‘Inclusive’ is bullshit

Not often do I ‘go off’ at (het) women, but the one time that I do, is their insistence that everything be either male/M2T ‘inclusive’. They need to wake up and smell the patriarchy on this one.

This post is really a follow-on after reading Meghan Murphy’s post on “27 years after the Montreal Massacre, misogynist violence remains a norm“. Not being in Canada, I was sad to read that Vancouver Rape Relief (VRR) was under attack yet again. Their ‘crime’ (again) was for being ‘trans exclusionary’.

Nothing could be further from the truth. VRR were actually ‘trans inclusionary’ (read: M2T) at a time when it was not popular to do so. Indeed, they were quite the vanguard in this respect, well before most women’s support organisations were, or MANdated to be, as most are now. Read the timeline at VRR.

The basic reason that VRR keep getting this ‘trans exclusive’ accusation against them, is because Nixon would not abide by the same rules for females (to take off at least a year between the counseling and enrolling in the training programme to counsel other battered women). Because it was a mere three months before Nixon turned up to enroll for training. The only mistake VRR made in this respect, was to cite the reason of ‘not having the same life experience as the female-born’, when in actual fact (apart from the life experience, which was still true), the primary reason is that Nixon fronted up  for training three months after finishing counseling. Perhaps they thought citing this reason, rather than the three-month insistence on enrollment, would have been ‘saving face’ for the M2T. Nope, ‘red rag to a bull’ scenario – the worst possible excuse was given.

Either way, VRR were in the right. Females were expected to adhere to the “one year rule”. But Nixon, born and raised male, figured that rules for females did not apply to him (male supremacy thinking) – and ‘born and raised female’ should also not be a barrier to him (being born and raised male, this is completely dismissive of the female life experience). Either way, VRR were in the right, Nixon, the male-raised asshole, was totally in the wrong. But being male, he automatically assumed he was in the right, and instigated a more than ten-year legal battle against the organisation. The same organisation that helped him, when in need. That did not matter to him. It did not matter than he nearly caused the organisation to fold under this ‘never-ending’ legal assault. He kept going. To ‘prove’ he ‘was right’. Did he think about the women and children left vulnerable if the organisation folded? No! He kept it up. Ultimately, VRR did win legally on the peer-to-peer counseling front.

It is both ironic, and infuriating, that VRR continually get harassed on the ‘not trans inclusive’ front, when they absolutely were, to their detriment.


Female-only Activism

The insistence of het (including ‘bi’) women that ‘male allies’ or ‘trans’ (meaning M2T) be included in any feminist event or march. In essence, they are foisting their main/malestream ‘privilege’ onto all other women, who do not want to include males of any kind. What they do not know, have not experienced, are genuine female-only gatherings. The ‘energy’ (or ‘vibe’ if you will) is completely different to so-called ‘inclusive’ gatherings. This is why ‘trans activists’ spent so many years trying to shut down Michigan Women’s Fest, or at least, tried to infiltrate the festival. Men, males, cannot tolerate female-only gatherings. They absolutely KNOW that female-only gatherings will lead to women getting ‘uppity’ (ie feminist/liberationist) ideas, and potentially an end to male supremacy.

So why, why, het women, are you pushing this male agenda? Is it to look cool to your (probably lefty) boyfriends? It seems so. Here is the thing, you do not throw other women/feminists under the bus to impress your boyfriend, no matter how ‘yummy’ you may think he is.  Your boyfriend, your choice, not mine, so stop shoving him in my face. Because unfortunately for you, you have been brainwashed into seeing only ‘the good’ in aforementioned boyfriend, and very actively, dismissing the bad. Those of us who have no interest in boyfriends, have no such agenda. We see them for what they are – at best, passive recipients of the patriarchy. And yes, they all do, even if they put a little face-time into SJWarrioring. Or lefty-duding. Same shit, different day.

“But we need male allies” you cry in defence. Nope! We don’t. The main directive of both the first and second wave feminisms were all about just getting the job done, and stopping pandering to the ‘male sensibilities’ – because there are none, at least, not in the mainstream or majority of males. Sure, males will give you some lip service as to how ‘in touch with their feminine side’ they are, and to ‘prove’ it, they will list the list of lefty causes. Lefty causes are NOT feminist causes. Sure, there can be overlap (by feminists), but that is not true of lefty male allies. Their main goal, is how much ‘pussy’ they can get from this spin. For the lefty dude, it is all about dick action without the consequences. RW dudes, it is about individual ownership. For feminists, it is ‘fuck off, NONE of you own us or use us in any way, shape or form”. That last part, pretty much the essence of what feminism is all about. It certainly is NOT about impressing your boyfriend. In fact, by using us (actual feminists) to score ‘points’ with your boyfriend, is fairly abhorrent. We don’t give a shit about him. But what we give a shit about, is how women and girls are oppressed as a class. Yeah, a bit more than just about you. Or your fucking dreamy Nigel. I give zero fucks on this subject. Zero. Fuck him all you want, but don’t include me on your path to self-destruction. Because this is what compulsory heterosexuality is all about, co-opting women’s energy and labour to serve the patriarchical objectives. I want no part in that. If you want to personally sacrifice yourself in that one, knock yourself out. Don’t include me, or other women.

‘Male allies’ have had six thousand years or longer to get their shit together. They are from the ruling class after all, so have more impact than females. Somehow, this Unicorn Theory, has not panned out, at all, other than lefty dudes sticking their dicks into gullible women. Funny that. The old ‘Boner Directive’. But yeah, you call it ’empowerment’ because you have the occasional orgasm. We call it being duped. The rest of them of course, are actively oppressing us by the beatings and rapings. It is a pretty low bar, to consider some dude ‘nice’ only because it does not actively beat or rape some woman.

I come back to Meghan Murphy’s post, that so many so-called ‘nice guys’ just ‘snap’ and kill women and children. So what does that mean? Do we women, go for ‘bad guys’ that won’t be doing what the ‘good guys’ are doing? False dichotomy. There is very little difference between either category. And that there, is pretty much the main problem. So-called heterosexuality is the problem. Males are not a species that can be trusted. Yes, ‘a species’. Because they are not remotely like women at all (even with all the faults of women, that don’t even come close). Or at the very least, you cannot tell a ‘good guy’ from a ‘bad guy’ until it is too late! If you scoff at that, go read some serious DV literature, because clearly you are clueless.


Oh yeah, the lefty dudes. Look at the Occupy movement. Rife with sexual assault and rapes of the ‘female supporters’ (clue: this was a men’s movement, you were there to serve). Or Egypt, where women “supporters” (although they were billed as co-activists) were also subject to sexual assault. Or any other lefty movement, including the US civil rights era, where women were made to take side routes (wtaf?). This is what lefty SJW dudes think of us. Make no mistake. We are the ‘tea lady’ to all their ‘important man business’ shit going down.

So, ‘inclusive’? They have NEVER been inclusive, other than to have us serve as handmaidens for their causes. And to make the point of where we stand, they rape, they sexually assault, even when we are ‘on their side’.

Why the fucking hell ever, should we ‘include’ them, court them as ‘allies’? When they have proven over and over again (and I seriously could have given a load more examples) that they cannot be trusted, they are not our allies. Furthermore, we should never be their so-called ‘allies’, when we are just rape fodder.

Don’t include males in feminist activism, ever. I really don’t give a shit how Nice Nigel you think he is, males as a class, cannot be trusted.

And if you foist your particular Nigel onto other female activists, you are actually supporting patriarchy.



5 thoughts on “‘Inclusive’ is bullshit

  1. The women in the Civil Rights movement hoped that if they worked hard enough that men would in their turn would life them up, only to find that a false promise and that their contributions were sidelined.

    I hear you, you can’t even have a conversation these days among women about something like male violence without the male participation in the form of one woman or another bringing up a sorry tale of woe of some man they know. They don’t care it distracts from the issue and from the voices of women who have directly affected in the most harmful ways. And even though I don’t like it, it’s het women that are the culprits, male identified and male centred, even if it is unwitting or just simply thoughtless in nature. I can sort of understand it, Andrea Dworkin’s Right Wing Women is a good book that covers why women tend to align strongly with men (or rather participate in what is a protection racket) to the detriment of their sisters. It doesn’t make it right though.

    That’s why focus groups and meetings of women are so important, so you can remove yourself from all of that. But they have pretty much killed them. I think we just have to keep on reminding and reminding again that men are not there for them and wait for the tincture of time given most women will get to a certain stage of life and finally have that epiphany and realise for all they have done, men still hate them.


  2. Inclusivity is another male created lie as demonstrated by the above article. Have women ever asked themselves given ‘inclusivity’ means including the boys then why oh why doesn’t this mean that the boys’ only political organisations/clubs have women leading their clubs/organisations???

    Why oh why are the left-wing male dominated political organisations operated and run by men – rather than the boys ensuring the leaders are 50% women and 50% men??

    Well obviously inclusivity doesn’t mean the boys letting us women actually be in charge over males because that would seriously ‘upset the boys’ pseudo male sex right to oppress us women!’ Instead as usual we women are expected to cede political power to the boys.

    Womens’ Liberation means female freedom from male control – not female pandering to the boys! Female Slaves cannot achieve freedom and simultaneously work with their male masters to maintain the master/female slave system!

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Yes, the trades unions did not have to admit the employers or have the employers lead them. I think this is a bit diff under corporatism, the system in Mussolini’s Italy. But certainly the underclass should not have to have those that exploit them involved or in positions of power. Men have never felt this was appropriate for their organisations.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Damn, as a disabled woman it makes me mad to see how inclusion as a term has been co-opted. It actually comes from the disability rights movement, which fights to get disabled people out of institutionalized living which isolates them from mainstream society and makes them more vulnerable to abuse. The term inclusion here means equal access to participate in public life and have access to the care they need at home instead of being shut off in a dark room, figuratively.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Your point is so obvious it is weird how so many women have allowed themselves to be duped. If anyone argued that a black group should be forced to include white members everyone would agree how outrageous that idea would be. An oppressed group needs separation to discuss its issues without being subjected to the risk of hostile infiltration. But who needs men to undermine womens causes when they actively sabotage their own interests?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s