TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Hillary To Make Gender Issues Key to Presidential Bid

ralphswanson

April 13, 2015
98 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.wired.com/2015/04/hillary-clinton-women-presidential-2016/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Hillary To Make Gender Issues Key to Presidential Bid
Author

ralphswanson

Upvotes 98
Comments 65
Date April 13, 2015 1:36 AM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/32e6x8/hillary_to_make_gender_issues_key_to_presidential/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/hillary-to-make-gender-issues-key-to-presidential.983208
https://theredarchive.com/post/983208
Top posts by ralphswanson

Women are 55% of Government Employees in Canada, yet they still benefit from preferential hiring

898 upvotes
February 25, 2015
/r/MensRights

Canadian Supreme Court affirms that sex while drunk is rape but only for males

541 upvotes
May 7, 2021
/r/MensRights

Three female guards at same prison jailed for affairs with inmates

380 upvotes
January 5, 2023
/r/MensRights

Feminists Complain that only 40% of US and Canadian Companies have Anti-Male Hiring Policies

308 upvotes
November 5, 2018
/r/MensRights

Multi-millionaire Olivia Colman promotes wage gap hoax

301 upvotes
March 25, 2024
/r/MensRights

Feminist Claims Her Paranoia of Assault 'Proves' That Women are Victims Despite Men Being Assaulted Three Times as Often. The press and academia love this non-sense.

147 upvotes
January 12, 2019
/r/MensRights

Biden admin announces next steps in overhauling Betsy DeVos' Title IX rules opening the door for false rape accusations

145 upvotes
April 6, 2021
/r/MensRights

"Asking men to stand at the back of a room so that women can take their place at the front isn't spitting in the face of equality" Another Aussie Feminist Justifies her Sexism

129 upvotes
May 28, 2015
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Trunk-Monkey 63 points64 points65 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

She made her entire political career a gender issue by saying things like this:

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children"

ABC for President in 2016! (Anyone But Clinton)

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points24 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yep, men die and women have to carry on by themselves, so hard. Somebody remind me to register to vote against this idiot.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Woman have to look after children and stay home by themselves, the hardest job in the world!!

[–]evencorey 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Theres a reddit bot dedicated to this. Remindme! one week "WHAT"

[–]DAE_FAP 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Go register right now. It takes all of ten minutes and needs to be done in advance of the election.

[–]Saerain 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I suppose it makes sense if you believe in an "afterlife" for some reason. Of course, that then has some pretty ridiculous implications about what her healthcare and wartime decisions might be like.

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I suppose it makes sense if you believe in an "afterlife" for some reason.

It also makes sense if you're a self-centered female -- but I repeat myself.

[–]bradley129 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Im confused by your statement "if you believe in an "afterlife"" What do you mean by that?

[–]Saerain 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Then the men escape to some eternal bliss while the women are left to drudge through this mortal coil with their sinful children.

Or she's just sexist, of course.

[–]curt_schilli 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Do you have a video or transcript of her saying that? Not trying to argue with you, I just want to see it.

[–]Trunk-Monkey 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

She said it in a speech at the CONFERENCE ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SAN SALVADOR, EL SALVADOR -- NOVEMBER 17, 1998

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Domestic violence is apparently just like organized violence at the national scale according to her.

[+]rg57 -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hmm. Something from this century, perhaps...? Preferably this decade...

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The only person worse than Hilary Clinton would be Jeb Bush. Please America don't let another Bush become president.

[–]iNQpsMMlzAR9 47 points48 points49 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

"Hillary to make one gender's Issues Key to Presidential Bid."

Fairly certain infant genital mutilation and the sentencing/empathy/violence-victim/workplace-fatality/combat-death gaps aren't what they have in mind when they say "gender issues".

[–]BlueDoorFour 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

But catcalling!!

[–]guywithaccount 28 points29 points30 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You can't even walk down a street in New York for ten hours anymore without some nigger saying good morning to you. MISOGYNY!

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]guywithaccount 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Poor black people men need to learn their place and stop saying "good morning" to white people women. How dare they speak to us in public?"

[–]lmNotCreativeEnough 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't forget man spreading!

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And depictions of female spider man on comics!

[–]ThePigmanAgain 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And cringing Batgirl.

[–]Trunk-Monkey 27 points28 points29 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hillary Clinton at the Democratic Presidential Debate, Manchester, New Hampshire, June 3, 2007

"…freedom is never granted. It is earned by each generation…"

I suggest we earn our freedom by not electing Clinton!

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You do realize it's up to the republican party to refute it right? And conservatives have lost every major battle since feminism first formed as a thought in someones head. They'll just do their usual thing and blather on about traditional values as if that is what anyone wants, man or woman. The republicans will get slaughtered. They always do on social issues.

I'm looking forward to a new Todd Akin every week.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She's not the Democrat nominee yet. She still has to run a gauntlet of other lefties including other women. Radical Feminism has been given free reign by both sides because until now criticising it can only lose you votes. If Hillary fights under a Feminist banner, attacking it would actually reduce the damage she'd do. .

[–]MattClark0995 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yea Republican suck, they are horrible. Can't win elections at all...well except for these historic wins. But those don't count.

The only idiots here are the ones who think that Hillary (a HORRIBLE campaigner and person) is going to be able to slaughter any Republican by virtue of "social issues" alone.

An OBJECTIVE person...say Nate Silver, knows this is not the case and that a Republican has a good chance of winning office despite what Reddit liberals may smugly think.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not if Jeb Bush is their candidate. The problem with Republicans is they select the absolute worst candidates who would run the country into the ground (and did so under the Bush administration).

[–]yoduh4077 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Here's our chance for the spotlight! If she claims to be making gendered issues most of her platform, we have to bombard her with men's rights issues. Either she admits to feminist pandering BS, we successfully call her out on pandering, or our squeaky wheel finally gets some grease!

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JoeBidenBot 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I have been summoned! So what'll it be, master?

[–]ThePigmanAgain 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Great. Instead of a plutocrat-serving, warmongering piece of scum, the world would be run by a plutocrat-serving, warmongering, sexist piece of scum. There's an improvement. Between the fact that she would be as bad as a Republican in most ways, and worse than a Republican when it comes to hating on men, it's time for sensible MRAs to start looking away from the jackasses. Unless the Dems put up an actual human being, then it's a different story. Warren or Sanders would be nice.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Elizabeth Warren isn't going to run. Martin O'Malley looks like a viable Democratic alternative to Hillary Clinton.

[–]guywithaccount 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Martin O'Nobody? Somehow, I have my doubts.

edit:

You know, when Obama came out of nowhere to win the primary for the 2008 election, people said he was a do-nothing Senator, a Chicago crook, a bullshitter who talked a lot about hope but wasn't credible. And they were right. I'm saying this as a liberal, you understand. He "compromised" with Republicans even when they used it against him, he abandoned single payer or Medicare-for-all schemes and gave us Romneycare, he used drones to murder civilians (don't worry, they were all brown foreigners, nothing to see here), he dragged his feet ending the wars and never closed Gitmo, his administration blew off bank fraud, and on and on. People say his hands were tied; I say he wasn't trying very hard, nor aiming very high.

What was Obama's sudden rise to popularity based on? Because it wasn't a history of taking a principled stance on the issues. It's not like we knew that Obama was the right man for the job, because we didn't know anything about him.

Contrast that with someone like Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich. We know exactly where those guys stand on issues because they've been standing there for years. There are no mysteries, no surprises. Or take Jill Stein. Okay, she kinda came out of nowhere - but her campaign built a strong identity right away, with clear position statements, and that was what she ran on. And that position was mostly compatible with the one the Green Party's been taking for years. Warren has kind of come out of nowhere too, but again, she's taken a very clear, uncompromising position regarding the financial sector, a very pro-Main Street position, and she's famous because of that, not because of flowery speeches about hope and change.

So when people talk about O'Malley, I think, if this guy is such a great alternative to Hillary, why haven't I heard about him? Why haven't I heard from him in one of the zillion emails I get from all the petition sites and ostensibly-liberal political organizations? Why don't I already know his position right now, like I do with Sanders or Warren?

So I looked him up. On Wikipedia, because I'm not going to waste all night Googling him. And from what I can see, he's mainly famous for implementing technical solutions that saved his state some money and increased transparency, and supporting same-sex marriage. That's it. Oh yeah, and he's been super inconsistent on immigration, saying one thing and half-assing another. Can't forget that.

Where is he on foreign policy? War? Taxes? Privacy? The banks, their fraud, their "too big to fail" status? Education? Education debt? Worker rights, including unions? Employment? Science funding? Trade agreements? Election and campaign reform? Corruption? Wealth inequality? Hell if I know. Hell if I can guess. I suppose if the time comes, his campaigns will do some polling and focus grouping to figure out what he should say he believes in.

If all you care about is having a "safe" alternative to both Hillary and the Republicans, then yeah, I guess O'Malley could be a good choice. But I think he's just going to be another Al Gore or John Kerry. You may recall that both those guys lost their bids because they were boring candidates with small ideas. Frankly I think the only reason Obama won was because after two terms of Dubya the left would have elected Satan as long as he ran on a Democratic ticket. Or maybe because McCain/Palin was such a monstrously bad proposition that upon seeing that it was actually happening four writers for The Onion lost all faith in the universe and threw themselves out of a window.

[–]ThePigmanAgain 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Nobody can safely say, at this early stage, that Warren is not going to run. Not even Warren herself. She can still change her mind and use "the call of history" or "popular demand" as an excuse for "changing her mind." Even if she doesn't get in i would rather see her, not that piece of filth Clinton, in the history books as the first woman to run for a major party.

I have never even heard of Martin O'Mallet before. What is he, some Irish carpenter?

Edit : stupid grammar.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

He is the former mayor of Baltimore and governor of Maryland.

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

See, nobody needs to be told who Warren and Sanders are. With such non-existent name recognition i don't see how he stands a chance, no matter what his virtues may be.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ThePigmanAgain 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She would probably be worse. She seems to be a much lower person than he, on that alone her brand of sexism will probably cause more damage.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure he's sexist so much as unable to stand up to anyone's bullshit. I think Jesse Jackson told him he'd excommunicate him from black people unless he ran his mouth about Trayvon Martin, too.

[–]Petermh 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Over the last year, speaking on behalf of The Clinton Foundation, Clinton has frequently decried the gender wage gap in the United States, in which women earn on average 78.3 cents less than their male counterparts.

not too relevant, but I'm laughing at the wording of this.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So women now earn 21.7 cents per dollar!

[–]Rat_Raze 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

counterparts

[–]CountTo70ThenSub1 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's just messed up that men who end up losing their lives are apparently not as important compared to women who end up living. Sure the women may experience hardships if for example they became refugees but at least they're alive...

[–]Funcuz 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Does this really surprise anybody at all ? I don't think she even cares about any of it. She does, however, know that women have no problem buying into that sort of shit so why not ?

I guess if I were in her shoes I'd tell everybody that I planned on moaning about the exact same thing. It's pretty much all she has to offer anyway.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

womens issues

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

“The evidence really shows that where countries have invested in women and girls, societies are safer, and a rising tide really lifts all boats,” she said.

Or countries that flourish through technological advances that allow limiting the liability childbirth and improves lives of men and women.

[–]guywithaccount 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or countries that have the ability to invest meaningfully in "women and girls" have more developed infrastructure and more stable societies and government, without which they wouldn't be investing shit in shit, and the reason the ability to invest manifests as investment in "women and girls" (really schooling, small business loans, etc) is because of gynocentrism and the desire to appear more civilized than others who do not make special efforts to appear to be concerned with the state of women specifically.

[–]rg57 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hillary has already started with "vote for me because I'm a woman". If she follows that up with "gender issues" (read: feminism) then she would lose me as a voter. Now, I'm not a US citizen so I can't vote. But you need to understand that under no circumstances would I ever vote for someone like a Republican. And yet Rand Paul, despite being batshit crazy, is looking like a good response to her. If a lifetime socialist-liberal is saying this, Hillary has problems.

[–]L14M 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah just like Obama made race issues part of his. Oh wait he didn't and has done nothing about current ones, much like how Hillary probably won't say or do much either about gender issues.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Trigunesq 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree, but the difference is that Obama didnt have a history of making race a key platform. Hillary has more of a history of making gender an issue. I am already seeing FB posts talking about "FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT!!!!" Its sad that many people will vote her in just because they REALLY want a woman president SO BADLY. As I have always said, I will vote for a man for president till I die if i Honestly and truly believe that they are the best option. Similarly ill vote for a woman for president till I die if I honestly think she is best for the position. Gender should have NOTHING to do with how you vote.

[–]dangerousopinions 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Well she'll lose then. She's going after a very loud but tiny group of people and she'll piss off the other 80% of the population.

[–]DAE_FAP 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

She's doing it for a few obvious reasons:

1) women are the largest demographic of voters

2) women are more likely to vote democrat than men

3) everybody is more likely to vote in favor of their own interests

It's what everybody saw coming. Playing the gender card gets her an easy base of support in the primaries. Especially knowing that no male democratic candidate would dare challenge her on those issues in debate without losing support themselves. So long as she stays away from the word Feminism, and Elizabeth Warren does not run, this should be an easy slam dunk for her in the primaries. Which means moderates like myself might be stuck supporting a shitty republican candidate.

Republicans need to get their shit together and realize a moderate candidate has a much better chance than another tea-party pandering idiot and start grooming one.

[–]dangerousopinions 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but feminism isnt popular, so if she pushes too hard, amd she will, she'll lose.

[–]DAE_FAP 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

As I said in the comment you're replying to:

So long as she stays away from the word Feminism

She can call it women's rights, or ending sexism, or whatever. I hope she does call it feminism, because I think it would destroy her campaign and feminism.

[–]dangerousopinions 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not talking about the word, I'm talking about the ideology. If she pushes too hard on certain ideas and policies, she'll lose favour and I think that's going to happen.

[–]BruceCampbell123 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course she is.

[–]solaria_mra 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, no, no, please no.

[–]StrikingEarth 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Judging the past few elections, republicans are going to sweep the election

[–]redditorriot 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If this is true then while the spotlight is on her we should recognise this as a fantastic opportunity to press our case.

Get talking about it with people, ramp up the commenting on media sites and on social media.

[–]-Fender- 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hopefully, if she ever gets elected and starts pushing her feminist agenda in a lot of things, then more people will actually take the red pill and start noticing these trends in society, leading to a mass outcry.

Hopefully.

[–]Timotheusss -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Lol, either Clinton or the brother of Bush. You guys are fucked.

[–]Samurai007_ 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I won't vote for Jeb Bush, and neither will most Republicans I know. He's being pushed by the blue-blood country club Republicans who want more cheap Mexican labor in the US, but real conservatives are opposed to him. I really hope we (the tea-party conservative Republican types) can beat him in the Primary so I'll have someone I actually want to vote for in the election.

[–]wisty 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Look at who owns the major parties, and who the "core supporters" (who hand out leaflets / blog / whatever) are.

Democrats are owned by unions. They want to keep the Mexicans out, and legalise the ones who in the country, so they beef up border security (in terms of actual spending) - that keeps the unions happy (no cheap labor) and increases union membership (as the path to citizenship allows more immigrants to join unions). But their core supporters want both higher immigration, and a path to citizenship, so their public statements are pro immigration.

Republicans are owned by business (more than the Dems). They want more Mexicans pushing down wages, but don't want them to be legal (or they might unionise). So they slack off on border control, despite their tough rhetoric (the tough rhetoric just being there to appease their core supporters).

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter