Politics
#metoo Doesn’t Help Women Only Ruins Classics As “Baby It’s Cold Outside” Is Banned
A radio station in Ohio pulled a Christmas oldie from its playlist because some people could be offended by its rakish lyrics — and a Kansas City radio station is catching grief for it.
Cleveland’s WDOK shares the same place on the dial as KCKC-FM, aka KC 102.1.
The Cleveland station pulled “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” because afternoon host Glenn Anderson thought it was inappropriate in the #MeToo era. Mostly, the song, written by Frank Loesser in 1944, is a clever back-and-forth between a man making advances and a resistant woman. But one of her lines, “Say, what’s in this drink?” jumps out in this time of powerful men like Bill Cosby having to pay the consequences of sexual assault.
“It seems very manipulative and wrong,” Anderson wrote in a statement. “The world we live in is extra sensitive now, and people get easily offended, but in a world where #MeToo has finally given women the voice they deserve, the song has no place
The story took off. The women on TV’s “The View” thought the reaction was a little too much.
[wps_products_gallery product_id=”4333823230003, 4344714494003, 4335189000243″]
5 Comments
While I feel it is very pertinent for a woman to be concerned over what it in the drink, the plain and simple truth of the matter is that she just don’t have to drink it. GET OVER IT Liberals!
And, you have to remember that as time and culture advances, stuff may not mean the same as it did in the original scheme of things. Should the woman be concerned about what was in the drink then? Absolutely. Should she be concerned today? Absolutely! But it is ultimately up to her to decide whether or not to take the drink. If the feller holds her down and forces her to drink it, that changed the rules.
Just my opinion.
It’s almost embarrassing to be a woman now, with idiots implying that we don’t have enough sense to make rational decisions! The women I know can surely listen to a cute, old song without “getting their panties in a wad!” Let the women who are not offended by everything they hear make their own decisions about whether they want to listen! Just leave those of us who like to make our own choices alone!!and don’t count us in “all” the women!!!
In response to Doug’s comment, it is not “Liberal” thing to think that it is inappropriate for a woman’s or any person’s drink to be spiked for the purpose of coercion. Wheither it’s her decision to take the drink or not the drink is a moot point. The point is whether it is appropriate for someone to be putting something a drink to coerce someone. I hope that you are not saying that the Right is okay with spiking a drink, “as long as the feller doesn’t hold her down and force her to drink it”. I, for one, do not advocate this type of behavior and think many of us conservatives would not.
Phillip
Thank you for your response!
I was absolutely not saying it is ok so spike someone’s drink for the purposes of coercion (or any other reason for that matter) and I thank you for bringing that up! I would not advocate for anything oppressive to women or anyone else for that matter.
My point was directed at the responsibility of the woman (or whoever, could be a man as well) to be smart enough to choose whether or not to drink something offered without first inquiring about it’s contents and then choosing whether or not to partake in it. The “liberal” reference was directed at those who consider them selves to be liberal who are crybabies and are just looking for things to cry about. With all the things that need to be fixed in this world, they are crying about the lyrics (actually only ONE LINE of lyrics) in a 74 year old song . . . all of a sudden!
I agree with their point that maybe it is an oppressive lyric, but the question is, why does it all of a sudden matter now? It’s been out there, in the wide open for 74 YEARS! Even the WOMEN sang it, by MANY artists, many years, many times since it was written and now, all of a sudden it this horrible song?
Yet, these very same people, who are complaining about this song, will watch a movie on a popular TV network about rapes, murders, pedophilia and whatever and then go tell their friends to watch it as well! What is ti difference? A song talking about (possibly) spiking someone’s drink so they can (possibly) rape them (it don’t actually happen in the song) or the network tv movie where they SHOW the spiking, and then SHOW the woman getting raped or whatever.
So, no it is NOT alright to spike someone’s drink for any reason, and no it is not alright to do whatever you would to the recipient of the spiked drink and whatever else could possibly be dreamed up about the lyrics in a 74 year old song.
The same people who are crying about this are the same ones who are trying to remove the very reason for the season in the first place. There would be no Christmas or Holiday season if they had their way about it, so likely the song would have never been written!
I’m rather disappointed that anyone would object to this song being forbidden. I heard it for the first time last year, I thought it quite disgusting. It seems intended for Christmas, or the shopping season beforehand at least, yet neither mentions Christ’s looming birth, nor even suggests any virtuous social occasion. If anything, it seems bent on promoting (not so) subtle vice. I’m pleased to hear of this being removed from a playlist.
As for spiking a drink, I consider that inappropriate, yet not illegal. Ladies need to be genuinely equal in dignity with men, able to exercise judgement, not “innocent victims”. If a lady suspects any degree of mischief, she needs to decline the drink, or even leave. Period. I don’t care how much you think you might like halfway like him. If he’s worth knowing, he won’t mind being patient.