A Bizarre, Hyper-"Progressive" Reconsideration of "Dirty Dancing"

It's from that bastion of "social justice" bafflegab, The Guardian, of course:

When Baby dates Johnny, then gets her physician dad to tend to someone’s botched abortion, she cuts a swath through class and religion. But the girl is no heroine – she takes action not so much because social justice is consciously on her agenda, but because she can’t imagine her parents not letting her have her way. 

This becomes clear when Johnny is wrongly blamed for a string of thefts. His alibi is that he was in bed with Baby on the night of the crime. The girl causes outrage by confirming this to the hotel manager. In front of her parents. At the dinner table. Put in the same position, most of us wouldn’t live long enough to examine the dessert menu, but Baby survives largely because she is daughter to a pair of pushovers. Mum is more or less mute, while doe-eyed Dad can only stare at the lake and sob over his daughter’s defilement. 

Baby proves that a sense of entitlement can breed a fearlessness that delivers results. If only Ivanka Trump would do the same. That, however, would depend on her ability to command the same influence over her dad, which is doubtful: we’re talking about a man who said he would date his little princess in a parallel universe, after all. Anyone given the name “Baby” in the Trump household would probably need to tighten her chastity belt.

But wait, it gets worse:

Baby’s is the ultimate liberal story in which adolescent rebellion takes the moral lead and drives society forward. It dovetails nicely with my belief that indulgence, when pursued responsibly, makes the world go round. Nothing unites us as a species quicker than food, love, music and dance. Baby’s is the ultimate liberal story in which adolescent rebellion takes the moral lead and drives society forward.

Sadly, the repetition does not drive this ridiculous drivel forward.