Baby, it's Cold and No One is Listening

It finally happened. Took a lot longer than I expected, but it finally happened. Society has risen up against a marginally suggestive, and therefore offensive, Christmas song. Baby, It's Cold Outside has become the season's punching bag, much to the relief of Starbucks.

Yeah, yeah - debates are ongoing as to the true meaning. An English-teacher, tumblr user teachingwithcoffeetumblr, breaks things down in a very plausible and meaningful way. The song itself was first used in pop culture for the movie Neptune's Daughter (1949), and at that time, romantic relationships were vastly different. As teachingwithcoffee points out, women at the time lacked sexual and reproductive agency, so admitting that they wanted to be intimate with someone to whom they were not married was something no one had yet figured out how to discuss.

But here we are, 69 years on, and now having that discussion about whether that song is appropriate or not. I agree that the superficial value of the lyrics runs afoul of growing social conscience. Perhaps ten years ago, I would have still chuckled at the idea that a guy was seemingly trying to coerce a single woman into bed. It was normal, and I would also have not regarded that song as the rape-anthem that it seems to be receiving now. Now is very different.

But why?

Social context... I am of a generation that warns girls to look out for dangerous and predatory boys. There's a good reason for that. The reported instances of rape are heartrendingly common, while unreported incidences seem to outweigh those by a healthy margin.

If our recognition of rape culture tells us anything, it's that consent no longer has the luxury of ambiguity. We can't jokingly say that there's something "in this drink" to excuse sexual interest while preserving innocence. It is a vestige of a deeply inequitable time when women were still victims, even when they weren't, because they couldn't be allowed to make the choice for themselves. Frankly, I feel that the radio stations who are banning the song are doing the right thing, but maybe for the wrong reason.

Stepping outside of rape culture for a minute, let's go back and focus on the social stigma of women who own their sexuality. We have historically called them hussies, sluts, tramps... anything that would demean their self-actualization. We have treated this like a disease for decades, generations - hell, millenia! So why are we continuing?

If teachingwithcoffee is right, then the female voice in the song doesn't have the right or ability to say she's interested, and that's just wrong. If the public outcry is right, the male voice is intent on subjugating a woman who is vocally protesting the situation, and this is equally wrong. Why should we be propagating either of these ideas? Because it's tradition? Well, that's bullshit.

We are faced with a reality where people are violated by repeat offenders that spark #MeToo movements. We watch frat boys walk away from the judiciary with a stinging wrist. We watch entire films that revolve around that haze of confusion that follows a roofied drink. How is it then okay to hold a holiday tune unaccountable for its expired relevance and confusing message?

Neither side of this coin is okay, but nobody really wants to address that. It's entirely possible for both sides to be wrong for very different reasons. Apologists who want it to continue playing are ignoring the public epidemic that has 1-in-6 women being victimized, 80% of whom will experience a completed rape. Alarmists who want this song pulled are also ignoring the oblique agency displayed in the song.

Rape culture AND sexual autonomy both need to be publicly discussed. This song is suitable as a springboard for both, and which one you discuss is determined by what you think it's saying. Both messages are bad. There's nothing wrong with taking this little ditty out of the playlist while we parse the differences between non-protest and consent. No one is hurt by its silence. You'll have plenty of non-Christian folklore and tradition to revel in this holidays season, courtesy of Bing Crosby and Burl Ives.

Solo: A Star Wars Soap Opera

The internet has been murmuring about this film for a few weeks now. People are pointing out the low box office, brand fatigue, and a number of other shortcomings. Admittedly after seeing it, I didn't share the wow factor that I feel I should have. Yes, Rogue and Solo have given us a look at the more tangential dealings of the Star Wars universe. They run in parallel with the main hero's-story arc of the original three films, filling in valuable blanks, but lacking the unified vision that would have made them hits.

By their own admission, producers and writers of the new films placed themselves into creative bubbles expressly for the purpose of preserving their vision from fan interference. I do respect that creative process, but that's better reserved for reboots and spin-offs, which these are not. Blinding the creative minds to the cultural institution that is now four decades in the making was a commercial blunder.

Among the more eye-rolling issues is the one of Lando Calrissian's sexuality. To which I say, "so what..?"

There is currently a debate going over whether it was a mistake on the part of writers in making it primary to his character. For the record, I don't think it is primary at all. In fact, it wasn't until I engaged in a discussion over the pansexuality that I gave it any real thought. Did that make me insensitive? I don't think so. I mean, I didn't think ill of it when seeing it. I just found it to be an interesting character dynamic, as well as entirely implicit.

Writers and producers have outright said that they wished they could have gotten a stronger LGBT character into the film. But I have to call party foul. Deliberately inserting a character that meets a specific demographic for the purpose of visibility isn't progressive thinking. It's pandering. This is where we find the origins of the "token black guy", which is generally found offensive, except we're trading it for the "token LGBTQ".

Lando's suggested pansexuality is a gimmick in that it adds nothing to the plot of the film. With or without it, the story is unchanged because the story isn't about Lando. It's about Han. Han's romantic entanglement is both heterosexual and a plot device. It serves as the entire motivation for everything else that occurs in the film. Were the tables turned and the movie was about how Lando pursued a promise to a love interest, and that pursuit added up to perils and theatrical explosions, then it would be relevant.

As it is, it's a tacked on detail that, while interesting and character defining, was only put in so that the creative team could pat themselves on the back. CNN even sprung to the defense of the creative team by paraphrasing Han Solo in saying that these things can't always be done "by committee." Sure, I'll buy that - when you're talking about a original creative work. Solo is not that.

I'm sure this makes me sound horrible, but this isn't even an original idea. Captain Kirk was getting jiggy with aliens well before Kathleen Kennedy took credit for this. You can also stream a film called Galaxina on Amazon Prime (for the record, I advise against it) if you want to see humans and robots with complicated love lives. Or for the Trekkers, human/inorganic romance is more thoroughly addressed in the TNG episode called "In Theory" (S4:E25).

Before we make the mistake of thinking that LGBTQ-phobia had anything to do with the poor performance at the box office, let's remember that there were fan-community expectations that this would flop. Those predictions were being issued months in advance of the release, or the claims of inclusion from Disney brass.

So does Disney deserve any credit here? I just don't think so. They didn't even do anything revolutionary, but still took the time to point out their own accomplishment. Self-aggrandizing is something that doesn't mix well with the Star Wars universe. It's about danger and sacrifice, usually for the sake of stopping self-aggrandizing antagonists. So sitting at the keyboard now, both as a fan and consumer, I am intensely aware that it is the characters who manipulate the fervor of the crowd for their own gains that get blown up or dropped in reactor cores in this universe.

No, no I'm not advocating that anyone die over this. But the aptly phrased "strip mining" of the Star Wars universe (thank you, CNN) is becoming obvious. Episode VII was a thinly veiled retelling of Episode IV. Episode VIII was really an insult to fans, about which even Mark Hamill was outspoken. Solo became a self-congratulatory cameo to social progress that was better addressed by Modern Family, Glee, and more anime than you would think. But you know who doesn't care that Lando is pansexual? Pansexual people...

Disney wants recognition. That's what's wrong with Solo. This movie was made for them and the box office reflects that.