I didn't mean to imply he's talking about a man! I'm merely saying the song isn't an attack on the female gender. In that sense it is not chauvinistic. You could make the case that it's glorifying promiscuity!

I believe as RMD does that the song is with regard to a past relationship, not the present or future. I also tend to go more with idea that the narrator is a bit cocky, even arrogant, but not necessarily chauvinistic. (whether this cockiness is overcompensation for self-doubt, as arrogance sometimes can be, is a-whole-nother can of worms) OK, still not a flattering trait, but there is a difference. Notice I used the term "narrator" - that's because I don't believe that every song that Lightfoot has written or will write is autobiographical. There are times when songwriters write songs that have nothing to do with themselves, their loved ones, or anyone they know - sometimes they just write a song.

Chauvinism to a point isn't that bad. Getting over a breakup is one thing, but when it comes to thinking you can do women like that any time you want to, THEN it's out of hand. ;)

It has always come across as a self protective type attitude to me...I'll hurt you before you can hurt me...and the further I can drive you away, the less chance there is that you will hurt me...

Janice,

Your use of the word "arrogant" was interesting.

This has been a very fascinating exercise. I will never hear the song as I did before. I think that's a good thing.

RMD

Janice -

I touched on the same idea you had in the third to last paragraph in the first longer post of mine higher up. I think we are the same wavelength here. I've always thought GL does at times just right songs that are (to borrow my words up higher) enjoyable little ditties to whistle [ versus autobiograhpical songs as you said] - I agree and believe he does both

- geo Steve

Jessie-Joe

Thank you. Very kind words.

geo Steve

Very much welcome, GeoSteve, when they are deserving there's no need for thank yousss...Jesse.

Janice,

Revisiting your post, and the thoughts expressed by Geo Steve, I just wanted to add this. Having dabbled in songwriting, I can certainly vouch for the fact that one's songs may be construed as autobiographical. As Kris Kristofferson once penned, "partly truth, and partly fiction". Which is which ?
Only I know, and I'm not talking.

RMD

I never said nor meant to imply that songs are never autobiographical, just that they don't always have to be and in some cases, they are not. No doubt there is some real life influence in most songs - after all, I've been told it is best to write about what you know, but what do I know about writing :)

I love that Kristofferson song, "...He's a walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction..." great song

It's all in the ear of the listener it seems because I have always heard the same line as simple arithmetic. As they say "by the numbers".

Bill :)

I don't think chauvinistic would be the right word; perhaps insensitive, arrogant would be more fitting. But I love this song, and the way he sings this is a hoot. Its impossible to find anything offensive about it especially if you juxtapose it to some of the *truly* chauvinistic music that's around today!

Right on Jennifer, your a smart woman, your gone a do good here...Jesse. :)

Why, thank you... (grin)

This is a fun song because of it's melody and shocking honesty.

Yeah! Marc is back. You are safe now, I finished my english course. lol

Thanks, Brink. Is the Watchman gone?

He was gone, but seems to pop in occasionally.

Brought back this old topic. Why, you ask? When I woke up this afternoon, after my daily slumber from a long nightshift, I put on one of the early Best Of CDs. Of course I got to hear not only "For Lovin' Me", but also "I'm Not Sayin' ". These two songs fit together very well theme-wise, and it's not just the apostrophe replacing the missing G in each title. :)

It was quite a pleasant experience too. Waking up at 4 in the afternoon, in a flat in the middle of Stockholm, and listening to some cheeky shenanigans over that first steaming cup of coffee. A great way to start the day! :D

Are you saying your from Sweden, David(djb)? If so ever see ABBA? They were my fav group of the 80's...Jesse. :)

Are you saying your from Sweden, David(djb)? If so ever see ABBA? They were my fav group of the 80's...Jesse. :)

No, GL and I share the same birthplace (Orillia). He's just a bit more famous than me, that's all. :D

I have permanent residence status to live and work in Sweden since '99, but I am still, and always will be, a Canadiac citizen.

All right, great birthplace indeed. Thanks for the info...Jesse :)

I'm happy to see this thread revived.

Speaking as a "child of the sixties/seventies" who was/is very much into the woman's movement, I can honestly say that I've never been offended by this song.

I hear it as a song of someone who assumes a certain "self protective" arrogance. Someone who loves so deeply, has been hurt and puts on a defensive/offensive posture or shell to shield himself from more hurt.

I don't take his lyrics literally - I believe they leave us all with a lot of latitude to take away from them what we wish.

I also like the view that was expressed earlier in this thread that he may be making himself out to be a worse cad than he is in order to make it easier for the other person in the relationship to just get on with their life instead of pining over him.

All excellent points, Ann. Relationships are far too intertwined to ever be able to see it from one perspective or one reason.

We also have to remember that attitudes are a sign of the times. So when we hear or see something from 30-40 years ago, we have to try and recall what it was like back then, rather than solely place today's values on the subject matter. It makes for interesting reflections, as we are constantly growing both as a society and as individuals.

The song is meant to be amusing. It rings true and truth can be very funny. I'm not sayin' (no pun intended) it's "very funny", but that it's VERY amusing (to me). Enjoy it!

I agree, Marc.
I just listened to it again and realized that each time I hear it I get a silly grin on my face. I think it's the combination of the upbeat melody and the outrageous lyrics that just makes me smile. :D ;)

That's it Ann. His success is the melody that is chosen for his lyrics, or is it the other way around? Could this be a topic for a new thread or has it already been covered?

That's it Ann. His success is the melody that is chosen for his lyrics, or is it the other way around? Could this be a topic for a new thread or has it already been covered?

I probably need to look up that word in the dictionary since chauvinistic a reletivly new word to me but I've heard of similar songs where the guy is a rambler and it's time for him to move on.

I probably need to look up that word in the dictionary since chauvinistic a reletivly new word to me but I've heard of similar songs where the guy is a rambler and it's time for him to move on.

I don't usually take music or other forms of entertainment "seriously" either. The reason, of course, is that it is just that - entertainment. In fact, I get the silly grin when I listen to those two GL songs too. It's fun to be a bit of a cad sometimes, even if it's just in my imagination. :D

I think it's chauvinistic, but maybe it was just a sign of the times that it was written in. I think society, as a whole, was generally more chauvinistic in the mid '60s. The women's lib movement was just getting off the ground. Had the song been written in the mid '70's, it probably wouldn't have gotten much airplay. People were more 'aware' that women had taken a big step in becoming men's equals.
I don't think Gord should be a bit ashamed of the song. It's like an old photo... just a snapshot of an era.

Chauvinistic or not, I like it. Wnen Gords divorce was finalize, with first wife Brita. Her Lawyer turned to Gord in court and said "That's what you get for lovin me."

I imagine Gord must have been a little mad. At that time, it was considered to be the highest cash settlement, in Canadian Divorce history... MaCleans Magazine May, 1978...Jesse. :)

Chauvinistic or not, I like it. Wnen Gords divorce was finalize, with first wife Brita. Her Lawyer turned to Gord in court and said "That's what you get for lovin me."

I imagine Gord must have been a little mad. At that time, it was considered to be the highest cash settlement, in Canadian Divorce history... MaCleans Magazine May, 1978...Jesse. :)

It's chauvanistic, but then so are any number of songs nowadays. Usually in the reverse--somehow it's OK to bash men. Shania Twain's "Any Man of Mine" comes into my mind, but turn it around to where a man is saying, "Any woman of mine better do this and do that," especially when it's the dehumanizing groveling Twain sings about, and watch women's groups pounce.

I've got a hundred more like you
So don't be blue
I'll have a thousand 'fore I'm through

Perfect. I love it. I applied it to an ex husband who left me, and whose sister considers me a slut for no discernable reason, so when he left me he thought it wouldn't hurt me and he'd be "replaced" within a week. I threw that at him. I wanted to throw other things at him too, like cast iron skillets and chef's knives, but I decided not to.

Do you think the Gordon Lightfoot song,"For Lovin Me," is chauvinistic? It may be chauvinistic, but it's not misogynist.

Elvis Presley recorded a nice version of that song in 1973 for the "FOOL" album.

Waylon Jennings did it too.

And apparently Lightfoot returned the favor during the opening ceremonies of the 1988 Winter Olymics in Calgary, when he sang "Four Strong Winds," which Jennings wrote.

I always thought Ian Tyson wrote, "Four Strong Winds."

Ian & Gord did do it at, the Opening Ceremonies, in 1988 in Calgary, along with Lightfoots, "Alberta Bound." :)

[ September 04, 2006, 08:36: Message edited by: Jesse -Joe ]

Tyson wrote Four Strong Winds:

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.c...=U1ARTU0001268