模倣子 Being the Only Woman

 The Story of the Queen of Anatahan (near Saipan!)

Kazuko Higa wound up solita with 32 guys on a tiny island. Only about half the men were left alive by the end--they killed each other off, primarily over Kazuko, the only woman.

Similar story on Pitcairn Island and the Bounty mutineers, as I understand it.

In the latter case, the one or few surviving men re-instituted Christianity, i.e., marriage, to stop the carnage of men killing each other over women.

On Anatahan Island, the surviving men decided they just had to kill off Kazuko in order to put an end to the ongoing violence, but she got wind of it and hid out and eventually escaped and made it back to Japan. She had apparently played something of an active role in playing the men against each other, with fatal consequences.

Kazuko was apparently not especially beautiful but nonetheless inspired lust in the men on the island. She became a stripper and prostitute back in Japan, and also lived off the celebrity generated by her story.


模倣子 Yet another "Not All Feminists" apologia?

I got a reply to one of my posts and I made a reply, so we'll see where it goes.

Check out the University of Idaho (uidaho.edu) Women's Center, since I'm sure they still have up that video of when Gloria Steinem came to give a talk. The last ten minutes are me and Gloria conversing back and forth about...well, you can check it out. Post a reply about what you think of the conversation!

模倣子 Macromemetic Monday

 Memetic Essays LIST - Manga Index 


I'm trying to organize all my essays into a singular document that clearly lays out macromemetics, but there is a lot of material, and I'm not sure about the quality. Many of them are pretty well formatted, have plenty of footnotes, and include diagrams. Others not so much.

I thought I might go back to my short-lived resolution of writing a short post on macromemetics every Monday, and maybe use that format to start to put things into order. Kind of a "letters to the universe" kind of thing, I suppose.

I'll just take a stab at things. I'll try to start with the basics, the zero-assumption level of things, and build from there. I'll try to link in previous essays that support each new point. I guess I'll also go back and edit posts I've made for each Macromemetic Monday to add things like diagrams, more links, and so forth, so they actually lead to more understanding and clarification.

A Little on Micromemetics 

I call my new science "macromemetics" in using the same kind of nomenclature as in economics, i.e., "microeconomics" and "macroeconomics." By this I mean that microeconomics deals with things like individual maximization of utility and individual economic decisions generally, while macroeconomics deals with things like money supply, inflation, and even supply and demand curves, in other words, phenomena that emerge from collective behavior of groups of individuals.

Macromemetics deals with individual behavior with respect to memes (1). Macromemetics deals with the behaviors of collections of individuals with respect to memes, or usually systems of memes (3).

Some Basic Concepts of Micromemetics

Individual people (4) engaging in memetic activities (5) deploy memes in the hope that they will resonate with other agents. An example is telling a joke and having other people laugh (6). If they don't laugh, then it didn't resonate, or the memetic deployment was "unsuccessful."

A good reference for micromemetics is The Meme Machine by Susan Blackmore.

The human brain is structured to recognize memetic deployments by other agents and decide how to react, and to assess the receptiveness of other agents to memes one might deploy oneself, and to learn how to enact memes deployed by other agents.

Memes are a kind of parasitic entities that piggyback on our ability to feel empathy for others, which is a faculty of the mirror neurons in our brains (7). We are able to watch another person doing something and work out what it would be like to do the same thing with out own bodies (or speech organs), and by the same token, guess at how they would react if we were to do the same thing.

As parasites that exist in the environment created by our mirror neurons and which may be transmitted to other individuals, memes are able to reproduce and also mutate via natural selection, much like our genes compete with each other for resources and reproductive success. This is where we start to move into the domain of macromemetics.

How memes work in the brain and human memetic behavior is pretty well established at this point and I take it as a given, a point of departure for macromemetics. A refer to micromemetic concepts throughout, but I don't so much interrogate the how the nervous system processes memes and so on, as such (8).

I have developed a collection of terms for many of these phenomena, which I have written about elsewhere, and which I'll try to build up in future Macromemetic Monday posts.


Micromemetics is to Macromemetics as microeconomics is to macroeconomics. One deals with individual behavior, and the other deals with collections of individuals.

We take as given that humans are memetic creatures with all that entails. I've devised a number of terms for micromemetic phenomena, and use those to describe situations and dynamics, develop theories, design experiments, and analyze the results. As such, I've managed to develop a number of principles, theories, and laws which can aid in memetic (social) engineering.

More to come, I hope!


(1) I define a meme as a readily identifiable behavior or stimulus. An example could be smiling, waving, flipping someone the middle finger, words, or any language event. Some allow that familiar objects, such as a coffee cup or a telephone, can also be memes. I also class these as MIAOs (2) since they technically cannot be "imitated," only "recognized."

(2) MIAO is a "Memetic Iconic Anchoring Object" since familiar objects attach collections of memes which all become available when a MIAO (such as a coffee cup) is presented, but conflating MIAOs and memes can be a useful shorthand and avoids a certain amound of quibbling.

(3) A system of memes, or "memetic system" is also known as a "memeplex," or for very large systems, such as a language or an entire culture, which might go so far as to employ the term "megamemeplex."

(4) I do no disallow animals or AIs or even other things from engaging in memetic interactions. My general term is a "memetic agent" or "agent" and this is anybody or anything which may receive memes and in turn "send" them (5).

(5) An "agent" is anybody or anything which may engage in memetic transactions. That is, sending and receiving memes. An agent may "enact" a meme, or "deploy" a meme. The former may imply that the agent is merely "rehearsing" the meme, or "practicing," while the latter implies that the meme is being put out there for other agents to be exposed to. An agent either "resonates" or fails to resonate with a memetic deployment. Why and when and how resonance happens and what that leads to is central to macromemetics.

(6) Emotional responses such as laughing, crying, yawning, or shivering are what might be termed "biological memetic responses" or "physiological memetic responses." Orgasms are also of this type. Some of these, such as laughing, crying, or yawning, are "contagious," which is a kind of memetic resonance.

(7) This is related to Dunbar's Number.

(8) Despite not wanting to hash over how the human nervous system produces memetic behavior, I do look into the memetic relationship of the individual with him or herself, and how this relates to interacting with the outside world. I call this domain "endomemetics" and I have terms like "idiomemetics" and "idiomemes" in addition to "endomemes" and "exomemes" (generally just what we think of as "memes").



(1) The Meme Machine by Susan Blackmore.


模倣子 What Makes for Good Conversations and Meetings?

Index of Memetics Essays HERE  


What is a "bad conversation" or "dysfunction discussion" and what causes it? What do good conversations look like?

I think the principles of improv comedy may shed a lot of light on this question, as well as those of memetics.

I'd like to describe in detail what bad and good conversations look like and isolate the some of the factors that cause them.

One protest I hear is that there would have to be some kind of dictator or chairperson running the conversation, in order to make a conversation better on purpose. I reject that notion. My belief is that a collection of individuals who are shown certain basic principles of behavior which they may each enact individually to make the conversation better, they will do it. One trick is that, from memetics, we need to have corrective behaviors in the mix, too, so when people forget themselves and behave badly, there are tools the others can use to bring things back into line.

Good Conversations 

Some aspects of good conversation might include:

1. Everybody feels "good" about them
1.1. Participants feel "refreshed" and like the time flew by
1.2. Participants feel like they contributed
1.3. Participants feel like they "were heard" (5)
1.4. Participants feel like they know each other better

2. Everybody gets to participate
2.1. The "talking stick" keeps moving
2.2. "Quiet" members are asked for their input
2.3. Every member's input feeds into the discussion
2.4. People are asked questions about what the said
2.5. There are "callbacks" to what people have said before

3. The conversation "goes somewhere"
3.1. The conversation digs deeper into some topic(s)
3.2. The points raised all get touched on and explored
3.3. Questions get asked and answered

Bad Conversations 

Things you see in bad conversations might include:

1. One or more members feel "bad" about the conversation
1.1. People feel exhausted, like it was a waste of time, are glad it's over
1.2. People feel ignored and/or misunderstood

2. Lengthy "monologuing"

3. Members are excluded
3.1. People speak, but their points are dropped, not followed up on, or even mocked
3.2. Members get "cut off"
3.3. Questions are not addressed
3.4. Speakers are immediately contradicted (5)
3.5. Running with strawmen (5,12)
3.6. Talking over people
3.7. Lack of "democracy" (8)
3.8. "Immunomemetic" behaviors and comments (11)

4. Excluding Behaviors (3)
4.1. Name-dropping 
4.2. flexing
4.3. posturing
4.4. resume-reciting, appeal to authority 
4.5. "I like/don't like this" comments without elaboration (6)
4.6. Patronizing (9)
4.7. Ad hominem (10)

5. The conversation is monotonous
5.1. The same things get said over and over
5.2. Fixation on topics not of interest to everyone (2)
5.3. Members keep bringing up the same points, possibly because they are not answered
5.4. Behavior supporting staying on a tired topic, not letting the conversation move on

6. Flipping Between/Derailing Topics (4)
6.1. Non-sequiturs
6.2. Excessive quippery
6.3. Jokes/side comments
6.4. (see 7.2.) The conversation keeps dying and must be jump-started repeatedly

7. Dead Air
7.1. Everybody stops talking
7.2. Constantly having to get the conversation going again (see 6.4.)
7.3. A subject is mentioned that is too awkward, or nobody has anything to say about
7.4. "Conversation killer" subjects seem to come up frequently


I've thrown up quite the laundry list. I hope, however, that despite the daunting number of things that conversations "should have" or should be watched out for, I can devise a very short and succinct and hopefully very easily understood set of principles to usher in the good and keep out the bad.

What is the Goal of a Conversation? 

I think a good conversation is one that involves everybody, and which makes some kind of "progress" towards a happy result (2). This might look like everybody feeling heard, like their points were considered and discussed, and some interesting things came up and got talked about.  A conversation (and a meeting) has a limited timeframe to accomplish these goals, that is, giving everybody a chance to take part. What does "taking part" look like? I'll take a super-simplistic example to try to illustrate this.

People feel good when they get to contribute, but also when others acknowledge their contribution and expand on it, refer to it. Hearing new things from others, especially if those things are in response to one's own contributions make the conversation interesting and satisfying. Saying mean things, dismissing ideas, or just ignoring people makes people feel bad.

How to achieve this?

Insights from Improv Comedy 

Improv gives us ways to react to what other people say. Other systems that deal with this include things like debate, interview, speechmaking, and so on. These things don't lead to good conversations, however. Everybody being quiet while one person talks at length, or two or more people make lengthy responses to questions or what each other say, or one person asks another person questions for a long period can be fun, but they do not include everybody. I think a lot of bad, so-called "conversations" have actually degenerated into one of these forms.

Improv comedy is about keeping things moving, which is also a goal of a good conversation. The basic idea is "the offer" which is what any member just did or said. There are two outcomes when a member of the troupe makes an offer: to "accept" the offer, or to "block" the offer.

In memetic terms, a conversation is always in a "state," which describes what options each member of the conversation has in that state. The state of the conversation changes (or gets stuck) depending upon what everybody does. For example, the speaker may "keep talking" which keeps everybody in the state of "listening to somebody yack/drone on." This is a "meme". A more obviously "meme-y" thing to do would be to "interrupt" or "block" an attempt to interrupt. Another meme is just to do nothing, say, just to sit and listen, or zone out. This is the "let them yack on" option, and it's also "don't support somebody trying to interrupt". Do doing nothing is an action, too.

Back to improv. You don't have to kick in your own ideas in order to do something, to "accept the offer." It's possible to support somebody else's offer, such as, "that's an interesting point." That's just supporting, just indicating that you'd be interested in seeing that point discussed, which telegraphs to everybody else that if they throw down on that point, they will have your tacit approval. This is a way to make people feel good, like they're being validated, that they're part of the conversation.

There are several other things that demonstrate this. One is restating, or repeating the point and its details, preferably in a different yet still correct way (1). Another is expanding, that is, adding additional information or opinion to the point raised. Yet another is "callback", which is making reference to the point later in the conversation, e.g., "...and I think this comes back to Mary's point about sidewalk maintenance."

Improv can show us how to keep a conversation moving, but where do we want it to go?

A Sample Conversation 

Let's say we have four people who are going to have a one-hour conversation. Each one of them has a "topic" that they want to talk about.

Dick likes to talk about dogs.
Jane likes to talk about cats.
Jack likes to talk about rain.
Jill likes to talk about fish.

Here's a sample of how their conversation might go. Dick says a few things about dogs. Jane restates some of the things Dick said, and then sort of extends what he said by bringing up cats. Dick says a few more things about dogs and he and Jane go back and forth about which cats and dogs they've owned and which breeds they like best, and recount cute dog and cat anecdotes and TicToc videos they've seen.

The conversation is now in a redundant, monotonous, almost monologuing state. Jack and Jill may be up a hill, but they are not in the conversation yet.

One good behavior that Dick and Jane could enact would be to try to include the others, since they are already established speakers. "Hey Jill, what kind of pets do you like?"

Alternatively, Jack and/or Jill could interrupt. This could be an uphill battle, if Dick and/or Jane resists, or in the improv parlance, "blocks." Like if Jill pitches how she likes fish and has an aquarium, Dick might block by saying, "Cats eat fish, but dogs don't," which rejects the fish topic from being integrated into the conversation and returns the conversation to just dogs and cats between him and Jane.

Jack might be able to get in a quip that doesn't get blocked by saying something about "raining cats and dogs" to get some airtime for his topic.

At this point only Dick and Jane have trotted out their "pet" topics, and Jack got in a quip, so his topic is kind of available for expansion or callback, but hasn't actually been discussed yet. Jill is still a fish out of water.

One question is whether Jack and Jill are shut out of the conversation, or whether their topics just being ignored, but they are still being able to participate to some degree. This latter seems unlikely, because Jack managed a quip but it went no further, and Jill got shut down, so maybe they didn't get many dog or cat comments in, either.

But if Dick or Jane, or Jack, managed to add to the dog and cat conversation with something like "Why do they call it 'raining cats and dogs' -- you guys are the dog and cat experts--what have you heard?" then we've started to include Jack. Jill could be brought in with stuff like "you don't have to walk your fish when it's raining out" or how fish are low-maintenance in other ways.

At this point we have included everybody in the conversation. This is good because it give the maximum of opportunities for things to talk about to everybody, and each topic you mention will resonate with at least one other person. This is the "memetic inventory" of the people in the conversation. This inventory goes up every time somebody is included, and every time a new thing is mentioned, and this gives everybody things to expand upon, to call back upon.

It's important that we do this, include people, in a conversation, but how can we measure this?

Phases of Conversation 

Everybody getting to say something, and then those inputs being discussed by everybody, would seem to be a "goal" of a good conversation. How do we tell if this is happening? I've hit upon the idea of phases of development of a conversation. This is not necessarily a "recipe" for a good conversation, so much as a way of telling if things are not moving forward, and pointing up what still needs to be accomplished, such as there still being people who have not been heard from, or their input being ignored or dismissed.

Phase Zero: preliminary talking, but conversation not really started yet
Phase One: Choose topic (could be an explicit topic, say, for a meeting)
Phase Two: Each member "buys into" the topic, or pitches their own initial idea
Phase Three: All members' "pitch" is restated by at least one other member
Phase Four: Each member's idea, is "expanded" on by at least one other member
Phase Five: Each member's ideas are "called back" on by at least one other member
Phase Six: "Free talking"

fig. 1. Phases of a Conversation

This is of course simplistic. But it gives an idea how to rate how stuck a conversation is, and what needs to happen next in order to move things along. For example, if one person is monologuing, or two people talk about some topic that nobody else has commented on or bought into, then the conversation is stuck in Phase Zero (3). The idea here is basically that if a everybody has not had a chance to say something, either their own idea, or comment on the establish topic, then the conversation is stuck in Phase One.

What to do if you're stuck in Phase Zero or One? Obviously going around and asking everybody "what do you think?" could work, which would allow the conversation to move to Phase Two and on to Phase Three. Once everybody has given their input, there's a chance to restate, expand, and call back.

Time's a Factor, Lois 

So the point is that there are six or seven phases to a conversation, and there is a limited amount of time for the conversation, and there are a certain number of people involved. Over an hour, on average you have about 8 minutes per phase. If we go back to our four-person conversation, we have to divide these phases four ways. In some cases we can imagine everybody restating everything that everybody else said, so this would be short.

Phase Zero (set-up): 8 minutes
Phase One (choose topic): 8 minutes
Phase Two (buy-in): 8 minutes / 4 people = 2 minutes / person (approx)
Phase Three (restate): 8 minutes / 4 people / 4 people = 30 seconds / person
Phase Four (expand): 8 minutes = 30 sec / person
Phase Five (call back): 8 minutes = 30 sec / person
Phase Six (talking): 8 minutes = 2 minutes / person 

Total: 60 minutes

fig. 4. Phases of a Conversation and Time Breakdown

While the example may be a bit contrived, the point is pretty clear that a conversation must be fairly dynamic and quickly devote a certain amount of time to a number of activities in order for everybody to feel included. If some deliberate effort is not focused on this, they won't be, and the conversation risks not being very good. Another point is that even if considerable time is shaved off the time-wasting Phase Zero, or the topic-choosing Phase One, there's still not a lot to spread back around to the other phases of the conversation. 

Phases may be combined, so Phase Two through Four (and even Phase Five) comments may actually serve to complete Phase One. So instead of each person getting some four minutes of free talking (Phases Two and Six) on average, it could expand to ten or even more. But the conversation must be dynamic. The talking stick has to move around, give everybody a chance to build on the topic, in order to get to Phases Five and Six as quickly as possible.

Phase Six is like the "bonus round" where people can speak freely at a fairly deep level about things that interest them, with the assurance that everybody else in the conversation is up to speed and able to understand what they are talking about, asking interesting questions, making interesting comments, and everybody can cooperate.

Once again, the task is to get everybody through all of the phases as quickly as possible. Improv comedy, "accepting the offer," is a way to keep the conversation moving, getting everybody involved as early in the conversation as possible, so they can all move through the phases.

What about "Interruptions"? 

I didn't really mention interruptions in either list for good or bad conversations. Since keeping the conversation flowing is important, interruptions, per se, can be a good thing. If a conversation devolves into nothing more than a long series of monologues, and lengthy responses or more monologues, some kind of interruption may be called for.

In order for this to work, other members of the conversation have to "support" the interruptions. Otherwise, "high-status" members and their confederates can defeat attempts to change the direction of the conversation. Interrupting efforts are "memes" just like memes used to "block" people out of a conversation.

Summary & Conclusions 

Conversations have to move forward and include everybody. The more people give input, the more opportunities for everybody to make references, to provide even more input, in the form of callbacks and expansions to what others have said. The improv comedy dynamic called "accepting the offer," as opposed to "blocking," is a mechanism for including people into the conversation.

We can think of phases of a conversation which move from one to the next based on how well everybody has been included, and we can determine if a conversation is stuck if it's not met the requirements for the next phase. Making progress means including people who haven't been included yet, which adds opportunities to restate and expand on and call back on their contributions.

Improv comedy points the way. When somebody says something, rather than block what they say, use it to say something new, to include the comment in the conversation. This moves the conversation to a new state (1). Being conscious of whether all members have been included, have they said anything, has anybody restated or expanded on what they said, or is anybody making callbacks on it. If the answer is no for any of these, then the conversation may be stuck.


(1) A basic principle of rhetoric is to always speak to the "highest and best" version of the other person's point. The contrary of this is to engage in ankle-biting and petty mockery of what the person may or may not have literally said (5). If belittling seems like a viable course, trying to "fix up" the other person's argument, trying to understand what they were going for, and asking a clarifying question, or even just taking a quick swig from the chalice of humility and asking them for clarification.

(2) In a meeting, this might mean that an issue gets thoroughly examined and a useful conclusion reached.

(3) A meeting that does not start off with a topic or an agenda, and is badly run, can get stuck in Phase Zero as well.


Nanowrimo Hints

 Anti-writer's block tactics...

...and strategies.

Thougts on adding new characters.

模倣子 Best of Memetic Essays

 Manga Index - Memetic Glossary 


Macromemetic Essays — Assorted EssaysPoemsMiscellaneous


I have written hundreds of essays on macromemetics. Some of them are quite "complete" with footnotes, links to other documents, diagrams, and so forth. Some of them do a better job than others of explaining their points. My goal is to collect the best of them here as a one-stop-shop for those interested in coming to grips with my theories as they currently stand.

Another further goal is to collect ideas so that I can flesh out areas that are as yet underexplained (1) and write more about them. Ultimately I hope to put out some kind of book, probably of essays at first, and then some kind of macromemetics textbook later--baby steps.

The Essays 

I want to make a list of the essays, with links to same, possibly also with descriptions and links to keywords that are explained in each. For now, just the essays, ma'am. I'll see what I can do about the rest. I think I want to update all of the essays I reference herein back to this document, which should facilitate reading all of them in a reasonable order for anyone who wants to familiarize themselves with what I'm trying to do here.

I think I'm going to move all of these essays and such into appendices and reference them from a kind of text that ties them together theoretically and thematically.

Macromemetics Essays 

 Memetic Resonance and How Memes Work in the Brain

Dining Philosophers, on Alienation,  on Endomemes, Contact Memes, and Bullying 

Kids Conspiring to Get Candy 

Memetic Hell & Escaping it Through Play 

Applying the Laws of Macromemetics to Critique Groups 

Introduction to Macromemetics (a bit of an overstatement!)

The Memetic Nexus and the Rock Star 

Memetic Nexus and Power 

The Memetic Anathema of IP 

Why do Jerks Get Ahead

The Macromemetics of Apathy 

The Ideomemetic Appeal of Religion 

Memetic State Diagrams and Transition Matrix Sets 

Applying the Triple Narrative Model to Bralessness Activism 

Mel Brooks & Constructed Memetic Nexuses 

Situational vs. Intrinsic Oppression 

Immunomemetics & Bullying 

Memetic Networks from the Word Level Up & Word-Level Analysis 

The Immunomemetics of Kibbitzing 

The Choice of Libidinal Bribes 

Anthropomorphicization & Cults of Personality in Conformity 

Intergenerational Abuse & Genocide 

Marginal Memes as Tools of Control 

TOOL Book: The Meme Machine 

Cheese-Dicks in the Platoon 

Power Laws and Networks in Sexual Politics, Strategies & Phase Transitions 

What Does Immunomemetic Deployment Look Like?  Knee-JerksSocially-Sanctioned Bullying 

What is Meanness

Memetic Invasion 

The Coffee Klatch Experiment 

Residual Memetic Reward (Debt) & Cohort Membership 

Start at the top of 2016...

Libidinal Bribes & Memetic Debt

Immunomemetic Bullying & Intent

What Service Does Religion Provide? 

Endomemetics & Therapy

Capitalism as System of Control

Prime Pizza Thursday Memetic Loops and Residual Memetic Debt

Nerd Culture

October 2017

The Ownership   of a Human Being

November 2017

   War, Genocide, Colonization, and Slack
   Make-Believe: The Macromemetic Nature of Ceremonies Bullshit

Neologismsnpsp;& Wordsmithy

Filming Yourself Being Filmed February 2018
The Police vs. African-Americans

March 2018
  Affirmative Action, Contact Memes,  Pretendians, and Sherman Alexie
June 2018
  Memetic  Marketplace of Ideas
  The Appeal of  Hatred
  The  Male Gaze
  Agriculture,  Religion, and other Bad Ideas
   Metamemetics and Fighting Starvation
   Japanese Memetic Terms (put in Glossary)
October 2018

Basic Memetics for the Individual Agent 
Need clean-up

   Nudist Resort Analogy and relation to Apathy

   September 2021 (no new essays)
    October 2021 

Assorted Essays

Is Gender Equality Even Possible?

Second-Hand Breastfeeding 

Banning Terrorist Religious Groups 

The Influence of Film Contracts on Attitudes towards Toplessness 

Moving Beyond Capitalism in the Wide World 

Etre Suivie aux Etas-Unis 

Burkas vs. Toplessness 

Argument for Drug Re-De-Criminalization 

Images that SHOULD Piss off Feminists 

Ban Bikini Baristas

Role Reversal in Media 

Lactation Diet  

Wheelchairs before Women? and ERA Perspectives 

Attractive Female in Public 

Walking Alone at Night 

Guns and Violence and Youth 

Going with the Flow 

Body-Con is like Addiction? 

Beautiful is Beautiful 

Circumcision is Child Abuse, Federal Law 

The Ridiculous Double Standard of Peeing Standing Up & Sitting Down 

Sympathy for Disabilities 

Memetic Engineering & Childbirth 

Cross the Martian Desert for Love 

Engineering Writing 

Ignored Sexism and Fashion Victims 

Botched Circumcision & Socioeconomic Status & Genocide 

Veto vs. Consent   

Female vs. Male Science  

Male Sexuality is Ridiculous, His Body, Not His Choice 

Landing on a Feminist Comet 

The Quiet Rooster 

TOOL Book: Look to the Land 

Undercutting Female Power 

The Dialectics of Tiger Lily 

TOOL Film: Until the Light Takes Us   

Bread on a Bumper 

Circumcision & The Burden of Empire 

The Externalities of Gift-Giving & Gender Tax 

The Practicality of Asexuality 

Assorted Poems 

The Cymotricous Terpa 

Aggressive Pseudo-Intellectualism

Women Are Cool 

Mnemonic Dirge 

No Victim, No Crime 

The Java Junky's Litany 


Circumcision Gravestone 

Moscow, Idaho Toplessness Ordinance (and links

Geek Girl Con, Perspectives, Trepidations, and Photos  

The Wage Gap & Other Stories (several links inside)

The Flag Rarely Flies at Full Mast 

Gay Liberation Helps Breeders, Too 

Circumcision Harms Women, Feminism & Circumcision 

Marketing Climate Change 

Foreskin Facts 

Escape Hatch 

The Balls are Out-of-Bounds 

Einstein on Objectification 

Sloppy Terminology in the Media 

12-Step Comics 

Holiday Warning 

No More Fed Funds for Circumcision 

20 Smart Jokes 

Sexual Paranoia 


Star Trek Joke 

Women Get Out First 

Custom Rules for Risk 

Sample Drawing Artwork

Stick Figure Indians & Female Legitimization


(1) One of these is the Box Binning Project, which I have yet to write up. This is a project I did at work where I transformed how my employer did inventory in the factory, which I estimate saved $1.3 million per year in staff costs alone, not including reduced opportunity costs.


Old Memetic Index - Memetic (table) Index