Game of Thrones Daily
🪼

Love Begins
YOU ARE THE REASON
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her

blake kathryn

Andulka

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣

JBB: An Artblog!
cherry valley forever
taylor price
Show & Tell

PR's Tumblrdome

Origami Around

Product Placement
No title available

No title available

★

No title available
Keni
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Sri Lanka
seen from Belgium

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Colombia
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Japan

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Netherlands

seen from Indonesia

seen from Türkiye

seen from United States
seen from Germany

seen from Argentina

seen from Honduras

seen from United States
@shadowsoffeeling
Phoebe’s style - season 1
CHRISTIAN SIRIANO at New York Fashion Week Fall 2018
Oriel Window House / Shinsuke Fujii Architects
Mirai Nagasu becomes the first U.S. woman to land a triple axel at the Olympics.
Parisian women in 1946.
i a;m doom fear me,
Cats are so dramatic.
It’s time to bring an end to the Rape Anthem Masquerading As Christmas Carol
Hi there! Former English nerd/teacher here. Also a big fan of jazz of the 30s and 40s.
So. Here’s the thing. Given a cursory glance and applying today’s worldview to the song, yes, you’re right, it absolutely *sounds* like a rape anthem.
BUT! Let’s look closer!
“Hey what’s in this drink” was a stock joke at the time, and the punchline was invariably that there’s actually pretty much nothing in the drink, not even a significant amount of alcohol.
See, this woman is staying late, unchaperoned, at a dude’s house. In the 1940’s, that’s the kind of thing Good Girls aren’t supposed to do — and she wants people to think she’s a good girl. The woman in the song says outright, multiple times, that what other people will think of her staying is what she’s really concerned about: “the neighbors might think,” “my maiden aunt’s mind is vicious,” “there’s bound to be talk tomorrow.” But she’s having a really good time, and she wants to stay, and so she is excusing her uncharacteristically bold behavior (either to the guy or to herself) by blaming it on the drink — unaware that the drink is actually really weak, maybe not even alcoholic at all. That’s the joke. That is the standard joke that’s going on when a woman in media from the early-to-mid 20th century says “hey, what’s in this drink?” It is not a joke about how she’s drunk and about to be raped. It’s a joke about how she’s perfectly sober and about to have awesome consensual sex and use the drink for plausible deniability because she’s living in a society where women aren’t supposed to have sexual agency.
Basically, the song only makes sense in the context of a society in which women are expected to reject men’s advances whether they actually want to or not, and therefore it’s normal and expected for a lady’s gentleman companion to pressure her despite her protests, because he knows she would have to say that whether or not she meant it, and if she really wants to stay she won’t be able to justify doing so unless he offers her an excuse other than “I’m staying because I want to.” (That’s the main theme of the man’s lines in the song, suggesting excuses she can use when people ask later why she spent the night at his house: it was so cold out, there were no cabs available, he simply insisted because he was concerned about my safety in such awful weather, it was perfectly innocent and definitely not about sex at all!) In this particular case, he’s pretty clearly right, because the woman has a voice, and she’s using it to give all the culturally-understood signals that she actually does want to stay but can’t say so. She states explicitly that she’s resisting because she’s supposed to, not because she wants to: “I ought to say no no no…” She states explicitly that she’s just putting up a token resistance so she’ll be able to claim later that she did what’s expected of a decent woman in this situation: “at least I’m gonna say that I tried.” And at the end of the song they’re singing together, in harmony, because they’re both on the same page and they have been all along.
So it’s not actually a song about rape - in fact it’s a song about a woman finding a way to exercise sexual agency in a patriarchal society designed to stop her from doing so. But it’s also, at the same time, one of the best illustrations of rape culture that pop culture has ever produced. It’s a song about a society where women aren’t allowed to say yes…which happens to mean it’s also a society where women don’t have a clear and unambiguous way to say no.
remember loves: context is everything. and personal opinion matters. If you still find this song to be a problem, that’s fine. But please don’t make it into something it’s not because it’s been stripped of cultural context.
This is actually really interesting. I’ve never known a lot of the background to this song.
I’m reblogging this once this year and I’m not talking about it again.
As a historian, this is great. However, as a historian this is terrible. Here’s the thing about context - it changes. We constantly change and reinterpret the world we live in (sociologically, psychologically - and yes historically). So, while the song wasn’t about rape, in today’s world, with today’s cultural context, the overtones of the song are of sexual assault. Just as certain words, definitions, and classifications that we don’t use now made perfect sense in the context of the society in which they were created. I don’t really care for the song, nor am I calling for it to be banned from the world, but to say it was ok at the time therefore it’s ok now is not a valid argument. The cultural context it has now is the cultural context that matters. Unless you’re writing a history paper.
Yeah, I see that.
this is true love y’all (x) | follow @the-movemnt
😂
❤️
pls let this be the start of a trend
retweet this and your dream job will come into your life
ok y'all this is crazy i reblogged this today and i just got offered a job. what the fuck
Worked last year. Give it a whirl, kids.
Why the hell not?