CNN/2016/Hilary Clinton "I will institute gender-responsive policies in the federal prison system and encourage states to do the same—"

NonbinaryYolo · 2024-06-03T13:48:11+00:00

Sorry, this is an old article, but I was not aware Hilary Clinton had held this position, and it feels incredibly significant. I will institute...

[–]Embarrassed-Tune9038 117 points118 points119 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]NullableThought 66 points67 points68 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Embarrassed-Tune9038 30 points31 points32 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]househubbyintraining 17 points18 points19 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Embarrassed-Tune9038 17 points18 points19 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PrettyText 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wardenferry419 25 points26 points27 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pwishall 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Embarrassed-Tune9038 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pvtshoebox 90 points91 points92 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trollsense 10 points11 points12 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Beljuril-home 15 points16 points17 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SvitlanaLeo 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Depressedmusclecar23 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Enzi42 38 points39 points40 points 2 years ago* (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists 25 points26 points27 points 2 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

At the time of Trump's win, the US went into shock, and I was seeing all the identitarian BS hillary and the left were spouting, along her "bunch of deplorables", and thinking "well who would have thought that this kind of thing could backfire ? It is not as if people haven't been telling the left that they need to tone down on the outgroup hatred, and actually start to discuss with the "other".

If only there had been some way they could have known...

And even before that, it always annoyed me how, particularly on the left, which claims so much to be the "tolerant side", people seem absolutely unable to consider that people may be able to have valid opinions.

And this sub is no less prone to that tribalism. Someone from this sub claimed that if people voted trump, it justified women preferring the bear to them, and got plenty of up vote...

[–]Enzi42 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

At the time of Trump's win, the US went into shock

Oh how I remember that. It was such a collective temper tantrum and I remember being incredibly amused and disturbed in equal measure by the antics of people upset at Trump's win, and thankful no one I knew was melting down to such a degree.

I've actually thought long and hard about it in context of what was to come, and I've reached the following conclusion.

It was the right reaction but for the wrong reasons, thus making it wrong. Trump's presidency was a disaster that quite literally cost American lives, in a sense it is understandable that people lost their minds.

...except that it hadn't happened yet; no one could have predicted the perfect storm of events that was 2020. A global pandemic, a huge surge in race tensions, economic upheaval, etc.

So in other words while looking back it may seem to sense, it was completely inappropriate.

[–]Cross55 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The basis of democracy is the idea of compromise, of social dialogue, of exchange of ideas. The party system and it's accompanying tribalism is the antirhesis of that. If you believe absolutely no dialogue is possible, no compromise, then you are the intolerant one, the tyran, leaving only violence as option.

Take a minute to realise that you are stuck in there with people.who think differently from you, they are not going anywhere, and even if you "cleansed" them, political alignement has a huge temperamental component, not to mention that tribalism appears the second you create any two camps, and in a few years, the "issue" would.pop.up.again, unless you engage in North korean style brainwashing, which would make you of the ultimate level of intolerance.

So take a breath, calm down for a second, and really consider that not only dialogue is possible, it is absolutely necessary.

[–][deleted] 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm.from.a country where what passes for your left is equivalent to our right. I have no issue seeing just how insane the US politics is because I stand as an outsider, both from not being from the country, and from being much more left leaning than what your left is.

You feel like the differences between your left and your right are so big they are irreconcilable, meanwhile o see them as virtually identical on so many points.

We have seen governments actually function great with more ideological diversity contained than what can be found in pretty much the who US political spectrum.

And that is how it is easy for me to say to you that not only dialogue is possible, but it is necessary.

So step down your high horse, stop thinking you have the absolute authority on everything and that anyone who disagrees with you is your enemy, and get ready for what is the actual hard work of politics : talking and compromising with the People in front of you.

Your choice is pretty much that or civil war with attrocities beyond your grasp.

May I remind you that it is mostly the right wingers who own the guns, in your country, and that if dialogue becomes absolutely impossible, you might not end up in the "cleansing" side ?

[–][deleted] 2 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Another right-wing propaganda piece "The 2 are basically the same." This is used to discourage voters from voting at all and then giving reps the win because reps vote regardless

Get over yourself. I already pointed out that I am not from your country. I have no dog I this fight. Your overtone Windows is shifted so much to the right compared to mine that yeah, both your parties look identical. Deal with it.

But besides the points, the Reps are racist, anti-choice, anti-immigration, war hawks, anti-uhc, etc... warhawks, while the Dems are largely not.

Racist : Frankly, your left, which is the reason the world is infected with intersectionality and CRT, is so racist that the racism of the right seems tame in comparison.

Anti-choice : said by the guy who considère that anyone who thinks differently from him is evil.

War hawk : sorry, but from an outsiders perspective, be it your left or your right, they are both just as hawkish and warlike. Modern history doesn't really look good for the US on that front, no matter who you elected.

And so on.

If the Reps ever tried anything the US military, which is majority independent or left-wing, will have their asses on platter in a matter of days. Their job isn't to roll over to the right-wingers, it's to protect the Constitution, which an armed uprising by right-winger to topple the government is exactly.

You are convinced that should you keep.on treating the other half of your population as not even worthy of having a voice, and they protected against such tyranny, it would be them who would get exterminated. And you call people who tell you that dialogue is a preferable option as part of the ennemy. And then you dare call the other side as war hawks...

Do you even realize what you are saying ?

Even if you were right, and the army actually sided with you, do you really believe that such a state of things would be a good thing ?

Once again, you are treating the other side as if they should have absolutely no say in your country, which is the definition of a tyranny. I believe your constitution says something about an armed revolution against tyranny. Are you so sure that, even if the generals are left leaning, the grunt soldiers would actually see things your way, and not consider that such an armed revolt is actually in line with your constitution they are tasked to protect ?

Dialogue is the only functional way to run a country. You need to have dialogue with the other side. The alternative is too ghastly to contemplate.

[–][deleted] 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SpicyMarshmellow 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mundane_Panda_3969 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SpicyMarshmellow 20 points21 points22 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think Trump was a blessing few people recognize. Bush created the environment that was going to result in a Trump-style movement eventually. I recognized that movement building since at least 2003, and it was only going to keep growing until it manifested. It manifested with Trump. The dollar store Hitler. The guy doesn't even care about the movement. He just says what a certain group of people want to hear, is revolting to anyone who wasn't already looking for someone to say those specific things, is so dumb he can barely read, and has zero conviction about anything in this world outside of himself. It could have been soooooooo much fucking worse. Hillary winning would have just been 4, if not 8, more years of festering, and likely someone worse than Trump at the end of it. Like an actual true believer fascist with an ounce of intelligence or charisma.

The irony is Trump is 100% Hillary's fault, too. Not in the sense that she lost. But in the sense that she deliberately chose him to be her opposition in the general. Look up the pied piper strategy. Hillary's hubris is fucking immeasurable. As much as Trump exemplifies the worst of republicans, Hillary exemplifies the worst of Democrats.

[–]Durmyyyy 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SpicyMarshmellow 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SvitlanaLeo 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Smurphftw 16 points17 points18 points 2 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]SvitlanaLeo 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Enzi42 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Oh I absolutely agree with you that Trump's victory was bad for men, although I think it's more nuanced (and more depressing) than your characterization of it, so I'd respectfully like to give an alternate perspective.

When it comes to men's concerns and Trump vs Clinton, I think it was a case of "Would you rather burn to death or freeze to death?"

Concern and care for men's issues was already in the toilet prior to the 2016 race. We were in Obama's second term and he had revealed himself to be a pretty big misandrist.

Not only did he make a number of unsolicited and unnecessary anti male comments, he did a pretty big about-face on some of his more male friendly policies and his overall attitude towards men just became condescending and callous while he gushed over women.

While I'm not one of those people who ascibes blame to the sitting president for the actions of the citizens, I will say that a lot of the in-your-face "Tumblr feminism" started oozing out of online spaces and into mainstream society (the media, entertainment, real world interactions) under Obama. Again while I don't think he is completely to blame for that I think he most definitely did not help.

I could go on and on but my point is that Obama ushered in the age of misandric sentiment towards men's issues. I think there was just cold apathy and or outright ignorance about them before, but true malice and resentment began to build in his time.

I think that had Hillary Clinton won, she would have continued the slow but steady smothering of men's issues. Not just through implementing laws that hindered and unfairly affected men, but through ensuring that talking about or even caring about men's issues became increasingly taboo and looked at in an "All Lives Matter" sort of way.

Talking about men's problems would be "interfering with women's Big Moment and entirely unwelcome. And from what I've seen, those anti male elements would co opt other men to harshly silence dissenters.

Again I could go on but I think my point is made. Now, you've already gone through why Trump was bad and I agree so I'm not really going to dissect the chaos he wrought on men's problems.

I will say though that I think one also has to factor in the MeToo movement and the shockwaves of misandry and overall hatred of men in caused around the world.

It was a truly unique period where you had women comfortable enough in their sexism to do and say things that I don't think would be acceptable even now:

Publically saying that men who were falsely accused and lost their jobs or even lives were acceptable sacrifices for women's "revolution", a lady going on national television to sing a song mocking and dismissing the problems of men and boys and people talking about how it brought "tears of joy to their eyes", the mothers writing nasty articles about their own young male children as if they were ticking time bombs of misogny...the list goes on. And thats just public insanity, saying nothing about the things I had said to me in private interactions.

While Trump had a negative effect on men's issues, I think women's frenzy of hatred in the MeToo era also had a huge amount to do with the sheer disdain and hatred shown towards those concerns and those they effected more than Trump did.

I cannot imagine Clinton being in office during that time; I think it would have been far, far worse than it already was and in fact I think we'd still be dealing with it.

This is not me defending Trump in the least. As I said, I didn't vote for him, and I actually consider him one of the worst presidents we've had, actively responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans. But I don't think he messed up men's issues in any particularly unique way, at least nothing compared to the damage a Clinton presidency would have.

...as I said in an earlier comment, I truly wish I had voted independently back then or just not voted at all. But I was younger, I was just really discovering politics and social issues, and the concept of voting anything other than Democrat or Republican or even nothing was unthinkable, it was just not even an option in my household.

[–]SpicyMarshmellow 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Enzi42 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SpicyMarshmellow 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Smurphftw 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't think HRC would have been worse for a couple reasons.

You may have notice that HRC tends to pander. I'm understating it. She's the most pandering politician I've ever seen. Whoever her audience is, she puckers up and kisses the asses of those in attendance. It doesn't at all mean she would have signed legislation that they wanted.

She also, unlike Trump, would have been competent. Saying you would have voted independent knowing what you know now is a helluva take. There's always a less bad choice. At the very least a Clinton administration wouldn't have appointed Supreme Court justices that feel it's OK to rewrite literal decades of established law. No 10 year old rape victim would have been forced to drive across state lines to have a life saving medical procedure. If you don't think that adds Kerosene to the fire of misandry, I'm not sure what else I can say to you.

Imo overturning Roe did more damage to men's issues than anything Clinton could have thought in her wildest Tumblr feminism pandering dreams. An entire generation of women will be saying fuck off to any legitimate male concerns as a direct result of overturning Roe.

Until ranked choices voting happens, something I am 100% in favor of, voting 3rd party is a pointless excersise. It also gave us 8 years of Bush, 4 years of Trump and 5 Supreme Court justices appointed by Presidents voted in by a minority of voters.

[–]SpicyMarshmellow 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

There are for sure better voting systems than what we have. But I think it's a tautological truth of representative democracy, no matter how the voting system works, that if you vote for people who don't represent you, then you pro-actively guarantee that you won't be represented. If you look at the popularity of politicians, it's crystal clear that the majority of voters are voting for people who don't represent them, and they're doing so because other people are also voting for people who don't represent them. It's a recursive, self-fulfilling clown world logic. If 80% of voters don't vote 3rd party because they deem it a wasted vote on the basis that 80% of voters don't vote 3rd party because they deem it a wasted vote... maaaaaaybe that's self-inflicted?

Yes, I pulled 80% out of my ass because I don't feel like looking it up, but I think it's generous. In every election since 2004, the vast majority of people I've talked to the vast majority of the time aren't happy with their options.

[–]Smurphftw 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpicyMarshmellow 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There hasn't been a D or R presidential candidate in my life that aligned with me even 20%.

My political priorities are anti-mass surveillance, anti-police militarization, anti-war, transparency and freedom of information, environment, prison reform/abolition, anti-capitalism and guillotines for billionaires (but I'd be happy with any promise to make the law apply to them at all). Not a single D or R general election candidate since I was eligible to vote in 2004 has been the slightest bit aligned with me on a single one of those things. They have all been 100% my enemy on every count.

And I understand most don't have political stances as consistently radical as mine. But I think for the average person, it would still be less than 50% both ways. I think it's fair to say that if a candidate will act in opposition to more than 50% of your interests, then voting for them just to stop someone else who's 20% worse is still self-sabotaging.

Also, Bush won 2000, because he literally stole it via his brother's shenanigans in Florida. I don't think you can call Nader sanctimonious at the same time as you're demonizing people who literally just voted for the person they wanted to win, the thing you're theoretically supposed to do in an election, and place the blame solely on him/them when there was actual criminal meddling, without which Gore would have won.

I understand my perspective boils your blood. The intensity of your emotional response doesn't really correlate with anything. I get pretty worked up about it too. I feel pretty strongly that "strategic voting" is the exact thing that has kept us on a slow path to literally the end of civilization for decades. Climate scientists put out the 10 year deadline like 4 years ago. Those margins of harm reduction aren't going to mean much for long, when it's a question of whether we survive as a species or not.

[–]Smurphftw -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Durmyyyy 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clockw0rk 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Onemoretime536 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SvitlanaLeo 10 points11 points12 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Banake 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	CNN/2016/Hilary Clinton "I will institute gender-responsive policies in the federal prison system and encourage states to do the same—"
Author	NonbinaryYolo
Upvotes	83
Comments	46
Date	June 3, 2024 1:48 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1d74uwk/cnn2016hilary_clinton_i_will_institute/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/cnn2016hilary-clinton-i-will-institute-gender.1520431 https://theredarchive.com/post/1520431

Comments