Is Everything Feminist ‘Empowerment’ Now? Or Is @Belle_Knox a Sociopath?

“Ever since I was a child, I’ve had some masochistic tendencies. When I was a young girl and my friend and I would play house, I would ask her to lock me in her dog cage. . . . It was exciting. It was different.
“I can’t explain why rough sex and pain arouses me; it just does.”

— Miriam Weeks (a/k/a “Belle Knox”)

Let’s talk about rationalization, OK?

Rationalization is a psychological defense mechanism by which the ego defends itself against criticism, either external criticism from others, or against internal criticism from the superego (conscience). We do not need to resort to rationalization to explain or justify success. Praiseworthy deeds require no defense. Rationalization is necessary only to excuse failure or to evade shame for our wrongful actions.

“I started watching porn when I was maybe 11, and it was something I was always very ashamed about, but I really enjoyed watching it.”
— Miriam Weeks (a/k/a “Belle Knox”)

The true motives or reasons for our “perceived controversial behaviors” (thank you, Wikipedia) are ultimately irrational. If our conduct were governed by logic and prudence, we would not have gone “all-in” on that pair of jacks. Rationalization is what occurs after we lose that stupid bet and then try to tell ourselves that our bad decision made perfect sense, rather than being a crazy emotional urge.

Over the past five weeks, Duke University freshman Miriam Weeks has offered the world an increasingly elaborate series of rationalizations to justify her bad decisions, exploiting feminism as a defense mechanism to garner sympathy as a victim of “slut-shaming” while basking in admiration as a sort of “pro-sex” heroine.

Only the mindless incoherence of feminism — the tendency to rally around any woman who invokes the sisterhood and portrays herself as a victim of patriarchy — could explain the uncritical acceptance of the shifting and often contradictory rationalizations by which Miriam Weeks has excused and justified her career as teen porn starlet “Belle Knox.”

“Whatever choice a woman is making and she is the one deciding to do — reclaiming the agency behind the decision to do, even if it is a degrading sexual act — is absolutely feminism. To me, feminism is about women not being shamed but rather being empowered. . . .
“Why is that we have to adhere to the ascribed gender roles of the patriarchy?”

— Miriam Weeks (a/k/a “Belle Knox”)

In February, using the pseudonym “Lauren” in her interview with the Duke Chronicle and in other venues, she said it was about the money: Her parents couldn’t (or wouldn’t) pay the tuition at Duke and therefore, she was more or less compelled to do porn out of dire financial need.

That story never really made sense, because Weeks also said she had turned down a full scholarship to Vanderbilt. If she knew there were financial problems with her family, wouldn’t she have accepted the Vandy scholarship instead? Well, kids make irresponsible decisions all the time, but the misguided attempt by Weeks to “un-out” herself — getting the Chronicle and other publications to play along with the charade that her actual identity was not already widely known — clearly had an ulterior motive, to deflect attention from her family, so that her rationalization could not be fact-checked.

“I’m very passionate about feminism and LGBTQ rights. . . .
“Listen, patriarchy is telling women what to do with their bodies. . . . I think that when people condemn pornography, they’re really just following this societal construct of what sex is, based on religion, based on patriarchy, and so many societal forces.”

— Miriam Weeks (a/k/a “Belle Knox”)

Unfortunately for Weeks, journalistic curiosity overwhelmed political correctness, and reporters for the Daily Mail revealed that (a) her father is a physician whose annual income they estimated at $200,00 a year, (b) her family lives in a house worth nearly $500,000, and (c) Miriam and her two older siblings attended Gonzaga Prep, a prestigious private Jesuit school with an annual tuition of $11,000. Whatever the difficulties of paying Duke’s tuition might be, Miriam Weeks could not plead poverty. She is definitely not “the 99 percent.”

So the focus of her narrative shifted, slightly but perceptibly. Even in her first interviews, with the paradoxical claim that she was not ashamed of doing porn, despite her insistence on hiding behind pseudonyms, Weeks had claimed porn was “empowering,” although asserting that she wouldn’t have done it if not for the need to get tuition money. Once her family’s affluent background was exposed, however, the financial rationalization faded into the background and “empowerment” took center stage. Critics of her porn career as “Belle Knox,” she asserted, were really just threatened by her feminist “sexual autonomy.”

“When I agreed to film that rough sex scene, I knew what was in store for me. . . . I realize that the visual of me with [semen on my face] at the end was nothing compared to the close-ups the site provided of my skin revealing scars from my most vulnerable past when I was a cutter. . . .
“Does my admission that I cut when I was a teenager suddenly make me the porn stereotype of a ‘depressed, crazy girl’? I would say it’s the exact opposite. I have nothing to hide.”

— Miriam Weeks (a/k/a “Belle Knox”)

Let’s run the check list: Intelligent, superficially charming, manipulative, deceitful, narcissistic, remorseless, lacking empathy for others, impulsive, with an appetite for risky behavior . . .

Can you say “sociopath,” boys and girls?

Let the psychologists examine the case study and decide for themselves. My larger point is that there is something profoundly weird about Miriam Weeks, and she is exploiting feminism — relying on the idea that women should always be “supportive” and non-judgmental of each other — to divert attention from her pathological symptoms. Skip forward to the 11:30 mark in this XOJane video interview:

“I think [I would like to see] more stories about the
process of, you know, coming out, or coming to terms with
being gay. . . . I was home for break in October, before
this whole porn thing happened, and I was in the car with
my dad. . . . We were just driving and I said to my dad,
I was like, ‘Dad, I like girls.’ And he was just like,
‘I know, sweetie. I’ve known for a long time.’ . . .
I was shocked. . . . I was like, ‘Was it the half-naked
pictures, posters of girls in my room?’ And he said,
‘No, it’s because you have sex with women.’
He knew somehow, I don’t know. . . . And then,
there’s like an awkward silence, and then
he goes, ‘Well, do you want to go to the
bikini espresso bar down the street?
We probably don’t have the same taste in women,
but I think you’d like it.’ And I just, like, laughed.”

WHOA! “Bikini espresso bar”? Yeah, apparently such a thing exists in Spokane, and I guess feminists will insist that it’s almost as “empowering” as getting boned on video, but what kind of fatherly reaction is that? His daughter tells him she’s bisexual, he says he knows she has had sex with women, and the daughter brushes this off as, “He knew somehow”? Then dear old Dad compares their “taste in women” and offers his college freshman daughter a visit to the bikini espresso bar?

Let’s run another check-list: She started watching porn when she was 11 or 12, engaged in “cutting” when she was a young teen, and now she’s a bisexual porn star who is “aroused” by sadomasochism.

“And then there’s like an awkward silence . . .”

“The only porn I watch is blowjob porn. It is the only thing I can get off to, is watching a girl get her face f**ked . . . That’s hot. I can’t watch normal sex and get off to it. I have to watch blowjob porn. I don’t know why.”
— Miriam Weeks (a/k/a “Belle Knox”)

Miriam Weeks is a twisted tangle of psychosexual pathology, and if her feminist enablers would stop engaging in ideologically motivated gestures to show how “supportive” they are of her “sexual autonomy,” maybe they could provide some long overdue examination of the etiology of deviance in our hypersexualized youth culture.

Stop trying to sell me this ridiculous porn “empowerment” nonsense. Trust me — I know crazy when I see it.





 

 

PREVIOUSLY:

 

In The Mailbox, 03.21.14

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
First Street Journal: Oh, Those Democratic Attorneys General!
Proof Positive: A Fine European Whine
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: Trigger Warning – Free Speech
Doug Powers: With Biden And Kerry On Top Of The Russia Issue, Obama Focuses On Important Domestic Issue
Twitchy: Sandra Fluke Wants To #banbossy, Gets Pwned Instead


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Nancy Pelosi Calls Obamacare – Wait, I Mean The Affordable Care Act – A Winner For Democrats In 2014
American Thinker: Too Busy To Be President
Blackfive: Milblogger Heads Back To War
Conservatives4Palin: Washington Times – “Non-Partisan” EPA Going All Out To Help Democrats
Don Surber: Daily Scoreboard, March 20
Jammie Wearing Fools: Stunner – Obamacare Premiums To Skyrocket, Some To Triple In Cost
Joe For America: One Quote Destroys Charlie Rangel’s Racist Tea Party Lie
JustOneMinute: Bringin’ The Smart Diplomacy
Pat Dollard: Obama Looking At Handing Over $7 Billion In Military Equipment Over To Pakistan
Protein Wisdom: Slaughterhouse Four; also, Female Supremacy And The “Rape Culture” Meme
Shot In The Dark: The Government You Deserve
Stump: Vindication – IT’S NOT HARD
The Jawa Report: National Guardsman Arrested, Wanted To Help Al Qaeda, Blow Up LA Subway
The Lonely Conservative: Standing O For Rand Paul At Berkeley
This Ain’t Hell: Joseph Matthew Scott, The Pretend Ranger At San Joaquin Delta College
Megan McArdle: Please Don’t Hate Me For Gentrifying


Washington Post Smears Koch

John Hinderaker at Powerline shows how two Washington Post writers produced a story based on a report by “the far-left International Forum on Globalization” which falsely claims Koch Industries is “the biggest lease owner” in the Alberta tar sands, so as to create the equally false impression that the XL Pipeline is all about benefiting “the fortune of conservative Koch brothers Charles and David.”

 

Best. Wife. Ever.

Maura Fussell, 26, gives us reason to hope.

Sometimes, the daily grind of the news can get you down. Politics is depressing, and cable TV won’t shut the hell up about that stupid Malaysian plane. And then, while you’re clinging desperately to your last shred of sanity, you see this headline:

Society Is Doomed, Say Scientists

That pretty much settles it, right? Ever since November 2012, I’ve been fighting a sense of hopelessness, but that’s just me. Now, however, scientists say we’re doomed, and you can’t argue with science.

Could the scientists possibly be mistaken? I don’t know, but I took renewed inspiration from the example of Maura Fussell:

Our story begins with a Reston man being arrested at some point Saturday, though Arlington police spokesman Dustin Sternbeck was not sure what he was charged with. Then, around 11 p.m., a reportedly naked woman appeared at the magistrate’s office next to the county jail, demanding to see her husband. Police believe she was intoxicated. . . . The Shamrock Crawl, advertised as Arlington’s largest bar crawl, was held from 2 p.m. to 9 p.m. Saturday, and though Sternbeck was not certain the woman was a pub crawler, “anybody who was in Clarendon that afternoon was participating one way or the other.”
The woman “was given several opportunities to put her clothes back on,” Sternbeck said, “exit the magistrate’s office and go home in a cab. But she refused and took the charges,” which meant spending the night in the county jail. . . . She and her husband were both released the next day . . .
Maura Fussell, 26, of Reston, was charged with indecent exposure and being drunk in public.

America loves you, Mrs. Fussell!

 

FMJRA 2.0: Vernal Equinox Late Edition

— compiled by Wombat-socho


Rule 5 Sunday: Take It Like A Man

Ann Coulter on Illegal Immigration and Demographics: ‘No, You’re Raping Me.’

Erika Harold For Congress: A CPAC, Rule 5 & Godliness Trifecta

Get ‘Empowered,’ Duke-Style!

FMJRA 2.0: Sweeping Up After CPAC Edition

Actual GOP Leadership On Display

Chateau de Raceur

Daniel Hannan CPAC 2014

Sarah Palin CPAC 2014 Part 1

LIVE AT FIVE: 03.10.14

Yale Girls Are Sluts

Who Is @LenaDunham’s Uncle and Why Does He Keep Making Her Get Naked?

Sarah Palin CPAC 2014 Part 2 (Seuss!)

LIVE AT FIVE: 03.11.14

‘This Is a Tragedy in the Family’: @Belle_Knox’s Horrible Disgrace

Brett Kimberlin and ‘False Narratives’

LIVE AT FIVE: 03.12.14

E-Mail to a Friend: Are We Being Too Judgmental About the Duke Porn Star?

Feminist Professors Gone Wild

‘An Honest Mistake?’ Has Brett Kimberlin Ever Done Anything ‘Honest’ in His Life?

‘I’d Had Enough of the Insanity’

Death at SXSW

Why Does Ezra Klein Hate Gays?

Two Sluts Do ‘Empowering’ Podcast


Top linkers this week:

  1. Regular Right Guy (17)
  2. Batshit Crazy News (8)
  3. Lonely Conservative (7)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery, and apologies for the belated recognition! Deadline to submit links for this weekend’s FMJRA is noon on Saturday, March 22.


Also, @Belle_Knox Is a Psycho

Somebody mentioned this in the comments the other day, but I just got around to checking it out: Duke University freshman Miriam Weeks, who has recently become notorious as porn star Belle Knox, is a “cutter,” with visible scars that show her history of self-harm. “Apparently her ex-boyfriend that cheated on her told her she was fat so she carved the word into her thigh.”

The idea that the daughter of an affluent doctor began shooting porn videos because she couldn’t afford tuition always seemed a bit strange, and her claims that doing porn was “empowering,” an expression of “sexual autonomy,” were even stranger. It is becoming obvious that she has struggled with mental health issues for many years, and the liberal media’s ostentatious posture of non-judgmentalism isn’t really the kind of help she needs. Also, it’s boring.

If you want to see how to turn an article about porn into pure tedium, go read Noah Berlatsky’s Atlantic article, “Students Who Do Sex Work.” Berlatsky doesn’t even raise an eyebrow at this startling confession from one student porn performer:

I started modeling three years ago simply because I wanted to. It was a process of trying to reclaim my sexuality and sexual presentation after a series of sexual assaults. Unfortunately it wasn’t enough to ameliorate a lot of the trauma I was dealing with, which exacerbated my mental health issues. I was in college full time at that point, getting by financially with a combination of loans, scholarships, and money my parents had set aside for my education. My mental illness progressed to the point that it started affecting my academics, and I was eventually hospitalized. I had to take a medical leave.

WHOA! Sexual assaults, trauma, mental health issues, psychiatric hospitalization? I’m gonna take a wild guess that getting boned on video is not particularly effective as outpatient therapy.

But isn’t this something that common sense suggests? Do we really need case studies and social-science research to know that the porn business harbors a lot of psychologically damaged people with issues relating to sexual abuse and poor self-esteem? Non-judgmentalism is utterly irresponsible when confronted with such a situation, and kudos to Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post for this fine sentence:

Letting a man ejaculate on your face is not empowering under anyone’s definition of the term.

 Belle Knox is a symptom of a culture gone mad.

 

Category: Sex

Celebrity News: ‘Flamboyant’ Skater Johnny Weir Divorces His Gay Husband

Whenever I get bored with politics, there’s always the celebrity tabloid headlines at WeSmirch. Of course, most of these “celebrities” nowadays are reality-TV personalities you never heard of, and the stories are mostly exercises in trivial silliness.

Radar Online uses the stereotypical adjective “flamboyant” to describe former Olympic skater (and NBC Sports commentator) Johnny Weir, 29, who announced a divorce from Victor Voronov. Evidently, there were domestic violence issues in their relationship, including an incident when Voronov accused Weir of biting him:

About a month before the games in Russia, Weir’s husband filed a police report in which he alleged the three-time U.S. national champion of biting him.
Despite the allegations, the couple had appeared to have worked out their differences when they appeared in a Lyndhurst, New Jersey, courtroom, requesting a judge dismiss the case.
>Weir married Voronov in December 2011 and recently spoke about their dynamic relationship.
“A marriage between two guys is different than what I imagine a marriage between a man and a woman [to be],” he told Access Hollywood in February. “I mean, we’re both constantly trying to fight to wear the pants in the relationship.
“It’s constant fireworks,” Weir added. “It’s very boom, boom, boom.”

Uh, yeah. But if I said that — obviously, gay marriage is different — they’d call me a homophobic bigot. And “flamboyant”? Why don’t you just call him a mincing sissy and get it over with, Radar?

In other urgent celebrity news, Lindsay Lohan fired her $1,500-a-day “sobriety coach” as soon as she finished shooting her reality show for Opray Winfrey’s network, so expect her to start racking up DUI arrests and a trip back to rehab in the near future.

Also, Kim Kardashian got into some drama with her ex, Charlize Theron in a bikini, and Mick Jagger’s dead girlfriend.

Meh. It’s only slightly less boring than politics.

 

At War With God and Nature: @AmandaMarcotte’s Darwinian Fate

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
— Genesis 1:28 (KJV)

“I don’t want a baby. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . .
“I like not having a giant growth protruding out of my stomach. I hate hospitals and like not having stretch marks. . . .
“This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”

— Amanda Marcotte, March 14

Every girl should have a sister, every boy should have a brother, and an ideal family might be two boys and two girls, but things don’t always work out so neatly, which is how my wife and I ended up with six kids: In our quest to provide our eldest daughter Kennedy with a baby sister, we had four boys before Reagan came along.

Despite my joking about the Victory Through Breeding™ program, there wasn’t really an ideology behind our large family. However, by the time our youngest children were born, I was familiar with concerns about demographic decline — the problem of long-term below-replacement fertility rates which had attracted the attention of researchers like Ben Wattenberg (The Birth Dearth, 1989) and others. Low birth rates lead to economic stagnation and other social and political problems, which pro-life activists have been warning about for years.

“In order to turn things around . . . young people getting married have to be thinking of having four or more children.”
— Jim Sedlak, American Life League, 1999

Jonathan V. Last’s recent book, What to Expect When No One’s Expecting: America’s Coming Demographic Disaster, is the latest attempt to call attention to this crisis, but because of liberal hegemony in the media and academia, most people don’t even realize there is a crisis. For the past half-century, our elite culture has been dominated by the neo-Malthusian “overpopulation” myth popularized by Paul Ehrlich, a myth fostered by a eugenics cabal led by David Rockefeller (see Donald Critchlow, Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America, 2001). Progressive feminists like Amanda Marcotte refuse to acknowledge that their “pro-choice” ideology wasn’t developed with an eye toward the rights of women, but instead originated with a racist billionaire who was worried that poor brown people were having too many babies.

A diminished sense of irony is one of the consequences of progressive ideology. If they had any concern for intellectual integrity and philosophical coherence, they wouldn’t be progressives in the first place, which is why a fanatical commitment to radical egalitarianism requires a remarkable ability to tune out the cognitive dissonance inherent to such counterfactual beliefs. This was evident in the controversy that inspired Amanda Marcotte’s weird anti-baby rant last week, namely that “the atheist/skeptic community is in an uproar on the subject of abortion” even though “nearly all non-believers are pro-choice.” The proximate cause of Marcotte’s anger — although she’s so perpetually angry she does not really need a reason to begin ranting like a lunatic — was a post by “pro-life humanist” Kristine Kruszelnicki offering non-religious reasons for protecting the innocent unborn. Among other things, Kruszelnicki pointed to opinion polls showing that 1-in-5 atheists are pro-life, a percentage that doesn’t quite square with Marcotte’s “nearly all” claims about the pro-abortion views of “non-believers.”

Facts and logic can never persuade the ideologue, and Marcotte’s beliefs are clearly rooted in emotions that are deeply irrational and intensely personal. No one who does not already share her radical feminist ideology could be persuaded by Marcotte’s arguments. She is losing, and she knows it: 50% of Americans are pro-life, compared to 41% who are pro-abortion, and the trend toward a pro-life majority is one of those facts which are incompatible with Marcotte’s worldview. This explains the wrathful vehemence with which Marcotte denounced Kruszelnicki:

[I]f wasting time typing that shit out amuses you, knock yourself out. But don’t pretend that you’re advancing the cause of free thought while doing so. That’s because rational, free discourse is predicated on the understanding that everyone involved in the debate is arguing in good faith, and I can assure you, after years of dealing with this issue, that anti-choicers are not arguing in good faith.

Marcotte describes Kruszelnicki’s arguments as “infamous,” and calls Kruszelnicki a “forced-birther.” The disproportion between Kruszelnicki’s stimulus and Marcotte’s over-the-top response is remarkable, signifying the desperate importance of abortion as the philosophical sine qua non of Marcotte’s feminist sensibility.

If killing babies is wrong, Amanda Marcotte doesn’t want to be right.

Christians may perceive in Marcotte’s wicked depravity confirmation of the Bible’s prophetic truth, for she is “full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity . . . without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful.” But when the mask slips and her ghastly hatefulness is revealed, Marcotte goes off an another deranged rant about “compulsory child-bearing” and “traditional gender roles,” in a transparent effort to distract attention from her own problems.

Ah, “the personal is political,” as the ancient feminist maxim declares, and the psychiatric root of Marcotte’s animosity toward “traditional gender roles” is obviously a sour-grapes rationalization: No man has ever wanted her to become the mother of his children, and the reject pretends to be the one doing the rejection. Her boyfriend/roommate is IT director at the Center for Reproductive Choice. No one is trying to impose “compulsory child-bearing” and “traditional gender roles” on her.

Bitter much, Amanda?

Thus the unacknowledged irony of Marcotte addressing her rant to the Darwinians of “the atheist/skeptic community.” If evolution is about the “survival of the fittest,” Marcotte is manifestly unfit, a reproductive reject, a Darwinian dead end approaching her own extinction. And as Pete Da Tech Guy points out, “By choosing not to have children, she is conceding the future to people like the Dugger family.”

It’s completely irrational, but of course, she’s a feminist.