I am a 20+ year military officer, USMA grad, and combat veteran. I had a number of extended debates with [Charles Clymer] in the Corbin Forum (discusses gender related issues in the military) back in 2011-2012. I found him perhaps sincere, or overly-compensating, in his passion, but totally unable to apply critical thinking to different perspectives. He shut down debate instead of promoting and facilitating it by attacking individuals with differing viewpoints. What I do see is a continuing need for self promotion and a need for ego boosts and affirmation (especially from women).

If interested, you might want to see how he represents his military service given his relatively young age at the time of his “medical retirement.” A term he uses often and also likes to brand his credibility as a member of the Army for 6 years (2005-2012). He certainly has earned a voice as a veteran (though not a combat veteran from what I’ve seen), with approximately 2 years(?) as an enlisted Soldier who then attended West Point/USMA as cadet from 2009-2012. He did not receive a commission from West Point, but his self-reported health issues resulted in a “medical retirement.”

If you are unfamiliar with the military jargon, his wording conveys a particular spin that warrants scrutiny if he is attempting to benefit from it. He apparently tallies his 4 years as a cadet as part of his overall 6 years as an Army Veteran. That is like a lawyer including his time as a law student to make you think he has more experience than he really does.

While in actuality he would have been a card carrying member of the Department of the Army (basically in a student membership status) during those 4 years that time is not considered usable for active federal service. Time as a West Point cadet time gets rated to about the equivalent of 15 membership points in the Army Reserve per year. Generally speaking – you’re getting credit for learning military science as a college student. But those 4 years do not normally viewed as Active Federal Service Years for military service.

So you have someone saying they have 6 years of military service instead of really saying they got some initial entry training for a job for about a year, worked in the “field” for a year, before getting a college scholarship for 4 years.

Then there is the use of the term “medically retired” which has a positive connotation as someone who served around 20 years or at least a good number of years that their service and medical problems earned a retirement compensation. With so little actual time in service, I would scrutinze the actual terms on which was released from his military commitments. Often the more appropriate term is medically separated or chaptered from the Army when a medical condition disqualifies you from continued service and you need to be released from contractual enlistment/commissioning obligations.

Separation means you have an injury which precludes your performance of duty, and not enough for retirement. Retirement on the other hand means you have an injury, which
precludes your duty so drastically with enough time and service, you are retired with a pension for that injury. Also, you can be medically separated but receive a % disability payment from the V.A.. I do not see Charles as having a enough time in service to warrant a “retirement”, but perhaps instead having a service related condition that receives some level of federal compensation. I only speculate to this level because he tends to use it in his credentials so much. But at this point I am speculating without knowing any further facts and can’t continue.


comment on When Bad Allies Get “Good Guy” Awards at makemeasammich.org, providing further evidence for the notion that Charles Clymer is a severe narcissist

if you ever need a modern-day example of propaganda:



The economics of consent: Why BDSM and consumer capitalism are closer than you think


whenever male radical feminist allies reblog or make posts mocking liberal feminists….

do you think that because youre on the “right” side of feminism you get to be misogynistic again? are you even reading what we say or just wanting to earn bonus points…??

(via genderheretic)

"Women are not oppressed…. feminists today make themselves just victimize themselves."

literally a male teenage IDF soldier

PODCAST: Has the gay rights movement 'lost its teeth?' Julie Bindel on her new book, 'Straight Expectations'

Francois Tremblay seems pretty affected by a post that I posted. He can’t seem to understand that I originally posted it though, instead sarcastically attacking a woman who reblogged it…





"Sam Pepper – The Real ‘Reveal’" | I’m Anonymous

*TRIGGER WARNING: graphic description of rape

This needs to be seen on a mass scale


I’m shaking & crying

(via genderheretic)

November 2013: ‘I’m not a pilot, I’m a pilot’s wife,’ says 3 yr old girl

September 2014: Fox News presenters crack a series of sexist jokes about the UAE’s first female fighter pilot



(via genderheretic)

In Which I Am a Raging Feminist

this is where we are: a male Cato Institute research fellow can admit to what femininity and gender are about, while men on the Left can’t let go of their sex-posi Utopia..

This is probably the least upset that I’ve been that a fellow man is calling himself a feminist

Pornland: How the Porn Industry Has Hijacked Our Sexuality [Trailer]

Produced & Distributed by the Media Education Foundation

An Illustrated lecture with Gail Dines

Pornography has moved from the margins of society into the very mainstream of American culture. From Internet pornography to MTV, pop culture industries bombard us with sexualized images of idealized women and men that jump off the screen and into our lives, shaping our gender identities, our body image, and especially our intimate relationships. In this multimedia presentation based on her acclaimed book, leading anti-porn feminist and scholar Gail Dines argues that the dominant images and stories disseminated by the multibillion-dollar pornography industry produce and reproduce a gender system that undermines equality and encourages violence against women. In direct opposition to claims that porn has delivered a more liberated, edgy sexuality, Dines reveals a mass-produced vision of sex that is profoundly sexist and destructive - a vision that limits our ability to create authentic, equal relationships free of violence and degradation.

An ideal introduction to the core arguments of the feminist anti-pornography movement.