Feminist Multiculturalism and the Hungry Bus-wheels

The recent movie (which I have not seen, and which does not sound like the type of movie anyone could beguile me to see, even if I were bribed with shiny yellow gold) called SEX IN THE CITY II apparently had a scene in it where one of the sex-crazed comediennes strolling the streets in the Middle East in Daisy Duke short pants (or something like that–absolutely no attempt will be made in this screed to be accurate) is accosted, or menaced, by a throng of Muslims or their garbage-bag wearing wives; whereupon the sex-crazed comedienne makes a St. Crispin’s Day style speech in favor of sexual liberation, flourishing condoms.

The impression I got is that this offended and shocked the Leftist elite.

Here is a quote taken from the middle of an article. I make no claim as to its accuracy: you may investigate for yourself and drawn your own conclusions.

——————————————————————–

EXHIBIT A — I quote from an article quoting reviews that say, in effect, SEX IN THE CITY II promotes racism hence terrorism. Quote.

From http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/06/16/leftist-media-enforcers-sex-and-the-city-2-racist-creates-terrorists/#more-361022

Naming names:

Hollywood.com:

Before leaving Abu Dhabi, the increasingly loathsome quartet become involved in a mishap that ends with Samantha … in the middle of a busy town square, holding up a package of condoms, thrusting her hips and shouting, “I have sex!!!” as the Muslim call to prayer is sounded. Sex and the City 2 won’t win any awards (save for a few Razzies), but it could become an effective inspirational video for suicide bombers[.]

Jeff Wells:

I was first to plant a flag on the SATC-terrorism thing.

Way back on May 28, 2008, after seeing Sex and the City: The Movie at a commercial Paris cinema, I called it “another Taliban recruitment film.” In a followup piece I suggested that “young Arab men might be so repelled by its celebration of putrid 21st Century chick culture that joining the Taliban might seem freshly appealing.” …

The spiritual cancer at the heart of the SATC franchise was just as pernicious two years ago as it is today…c’mon. Both films were sired by the same seed.

Washington Post:

Casting aside the filmmakers’ breathtaking cultural insensitivity, their astonishing tone-deaf ear for dialogue and pacing, their demented, self-serving idea of female empowerment, the biggest sin of “Sex and the City 2″ is its lack of beauty. It’s garish when it should be sumptuous, tacky when it should be luxe, wafer-thin when it should be whip-smart and sophisticated.

Newsweek:

Pumped full of botox, popping hormones like Tic Tacs, she gets kicked out of Abu Dhabi for promiscuity, narrowly escaping an angry mob. After all those years of redefining female sexuality, we’re suddenly back to the beginning—Samantha has become a slut.

Salon:

Wajahat Ali was correct to complain in Salon that King’s portrayal of the Muslim world is dumb and offensive: The “SATC2″ coven has no problem with the “new Middle East” when it’s all about private manservants, endlessly flowing fruity-tooty cocktails and a comped luxury suite that looks like Al Pacino’s house from “Scarface,” only less tasteful and metastasized to infinite proportions. The foursome develops a sudden concern with the oppression of Arab and Muslim women only after the pipeline of pornographic bling-juice is cut off.

Incredibly, Salon also calls the film, directed and written by the openly gay King, “homophobic.”

The above examples are just that: examples. I could have buried you in them and not even begun to touch the frequently cruel and openly sexist (a word I don’t use lightly) attacks our so-called progressive media friends launched against the film and its female cast. For more on that you can start here and then click your way around the blogosphere.

King’s sin? Obviously, he forgot that among his Hollywood brethren; above liberty, women’s rights, gay rights, and human rights, the left’s highest value is the nonsense they so lovingly call multiculturalism — which is really nothing more than a license to label bigotry, cowardice, and anti-Americanism as some kind of virtue.

——————————————————————–

Endquote. Me Again. I also came across several articles, only one of which I here quote in full, concerning the inertia of the Left elite regarding the treatment of women under Islam. Quote.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmI0NTNiZDk1MjJiNGE4ODI0YmM3N2ZhOTc0MGMwMjg=

Honor-Rolled   [Mark Steyn]

Phyllis Chesler and I weren’t the only ones talking about “honor killings” in the western world yesterday. So was John Oakley, the host of Toronto’s Number One talk-radio morning show:

John Oakley is seriously entertaining the question of whether Canadian judges should give those who commit “honour” killings a break because they have different “cultural practices” and may not be aware of our norms and laws; defence attorney Lawrence Ben-Eliezer thinks judges should take these differences into consideration because we have “multiculturalism”.

Before we had “multiculturalism”, weren’t we also supposed to have something called “equality before the law”? When I started referring to “the two-tier sisterhood” a few years back, I didn’t realize they’d start planning to formalize it de jure quite so soon.

The Oakley discussion was in reference to the convictions of the killers of Aqsa Parvez, murdered by her father and brother for wishing to live like a North American woman. I wrote about her murder here at the time, and it is instructive to go back and read the strikingly evasive and outright absurd coverage of two-and-a-half years ago in light of this week’s verdict.

These deaths are not the result of sudden outbreaks of violent anger, but the horrific final moments of years of abuse ended often with meticulous planning by the “family” and prolonged suffering by the victim. Yet the American media gave more coverage to Muzzammil Hassan when he launched an unwatched cable talk network in 2004 than when he sawed off his wife’s head five years later.

Yesterday, I was chided by a commentator who thinks Nexis search terms are the bedrock of argument. Okay:

Number of stories in The New York Times referencing Matthew Shepard: 311

Number of stories in The New York Times referencing Aasiya Hassan: Just one

The 311 Matthew Shepard stories include long pieces on the various plays, movies, laws, and other tributes to his memory, and many columnar disquisitions on the significance of his death by A-list Timesmen.

The sole reference to Mrs Hassan is one brief news item – “Upstate Man Charged With Beheading His Estranged Wife” – barely any longer than the news item announcing Mr Hassan’s new cable network, “Start-Up Television Venture Aiming Its Programming At American Muslims”. In the first story, the Times was happy to promote him as an exemplar of “American Muslims”. When he decapitated his wife, he was just another “upstate man”.

Who will speak up for these young women?

——————————————————————–

Endquote. Me Again.

Before I ask my question, first let me say, I have no dog in the fight between SEX IN THE CITY II or any Libertine pro-fornication condom-worship and the Leftist arm of the pro-Taliban apologetic-and-propaganda department.

Verily, in the debate between heretical infidel bloodthirsty openly misogynistic tyrants of the Middle East and idolatrous covertly misogynistic libertine groin-worship of the Left Coast, I stand with nonchalant dignity to one side; or, if you want a more accurate picture, I cower in the shadow of the cathedral, clinging to a flying buttress or a gargoyle with fear-white hands, hoping the swirling hurricane of filth does not blow too much litter withing smelling range. So between the Christ-hating soft totalitarian socialists of the Left and the Christ-hating hard totalitarian theocratic socialists of the Paynim, all I can say is ‘A Plague on Both Your Houses’.

The Church does not approve of condoms, remember. We think sex is sacred within marriage and desecrated outside it. We also think women are sacred, that virginity is sacred. The Church also does not approve of harem, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honor killings.

But this is not about what the Church teaches, or, to use the technical term, the truth of the matter. This is about what the Left teaches, or, to use the technical term, their hypocrisies and logical absurdities.

Up until this year, I would have sworn in a court of law that the elite and opinion makers of the Left had no firmer and more sacred doctrine than that condoms were sacred, and that women have a right, nay, a duty, to have sex outside marriage in a consequence-free environment studiously avoiding all thought, logic, principle, and prudence that might lead them to chastity. I would have said this was the first article of their version of the Bill of Rights. “DO AS THOU WILT” shall be the whole of the law, but do it with a condom, so you don’t get venereal diseases or make a baby.

Had I sworn, I would have been wrong. There is a higher principle than feminism, higher than libertinism, higher than the sexual revolution, and higher than the idolatrous love and adoration these primitive tribesmen pour onto the Condom, which is their god.

Multiculturalism is a higher god than all these other gods.

And not just any multiculturalism, but the praise and glorification of our generational enemies, the Paynim. You don’t see Leftists get this worked up over slights against China. Only the enemy in time of war is the special object of love, righteous indignation, cooing and fawning.

It must seem a mysterious phenomena to those of you who are economically conservative and culturally liberal, Objectivists and so on, that the wing of the Leftist part who seems to agree with your basic “Government cannot legislate morality” stance. So why are your ex-allies siding with the Paynim over the Swingers? The answer cannot be given in your world view, since your model of the universe does not admit of the entities necessary to explain the facts. To my co-religionists, I will merely drop the hint that the sexual revolution cannot do any further major damage to the Church, its work is done, and therefore the Dark Lord who rules this world of sorrow has dropped this weapon and now picks up a new weapons, called Radical Islam in one hand, and Multiculturalism in the other.

Feminism and the sexual revolution, to which you have all been so loyal, my left-of-center friends, has hereby unofficially been thrown under the bus by your elite leaders. It is not politically correct to protect women, or even to mention that Islam kills them.

You are also loyal to the Homosexual revolution, my left-of-center friends. Some of you, I know personally, are very loyal: it seems to be the only thing you talk about.

My left of center friends, here is my question. It is in two parts. (1) Is feminism and the sexual revolution being thrown under the bus, that is to say, minimized, minimalized, and told to keep quiet, in order to placate multicultural admiration for Islam, which is misogynistic?

If no, how do you explain the silence of the Left concerning the misogyny of Islam, particularly honor killings?

(2) Is homosexuality about to be thrown under the bus, that is to say, minimized, minimalized, and told to keep quiet, in order to placate multicultural admiration for Islam, which is homophobic?

If no, what is there about homosexuality that might make it immune from the logic of the multiculturalism that apparently applies to feminism and the sexual revolution? Is not approval of homosexuality a logical category or subset belonging to the general category of approval of the sexual revolution and its values?

Please read and support my work on Patreon!