While I can respect going after targets that represent a less than ideal situation "Baby, It's Cold Outside" should not be one of those targets. That's being attacked shows not only a fundamental lack of historical background, but a basic inability of reading comprehension. The song has eared its place as a winter classic, and there is no acceptable reason for it to have been slandered as much and as often as it has been, especially of late.
Here's the background for those not few not familiar: "Baby, It's Cold Outside" was first performed by a couple in 1944. In 1949, it became part of the movie "Neptune's Daughter", where it was performed twice. Since then it has become a perennial favorite to be sung around Christmas. The basic idea is that a woman is being hit on by a man, but is purposely acting coy so as to prolong the foreplay; eventually she relents and decides to stay the night with the gentleman. Overall, it's a fun, playful song that respects chastity while finding a loophole for a night's fun, especially as what they do is left strictly to the imagination.
Here's the problem: One of the more interesting aspects of World War II was that it was a major step forward for women. That is, because women had to take the place of men in factory in order to sustain the war effort and thus do something besides nurse, teacher, and secretary, it acted to liberate women in ways that had just never happened before. When the men came back there was just no putting that genie back into the bottle, but that didn't stop men from trying.
At the same time the Hayes Code was beginning to lose power. The Code acted to enforce conservative values, but its power was beginning to wane. In essence, it required the atmosphere encouraged by The Prohibition in order to exist, but once it had been repealed in 1932 the gloves started coming off. Production companies, many of which were about to face bankruptcy to the Great Depression, quickly noted that films with "racy" elements performed better and thus producing movies outside the usual framework began to become the norm rather than the exception.
What this all conspired to create was that, from the end of WWII to the late 1950s, the major productions were producing pretty much bland, non-challenging movies; this was the heyday of the musical and swashbuckling comedy as production companies tried to make money while adhering to a code that was becoming more outdated every year. It became an art form to slip "naughty" material into movies, risque material that threatened to cross the line (making the audience snicker as they caught the joke) but stayed well within the lines (making The Code's enforcers happy).
The end result of this was that movies were further and further removed from reality. They were forced to protect a conservative facade even as America became more liberal. Thus, while women were gaining greater freedoms off-screen, on-screen women were supposed to be demure and more damsels in distress and chaste lovers. While there were times this was flouted, it had to be done while allowing for The Hayes Code.
So, what does this have to do with the song? Well, a lot of the critics of the song have pointed out that the song represents mores of the time, and that it represents rape culture of the time, as she was unable to simply say "no"; after all, they argue, a woman had no choice when it came to sex and had to do what the man wanted. Women just weren't supposed to speak their mind and had to acquiesce to anything that men told them to; only by doing so could they be "real women", whatever that means.
There is a problem in basing your opinion of the times off a song in a musical, however. The reality is that women were able to say "no" and, in an era without reliable birth control, were expected to do so. This wasn't just some patriarchal stance based on the idea that deflowered women lost value; women of that era were just as promiscuous as the men. Rather, chastity prevented the spread of STDs and pregnancy; it's sort of interesting how many people forget that there was a serious interest in health at the time (one of the more interesting side effects of all that hygiene training in the military).
It also conveniently ignores that anyone forcing a woman into bed would have to deal with that woman's father and brothers, and possibly their friends. That applies double if she was impregnated by him (Roe v. Wade was still decades off, so abortion clinics were few and far between). That is, the woman has allowed to have sex as much as she wanted, but she did generally have a goon squad if she needed it. Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to make it seem like the 1940s was an orgy by any stretch of the imagination, just that the movies weren't exactly portraying reality all that well.
And that ignores that the drinks of the era were usually watered down, so "What's in this drink?" was seen as more of an excuse than anything real. The drink could therefore be used as a signal for the other person to back off or to charge forward without either side being offended. Unless of course it was used too often, but that's another issue.
So, what's this mean? It means that it was a cute song used to subvert a code seen as archaic and moronic; it was, in its own way, a protest against authority. Rather than trying to enforce rape culture, it was trying to show that women were in control. She could have shut him down any time, and if not she could have at least screamed for help. She was playing hard to get, and the two were having fun. If they weren't either could have called it off without fear of reprisal and if he didn't respect that it would have been seen as lacking civility at best and he would have faced severe repercussions, especially if her father and brothers lived nearby.
There's just no way it can be seen as the prelude to rape by anyone aware of the whole situation, and there was a lot going on. It's a great song that can be a lot of fun if done right, and the parts can be easily switched, as well as the level of aggression adjusted. It's just sort of weird that this song, which has some empowering elements, seems to come under attack every year. Sure, there are some things that should be attacked, but we need to start targeting those targets and enjoy some of the cooler things in life....
Here's the background for those not few not familiar: "Baby, It's Cold Outside" was first performed by a couple in 1944. In 1949, it became part of the movie "Neptune's Daughter", where it was performed twice. Since then it has become a perennial favorite to be sung around Christmas. The basic idea is that a woman is being hit on by a man, but is purposely acting coy so as to prolong the foreplay; eventually she relents and decides to stay the night with the gentleman. Overall, it's a fun, playful song that respects chastity while finding a loophole for a night's fun, especially as what they do is left strictly to the imagination.
Here's the problem: One of the more interesting aspects of World War II was that it was a major step forward for women. That is, because women had to take the place of men in factory in order to sustain the war effort and thus do something besides nurse, teacher, and secretary, it acted to liberate women in ways that had just never happened before. When the men came back there was just no putting that genie back into the bottle, but that didn't stop men from trying.
At the same time the Hayes Code was beginning to lose power. The Code acted to enforce conservative values, but its power was beginning to wane. In essence, it required the atmosphere encouraged by The Prohibition in order to exist, but once it had been repealed in 1932 the gloves started coming off. Production companies, many of which were about to face bankruptcy to the Great Depression, quickly noted that films with "racy" elements performed better and thus producing movies outside the usual framework began to become the norm rather than the exception.
What this all conspired to create was that, from the end of WWII to the late 1950s, the major productions were producing pretty much bland, non-challenging movies; this was the heyday of the musical and swashbuckling comedy as production companies tried to make money while adhering to a code that was becoming more outdated every year. It became an art form to slip "naughty" material into movies, risque material that threatened to cross the line (making the audience snicker as they caught the joke) but stayed well within the lines (making The Code's enforcers happy).
The end result of this was that movies were further and further removed from reality. They were forced to protect a conservative facade even as America became more liberal. Thus, while women were gaining greater freedoms off-screen, on-screen women were supposed to be demure and more damsels in distress and chaste lovers. While there were times this was flouted, it had to be done while allowing for The Hayes Code.
So, what does this have to do with the song? Well, a lot of the critics of the song have pointed out that the song represents mores of the time, and that it represents rape culture of the time, as she was unable to simply say "no"; after all, they argue, a woman had no choice when it came to sex and had to do what the man wanted. Women just weren't supposed to speak their mind and had to acquiesce to anything that men told them to; only by doing so could they be "real women", whatever that means.
There is a problem in basing your opinion of the times off a song in a musical, however. The reality is that women were able to say "no" and, in an era without reliable birth control, were expected to do so. This wasn't just some patriarchal stance based on the idea that deflowered women lost value; women of that era were just as promiscuous as the men. Rather, chastity prevented the spread of STDs and pregnancy; it's sort of interesting how many people forget that there was a serious interest in health at the time (one of the more interesting side effects of all that hygiene training in the military).
It also conveniently ignores that anyone forcing a woman into bed would have to deal with that woman's father and brothers, and possibly their friends. That applies double if she was impregnated by him (Roe v. Wade was still decades off, so abortion clinics were few and far between). That is, the woman has allowed to have sex as much as she wanted, but she did generally have a goon squad if she needed it. Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to make it seem like the 1940s was an orgy by any stretch of the imagination, just that the movies weren't exactly portraying reality all that well.
And that ignores that the drinks of the era were usually watered down, so "What's in this drink?" was seen as more of an excuse than anything real. The drink could therefore be used as a signal for the other person to back off or to charge forward without either side being offended. Unless of course it was used too often, but that's another issue.
So, what's this mean? It means that it was a cute song used to subvert a code seen as archaic and moronic; it was, in its own way, a protest against authority. Rather than trying to enforce rape culture, it was trying to show that women were in control. She could have shut him down any time, and if not she could have at least screamed for help. She was playing hard to get, and the two were having fun. If they weren't either could have called it off without fear of reprisal and if he didn't respect that it would have been seen as lacking civility at best and he would have faced severe repercussions, especially if her father and brothers lived nearby.
There's just no way it can be seen as the prelude to rape by anyone aware of the whole situation, and there was a lot going on. It's a great song that can be a lot of fun if done right, and the parts can be easily switched, as well as the level of aggression adjusted. It's just sort of weird that this song, which has some empowering elements, seems to come under attack every year. Sure, there are some things that should be attacked, but we need to start targeting those targets and enjoy some of the cooler things in life....
