassuming folks. I guess they could have written “The vast majority of pregnant women are at least momentarily smug” instead, but that would have really fucked up the meter of the song.
Thank you. I somehow missed that.
Oh, ok.
But I would have liked it better dammit.
I kid. Honestly I’ve appreciated what you’ve had to say. I think we’ve reached the limit of what we can say constructively, though–it’d be a version of “yes they do,” “no they don’t,” etc. 
No problem at all.
You know… crap. I think my initial reply to SuperDude was wrongheaded. Goddammit.
I’m sorry SuperDude and almost everyone else* who was thinking the same thing he was thinking. I should have just replied with text like what BigT said. I think I’ll probably just use that post as a standard link if the subject ever comes up again.
But for me to say everyone should see it ahead of time, well, that was just mean. People are different and different things are important to different people and different things are salient for completely innocent reasons.
*I exclude njtt from this apology.
Thank you for this. (except the last sentence?) That was the major thing that ticked me off in your replies, that you know what my next thought should be and why don’t I just go ahead and think it.
I ascribed my not knowing to only having been here 7 years, not 13, and basically thought “Well, I’m over halfway there to finding out the really good shit!”
Frylock, I apologize for not quite letting this thread die, but I have a question for you. It may seem unrelated at first, but indulge me. I’m going somewhere with it.
Did you ever watch the show Mystery Science Theater 3000?
The reason I ask is because of the theme song. If you listen to the lyrics, it specifically says:
I’m not trying to be snarky. I’m really not. Songs don’t always have to depict real life. Johnny Cash didn’t really shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die. At least, I don’t think he did. If he did, good on him for confessing to murder, and still getting away with it.
It’s fiction. It’s satire. It’s a generalization.
It’s commentary and delivering a message. What is wrong with analyzing that message?
Do you think art is not a reflection of the culture? Do you think art does not influence the culture?
The MST song’s message in that section tells you to dismiss your scientific concerns about a work of fiction. I don’t think it’s trying to say that songs, by their very nature, are irrelevant.
When Johnny Cash sings about the guy he did not actually shoot in Reno, he is inviting us to imagine the mindset of this fictional fellow who ignored his mama’s good advice and now must pay for his mistake forever. The fact that it didn’t happen and he is merely speculating about what it would feel like doesn’t make the song unworthy of further discussion.
I have often thought that singers should only be allowed to sing of things they have actually experienced (you know, like Taylor Swift), with actual written provenance to back it up, 'cause otherwise, damn, it’s a free-for-all innit?
I’ve been itching all morning to answer the post, but the above pretty much covers it. 
Can I point out, in a friendly way, the irony of using a song’s (the MST3K theme) lyrics as part of an argument that we shouldn’t take songs’ lyrics seriously?
Way to completely misread the room. Thanks for this brilliant and oh-so-necessary comment.:rolleyes:
I think it’s a decent illustration of the premise that some portions of art/pop culture/society are allowed to be irrelevant, and not every premise in the arts is meant to be accepted as 100% factual.
With all due respect, you’re making my point for me. Garfunkle and Oates are inviting us to imagine the mindset of someone who thinks that pregnant women are smug, and that they are merely speculating that everyone knows it. But nobody says it because they’re pregnant. The fact that not all pregnant women are smug is part of the humor. It’s akin to people who say, “oh, kids are great at [insert age here].” Not all of them are. But we pretend.
I really don’t think that’s what a lot of people are laughing at when they laugh with this song. In this very thread we have people affirming that it’s funny because it’s true.
er, no. :rolleyes:
So what happens when Frylock puts more effort into analyzing the song than Garfunkel and Oates put into writing it? Does he get also get a series on IFC?
There is no “pregnant women are smug” stereotype that existed for them to make fun of. They created it and it rings true for people. That’s what makes it funny (if anything).