If you read nimbius' response above, you'll have a better idea of why this was.

Basically, prisoners are responsible for purchasing their own sanitary supplies (among other things), men and women.

While this is definitely a factor, I'd like to point out that there is a whole range of humiliating policies(like the fact that you may have to go without toilet paper for bad behaviour) that affects men and women alike, and then the fact that women can be just as bad towards other women too. I wouldn't be surprised if a woman administrator made the same decisions because degrading prisoners is considered a good thing in many places.

You're absolutely correct. HN hates hearing this, but it's true.

It's actually not true, and that's what makes the lack of these protections so terrible.

It's women, who wrote guidelines about how to treat women, and came up with guidelines worse than guidelines that a bunch of old stodgy men in congress came up with yesterday.

That's a real problem. And it's a problem that we need to try to solve in "Second Step".

I mean, why even have female administrators and wardens putting this stuff together, if they are just going to get their cushy jobs and sit there and try to out "man" the men? The entire reason you're there is to supposedly bring a different sensibility.

What's unstated in placing those requirements in this bill, is how much of a dismal failure our hiring programs have been in bringing in people, (men OR women), with different sensibilities. Whether they are male or female, black, white, asian, or hispanic, these positions seem to attract the same sort of people. People who look at the way things are done, and don't see any problem with it.

We need to start looking past identity politics and start seeing that issue.