June 2, 2008, - 2:53 pm

Village Voice Upset Over Schlussel “Sex & The City” Review

By Debbie Schlussel
With the tragic success of the “Sex and the City” movie, this weekend, studio execs are, unfortunately, planning a sequel. Who knew my prophecy of “Sex and the Cat Ladies” would actually come to fruition?
Now, The Village Voice–the influence of which now makes it the Village Whisper, er . . . Murmur–is on guard against the great offenses in America, including my review of “Sex and the City,” the national IQ test for women that so many of America’s fairer sex failed over the weekend. Oh, and the aging hippies at the Whisper claim I sound like a “Women’s Studies Prof.”
To quote Cher Horowitz, “As if” . . . .

Writers normally devoted to other agenda, . . . put aside their hobbyhorses for a moment to divert readers with the harmless subject.

sexandthecity2.jpg

Well, most of them did. A SATC review featuring a photo of “Cynthia Nixon (right) w/Lesbian Partner” alerted us that we’d stumbled into the land of the rightbloggers, where blockbuster movies are not mere entertainments, but fronts in the culture war.

cynthianixongirlfriend.jpg

“Sex and the City’s” Cynthia Nixon (Right) w/Lesbian Partner

In her epic “Hags And The City” tirade, TV commentator Debbie Schlussel told readers that the “sleazy and low-class” central characters “look like female impersonators in drag,” are “pigs in skirts” and, worst of all, serve as “Delphic oracles to far too many American women.”
While the Oracle at Delphi spoke for Apollo, apparently Carrie, Miranda, Samantha and Charlotte speak for “America’s feminists and the phony mainstream media” who, Schlussel said, give their message “the kosher seal of approval,” thereby covering an extra theological base.
But what is their message? Schlussel didn’t focus long enough to inform us, but some clues could be gleaned from her ravings. “Because they dined in glamorous places, wore trapezoid shaped clothes and $1,000 fancy high heels,” wrote Schlussel, “this somehow made their low-brow, savage behavior, ‘classy.’” So perhaps the message is that the rich can get away with things that the rest of us can’t. Schlussel also said that the inclusion of Jennifer Hudson in the film was meant to “answer the complaints over the years by Black America, that there were no Black women in this fashionable pay cable TV gang of hos.” Add tokenism to the film’s sins. Finally, “If you’ve ever called men pigs or chauvinists or decried their alleged collective behavior toward women, but yet you like this movie, you’re a hypocrite.” SATC is an affront to feminism! Schlussel’s argument seems based on race, gender, and class issues normally addressed by Women’s Studies professors. We hope this doesn’t get around or Schlussel may never appear on Fox News again.

Again, As If . . . .
But the photo that bothers them so is emblematic of this movie and what it’s really about. And because it bothered the Village Murmur so much, I’ve posted it again. I mean, should I really pretend this woman is straight like she pretends in this movie? C’mon, let’s be intellectually honest.
Hey, at least I didn’t do this.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly




25 Responses

Ironic that the Village Voice, which sees itself as representing elites that are better, more sensitive than anyone else, would wind up defending trash like this. I guess that Sex and the City is probably not quite as bad a crucifixes dipped in urine though, so it is a step up. Since they defend garbage “art”, this is right in line for them & the other elites. Just another sympton of their overall degeneracy.

c f on June 2, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Great piece Debbie. I couldn’t agree more with you. So you irritated the VV folks-what a badge of honor. They are simply pro gay ops in the culture war.
What a great link on Sarah-JP–LOL!! do this http://www.sarahjessicaparkerlookslikeahorse.com/
You little stinker Debbie!

BB on June 2, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Sarah Jessica Parker is on a roll. #1 movie in America and the favorite to take the Triple Crown this weekend.
At least Ellen DeGenerate picks good looking lipstick lesbos.

Jeff_W on June 2, 2008 at 4:11 pm

America’s women apparently don’t agree with you, Debbie. You’re just writing as a movie critic and one critic’s view of a movie is as valid as another’s. Yet, I can’t help but think why the “Village Voice” is so bothered by what you wrote. ITS JUST A MOVIE! I guess that lefties feel threatened when the movie critic happens to be a conservative woman. Go figure.

NormanF on June 2, 2008 at 5:20 pm

What america’s women? Where are they…I don’t see them. Oh nevermind, I just realized those aren’t women, but Kaorinite clones!!
So some illegitmate group comes along and picks the conservative goddess apart like a flower over a sick movie full of experated dated hags and a cheap Haruka knock off trying to excite women, while showing a anti-male image.
Why don’t they attack me too. COME OOOOOON!!! FIRE THE MISSLES!!! EXPLODE THE BOMBS!!! TELL ME I’M IRRELEVANT!!! SAY I SHOULDN’T EXIST!! I want them to attack me. I can shut them down for whatever they’re gonna unleash on me.

Squirrel3D on June 2, 2008 at 6:36 pm

You Go Go Go Debbie! Thanks for exposing this sleeze. Know needs to waste time and money on this disgusting movie of “Marxist Sluts in the City”.
I Renounce Hollywood Movies!
Danny

dannygirl on June 2, 2008 at 7:15 pm

“…and picks the conservative goddess apart like a flower…”
Are you kidding?!?!?
I think it’s the other way around…the conservative goddess Debbie kicked the butts of that girly man Village Lisp.
Even Kimbo Slice is afraid to take on Debbie.

Jeff_W on June 2, 2008 at 7:55 pm

Urp. I thought Cynthia Nixon’s “partner” was a man. Then I looked again.
Yikes!

cirrus1701 on June 2, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Cynthia Nixon And partner- which one do you think is the Dude in the relationship?

gordito on June 2, 2008 at 9:02 pm

“I mean, should I really pretend this woman is straight like she pretends in this movie?”
I mean, can you pretend that Greta Garbo, Barbara Stanwyck, Claudette Colbert, and Marjorie Main were straight like they pretended in their movies? It’s called acting, dummy. We pretend that the actors are who they’re pretending to be. In the words of Lily Tomlin, you don’t have to be one to play one!

Duncan on June 2, 2008 at 9:07 pm

I’m with Danny. Renounce Hollywood garbage!!!

bhparkman on June 2, 2008 at 10:06 pm

I don’t like it when gays claim actors are of their kind, based on mere supposition. I can’t suspend disbelief when I see a gay person playing a hetero. I can’t trust Sarah J Parker because she imposed huge demands on the producers of that show after its first year. Having almost murdered it, she doesn’t make a good champion.

supercargo on June 2, 2008 at 10:21 pm

SATC came on a local Fox affiliate this past winter. Looked at it a couple of times, but never for more that a few minutes, couldn’t stand it. Couldn’t see any point in it, at all. Very sad situations. Lovely, but empty, women. Typical of our societal degeneration. Never looked back. Of course, never wanted to see the movie, same reasons. No, the left can never understand our criticism of them and their culture. We’re always wrong, they’re always right. There’s nothing we can do for them…sad.

Floyd R. Turbo on June 2, 2008 at 11:10 pm

What if this movie was meant to glorify the feminist clique’s latest fad of confusing and damaging psychology: predatory behaviors. This is something that I’ve seen a rise of in the LDS community; single or divorced women are desperate to have a man who won’t leave them. So they target a gullible married man and lead him into an affair, divorce, and marry him to have an illusion of Celestial bliss. Is that what this movie is about?
From what I’ve read about the series, Parker’s character breaks up a marriage; and in the movie, attempts to marry the guy who’s marriage she wrecked. That’s quite predatory.
That also would explain the actions of the Village Voice against Debbie. The Village is pro-feminist, and probably has a few predators in their midst also. They would get peeved at a civilized and proper lady’s honest critique of a movie that promotes the destruction of traditional, faithful marriage and unrestrained bowel movements.
How else can these predators attempt a half-baked excuse for their behavior? To them, as with most Leftists – morality is justified in the movies; “Oh! That affair I’m enticing this husband of 15 years and father of 6 into is justifiable – it was in a movie based on a TV show! They are fashionable chicks that live in Manhattan (Core Liberal Society). So it’s fine for my sociopathic and lustful thoughts and behaviors to present themselves outwardly… as homewrecking trash! Hee-hee!”
By all accounts if a good percent of folks in Manhattan really act this way, then the whole island should be quarantined for deadly STD outbreaks! There’s something for Leavitt to chew on.

bhparkman on June 3, 2008 at 12:45 am

Even as a guy who admires beauty, grace and charm of Sophia Loren, Ursula Andersen, Liz Taylor, never liked ‘Sex and the City’ chicks. That show/movie/story and women lack grace and class. Besides, do not take ‘reverse sexual discrimination’ too well.
Am perfectly happy missing all of the above (show/movie/story and the women).
Just my out-of-date/fashion 2 cents…

Alert on June 3, 2008 at 1:34 am

DS, you must admit that “the” photo is the best known antidote for viagra. PAHLeeeeze! It’s got to go.

ParaLyzer on June 3, 2008 at 2:01 am

Well, not to mock on anyone’s looks – I’m not the cutest thing going – but really? That’s Cynthia’s partner?
More proof that Gay Men and Lesbians have a totally different aesthetic.

KevinQC on June 3, 2008 at 2:15 am

Having seen 2-3 minutes of the TV Sex in the City every now and then while flipping through channels, I always felt it to be very slutty. Our viewing audience is so desensitized to casual sex.
I never had the desire to see the movie. I’m glad your review was negative. Now I know my instincts were right.

TheAwakenedOne on June 3, 2008 at 3:13 am

The Glenn Close character in Fatal Attraction was a kind of prototype for these bunny boiling grymalkins. The only difference is that she got what she deserved.

johndoe on June 3, 2008 at 7:00 am

Duncan–
A few points here…
1. There are plenty of gay actors, so no need to claim Greta Garbo, for example. Although one can never be sure of these things, most authorities dismiss the talk of Garbo being a lesbian–and not only because of her torrid and long-term relationship with John Gilbert.
2. To be sure, Marjorie Main looked butch, although she was married, and here again, your side might be claiming her based on little evidence.
3. Claudette Colbert was married all her life, but same sex encounters were certainly rumored.
4. As to Barbara Stanwyck, she WAS well-known as a lesbian, and that is probably why she could never get any romantic roles–but only the “femme fatale,” since she had zero sex appeal. The “fatale” part was always questionable, and in every performance, you would always wonder why the guy gave it all up for her.
5. As to Lily Tomlin, are you kidding me? She was is dykie as they come, even when she was young, and could NEVER pull off a romantic lead.
Sorry, but acting cannot overcome the vibes put out by true lesbos.

Red Ryder on June 3, 2008 at 8:35 am

bhbarkman–I agree with your analysis.
What came first–the decadent climate in which we live or SATC? Obvioulsy the cultiure created it. SATC returns the favor by FURTHER downgrading the same culture with it’s sick quasi-religious following of ‘players” of all different stripes. It promotes the problem it says it is facing squarely. Uhuh.
I am married and happy–and the tempations out there are still real–(you say, but am I REALLY happy?) Still, I am content to be standing by as the sick cultural toilet swirly of the loss of virtue speeds on–all in the name of being “modern”–I think I’ll just stay right where I am, thank you.

BB on June 3, 2008 at 10:27 am

Admittedly, I’ve probably watched no more than 5 minutes of the show, definitely won’t see the movie, but I have a grasp on what it’s about.
Stupid bims love the TV show/movie because they identify with it so much. Not every woman of course, but the ones who have a MySpace page and go “clubbin’” on the weekends or watch “The Hills.”
What shows like this do is enable broads to act like sluts but feel OK with themselves because they see the SATC hags doing the same thing while looking elegant and hip. Plus, it fits the feminist ethic of sleeping around because it supposedly gives them control and since men supposedly sleep around at will, by golly, broads can do it, too.
The problem is real life just really doesn’t work so neatly. Wrong is still wrong and sooner or later the chickens come home to roost.

Jeff_W on June 3, 2008 at 11:38 am

Debbie,
Long time reader, first time commenter. HUGE fan. Just wanted to let you know that “agenda” is neuter plural, so your noted correction of “Mr.” Edroso’s grammar is inappropriate. Agenda are “things that must be done.” Referring to “an” agenda is the a classic context-devoid American businessman’s bastardization of usage.
I dropped you this note solely because I have long admired your concise rhetoric and your plumb-and-level orthography. I don’t wish to see your posts besmirched with easily avoidable errors. My hope was that you might correct your error before too many more people come across it through Ol’ CBGB Roy’s insidious and snide links, and save yourself a bit of embarrassment.
[PE: THANKS. I STAND CORRECTED.]

Palmer Eldritch on June 3, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Haven’t seen the show Sex and the City and won’t be seeing the movie. Never has appealed to me, partly because Hollywood has a very rosy picture of sex. You know, sleep with whomever you want and never have to worry about STDs, unwanted pregnancies, child support and so on. I wonder how many men have spent $500 to pay for an abortion and then told their wives they blew it gambling.
If there is a job with 100% guaranteed job security, it would be a Beverly Hills/Hollywood/Malibu pharmacist who dispenses Valtrex.

richardzowie on June 3, 2008 at 2:30 pm

“The photo” & Red’s comments raise an interesting point. You’re a woman and you’re attracted to women; fair enough — but how would you be attracted to a woman pretending to be a man? I don’t get that at all…

DocLiberty on June 3, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field