It truly is just so chilly lately and I love it. I enjoy summery days too, I just prefer them few and far between and I like feeling cosy and rugged up as opposed to wanting to shed my skin for some relief.
It’s my honeys birthday :) I’m going to make a concerted effort to not be too much. I can’t be too much anyway from here but still. I wanted to send him an ubereats voucher for his dinner tonight but it turns out I can’t send it internationally :( It has to be the same currency. I also don’t have his bank account so I can’t just chuck some money in there either. I just want to make him feel special and loved and I thought that was a tiny yet cute gesture. Oh well. It’s his birthdaaaaay! I’m so happy he was born and became who he is and the fact he’s all mine
I’m struggling with my mood a bit recently. Or depression. Whatever you want to call it. I don’t like either word. But flat or empty doesn’t always cover it, just because I feel depressed doesn’t automatically equate to flat/grey/empty/numb/etc. They’re a specific feeling, I can be and feel depressed and not feel any of them - I can just feel detached from life, I guess. Idk. It’s hard to put into words, I’m sure I could find some writer who articulates it perfectly but even then, that’s their feeling, not mine. But I really like reading and hearing relatable feelings, I can feel alone a lot and hearing others feeling the same as me makes me feel less so. Truly Captain Obvious over here. But anyway. I’m struggling more again lately. The last few days. It’s not PMS related, it’s deeper than that. There’s a difference.
Truly anyone can have a podcast, can’t they? I’m listening to one now about book theories and they’re just talking over one another and being quite rude and dismissive and then I realise this is just content I disagree with but their theories have so many holes in them. SO MANY. It’s basically one hole with a flimsy fabric of theory around the outside. So now I’m hate listening because it’s making me grind my teeth and my eye twitch, but no one else has any podcasts about this and I wanna listen to some. It just sounds like they don’t even like each other? I felt so awkward for a lot of it. Also they’re so unprepared, like if you’re going to spout theories then a) know what you’re talking about b) back it up c) look for holes in it and point them out because that’s half the fun and d) you can’t base a theory off of something you don’t even know. Eg. One of them was talking about how X was Y’s dad but neither knew if X was even alive. Like… ? Also none of them are original theories which tbh I don’t care about, it’s just nice to have them condensed into an episode to listen to, but they were so rude and dismissive of the original poster or whatever several times, it made me feel quite uncomfy? So bizarre. I want to not like these books anymore. It’s not fun anymore, everyone’s so hateful and I was reading how people are literally sending death threats to one another because they disagree with their ship or whatever it’s called. Like here’s a thought, THEYRE FICTIONAL AND WHO CARES, GET OFF THE INTERNET AND CALM DOWN. Says me, all in caps, on the internet. I love irony. But so it’s just not an enjoyable fandom anymore which is a shame because I think it’s my first ever I’ve been a part of? And now it’s just… ruined. I also don’t like how divisive it all is, like if you love one character then you hate the other and things. Like here’s a thought everyone, each character is nuanced and is not perfect - stop expecting them to be. And stop bitching and moaning like jfc. So anyway it’s not very enjoyable anymore which is a shame but I’ll just enjoy the books themselves in private and wait til the next is released in presumably the next 8-10 business years. I also don’t have high expectations after the last book in her other series, it was terrible. So rushed and so… it was terrible. Enjoyable enough but I will never reread it, I’ll never reread that series full stop. We’ll never say never but I would be incredibly surprised if I did considering I didn’t like it at all and just read it because I’m a sucker fan girl and they all eventually link together so I kind of have to.
I hate computers and technology and all of it. And by that I mean it’s all excellent and amazing but I am cursed with it. I tried to switch my monitors and things around this morning to be better but now everything is just… wrong. Laggy.
Am I a bad person for considering applying for other roles purely for leverage with my own? Yes. I already know the answer to that. I’m open to working elsewhere, but I’m also not. I’m frustrated right now with what I get lumped with workwise but ultimately we have excellent benefits, I can wfh x3 days a week and my manager is super understanding of my… issues. I kind of want a new job elsewhere because I think it would force me out of my comfort zone, but also… Is that the best thing? I would normally say yes but some days I find everything so so difficult and taking on new processes, a new team, a new environment… it’s a lot. And I know I get very easily overwhelmed. And the fact I have more or less unlimited paid sick leave which tbh I don’t really utilise at all and easily use less than what I’m legislatively entitled to but it’s there. So I feel kind of stuck. And I also feel unsure. One part of me wants to be leading large nationwide change processes or being entirely responsible for project work, but the other part of me knows I’m probably not currently best equipped for that… issues wise. I’m sure I could, but I just struggle so much some days and what if that day I had 5+ redundancy meetings? Having a god awful day and then telling multiple people their role has been disestablished…? Being a part of that process is one thing and I’ve done that and it’s fine, it’s tough at times but fine, but to be actively responsible for the whole process? I just don’t really think I can handle that. Which holds me back. And also the delegation of work SUCKS. And I get stuck training and basically managing the junior team members because my manager can’t seem to do it. Which tbh is fair as she has a tonne on her plate but still, she had that all on her plate before becoming all of our manager so I mean… yknow. Sometimes I wonder if I could go people leadership route, a small part of me thinks I would be good at it, I can definitely listen and I definitely show compassion and patience with our junior members and I can delegate work out easily enough buuuut do I have the confidence to advocate for them? When it comes to pay/promotions? I’m not sure. I’d have every confidence in them but not in myself and if I have no confidence in myself it makes brig bold and pushing for something impossible, like impossible. So. I wouldn’t want to risk someone else’s progression because I’m a damn baby. So idk. So what doI do? I mean I don’t even want to specialise in ER, it’s too much. I want to get involved and build my experience and knowledge more and more, but it can be really tough. Even the other day I was talking to a young woman, younger than me, with cancer. Or rather she was telling me she’s now in remission and pregnant and I honestly couldn’t stop smiling it was such lovely news, but things like that, or an employee displaying shifts in behaviour and it being a result of domestic violence and then having to handle that or just the process of disestablishing roles aka making someone redundant, I guess there’s redeployment which would feel good but still. It’s an emotionally taxing side of HR that I’m unsure I could handle long term. I’m only thinking about this again this morning because I saw a job which does less than I do now getting around $10k more than I earn. Anyway I’ll just keep at it where I am a while longer. It’s probably better for me, right now anyway.
He showed me his recent favourite music last night, it’s one of my favourite favourite things. I tend to like/love majority of it, some I don’t but that’s fine like everyone has different tastes - I think it would be weird to like all of it. It baffles me how controlled his Spotify is, it makes mine look utterly manic… which tbh it is. I just get so.. something, and start making new playlists or adding new things or whatever it might be. Anyway I’m listening to some of the ones he sent me last night today.
He took basically half an hour to call me last night and I know he said he had been talking to his mum but it just felt… weird. And then he didn’t pick up his phone at midnight when I called to say happy birthday, he admittedly called back really quickly but idk. It made me feel uneasy. Like what’s he doing at midnight that he can’t pick up his phone? When I know he’s awake. I know I’m feeling weird about nothing, so it’s fine. It just felt… I don’t know. His sleeping patterns are slipping so quickly lately, it feels like it’s every two weeks not every month like it used to be, and it makes me wonder why. It makes me think things like he doesn’t have a weird sleeping pattern ever and he just uses it as a reason to avoid me because he’s with someone else and how would I know. I don’t think these thoughts are true, I don’t think he’s lying about it all, but it’s just a recurring thought lately. Ever since it became more frequent with less time in between. It’s fine. I know it’s fine. I know there’s nothing wrong, it’s just sometimes idk. I think it’s more fear and worry than anything relating to genuine belief and mistrust.
I love him a lot. A whole lot. The entire lot. I hope he’s having the best sleep with the sweetest dreams. Baby.
I really don’t feel well this afternoon. I feel vaguely crampy and tired but my mood has dropped significantly. I’m trying to perk back up so I don’t wreck his birthday though. It’s not just general it’s entirely work related. I feel like I need to cry and punch a wall and just throw my computer at the window but in a sad not angry way. I am fed up. And so many stupid questions. Like twice today I’ve had PEOPLE IN MY TEAM be like “what’s the link for this” like here’s an idea why don’t you go find it and use some fucking initiative. It’s just pure laziness. So I said you can find it on X and then didn’t help further because what the actual fuck. And it’s literally a link to the system login - how the fuck do they not know this. Which leads me to believe it’s pure laziness. Because they have f all cases either. Anyway I’m just lashing out because I’m frustrated and in a sad mood. Everything’s fine.
I love Jeff Buckley so much. Not all of his stuff, I could take or leave much of it tbh but some of his music… all time favourites. I wonder what my top five would be? I think: - lover you should’ve come over - Last goodbye - Forget her - Lilac wine - Nightmares by the sea I didn’t include hallelujah because that goes without saying, I much prefer it to Leonard Cohen’s one however I would really like to try give Leonard more of a go because mum loves him, I think she saw him live last time he was here, I was going to buy her tickets as a random present before she beat me to it - unless I’m confusing it with someone else? I don’t think so. Maybe. Or was it Nick Cave? Idk. I already like Nick Cave a whole lot, I had a big massive A2 poster of him on my wall as a teenager. Anyway. I also left out so real and grace and I know it’s over and mojo pin to some extent. And dream brother. Okay so the entire grace album + some extras. His only proper album :( anyway I love him and he soothes melancholic little heart and has for a long time. Since I was… 17. 16? Something.
I don’t click easily with people. I was thinking about that today because I felt more lonely than normal. I find it easy to be personable and friendly and all of that, but it’s rare that I feel at ease with someone and like I can somewhat be myself/not overthink into oblivion. And I don’t know why some people are different? It’s not a time thing either, because the people I find myself more at ease with I felt it more or less instantly, whereas I’ve been around the same people for YEARS and… nothing. Like M, I felt at ease with her from day one. K too a bit. Andy definitely. But other women at work? I’ve known them for years, spoken to them daily, I still feel uncomfortable and anxious and paralysed with them. Paralysed in the sense I can’t think of things to say, I can and do but it can be such stilted conversation. Even my own family members, my brother and his wife? Just like that. I don’t feel at all comfortable or anything. I know I naturally find it easier with talkative people, M and Andy for example - both could talk to a brick wall and either not notice or get it to talk back. I don’t mean the not notice in a negative way, I just mean… idk what I mean. It’s a good thing though. I just don’t find it easy. I know a lot of it is due to my social anxiety and the worry and all of that. I think it’s also that I don’t like surface level relationships, but I don’t tend to allow people in enough to get anything further than surface level. I can easily have those conversations, I just don’t really enjoy them. But it can be impossible to go further because I’m so closed off and I’m so riddled with anxiety over saying the wrong thing, unintentionally offending someone or showing how stupid I am that nothing happens. I also don’t like to talk that much, I do but in bursts, and I think that doesn’t help me either. I know I’m the problem. Another thing to add to my list of difficulties.
I wish I could just escape myself sometimes.
I’m due to start reading HP3 now, why don’t I feel psyched about it? I want to. Maybe when I get fully into it I will? I’ve been apprehensive about books in the past and went on to become obsessed and it become a part of my identity, if even for a short while. And if I know anything in life, it’s that HP fans tend to turn it into a personality trait. Maybe that’ll be me.
I don’t really want to journal anymore. I feel sad and it doesn’t tend to help me perk up and I need to force myself into being chirpy and perky and all those sorts of adjectives so I don’t ruin his day. My baby.
I ordered dinner - tofu stirfry with roti yummm - so I’ll have that, maybe start HP3 and then have a shower and then spend time with my honeybunny. Night night

This author is known for her romantic books and that's what drove her to make a thriller is a mystery to me. And this is one of the worst I've read.
Plot
The summary is interesting and sets you up for a good thriller, but don't be fooled. There's about 30% of the thriller here, the rest is figuring out the relationship between Ellie and Jensen, why he betrayed her (the reason is very stupid) and how she goes to school. All. And the thriller moments are shot well, frighteningly, intensely, but there are few of them, but will Ellie and Jensen get together to an indecent amount.
Characters
The only character I liked was Ellie's friend Linds. Ellie herself is a very boring character who causes absolutely no emotions. Jensen is a typical character from romantic books. He has ten cubes on his stomach, sweat runs down it sexually, and he also had something sad happen in the past. And I don't care about the character, the main thing is what kind of press. Ellie's mom was the most annoying. She is not worried that the tree in their yard has grown so that you can walk through her daughter's window by the branch.
Antagonist
His motive was very dumb, he himself is quickly drained, and the plot twist at the end is so absurdly inserted that it seems as if it was invented at the last minute.
Text
When it comes to scary scenes, they are described well. But everything else is annoying. I'm reading, and they describe beautiful abs to me 50 times and it's annoying. I also didn't like how feminist ideas were introduced here. So lazy and funny that I laughed. If anything, this is the moment when Ellie was recorded for self-defense training and the person who recorded her began a speech in the style of "Atlas Shrugged" about how women should become stronger. It was written too ridiculously.
I don't like to divide books into male and female, but this book is definitely created for women, because they left most of the positive reviews.
This is not a thriller with an element of romance, it is a romance with elements of a thriller. If you want to read exactly this, then you can take it. For the rest, it is not recommended.
P.S. I also want to say that this book is very vanilla to the point of nausea.

Demographics

• Gender: Female
• Race/Ethnicity: Asian(Chinese)
• Residence: China but studies in Singapore(International)
• Income Bracket: ~$110k/yr
• Type of School: Private boarding
• Hooks (Recruited Athlete, URM, First-Gen, Geographic, Legacy, etc.): First-Gen

Intended Major(s): Business/Finance/Econ
Academics

• GPA (UW/W): My school doesn't calculate GPA. All based on IB, 7 is full. 6 courses in total and 3 extra for Theory of Knowledge, Extended Essay and Creativity Activity and Service.
• Rank (or percentile): N/A
• of Honors/AP/IB/Dual Enrollment/etc.: IB triple language course selection
• Senior Year Course Load: IB Chinese A Language&Literature Standard Level, IB English B Higher Level, IB French B SL, IB Economics HL, IB Computer Science SL, IB Maths Application and Interpretation HL

Standardized Testing
List the highest scores earned and all scores that were reported.

• SAT: 1480(700RW+780M) for ED1 and EA; 1520(730RW+790M) superscore for ED2
• AP/IB: IB predicted 35/42 or 37/45
• Other (ex. IELTS, TOEFL, etc.): TOEFL 103 ED1 and EA submitted only. ED2 Waived

Extracurriculars/Activities
List all extracurricular involvements, including leadership roles, time commitments, major achievements, etc.
Copy pasted from Common App

• Leader, Economics & Finance Society——Organized weekly meetings to discuss economic and financial news; invited guest speakers, developed agendas and crafted presentations.
• Member, Southeast Asia Exchange(Six-week program)——School Worked with peers from other Asian countries on regional issues like education and health care; Found appropriate solutions with help from experts.
• Head of Student Admissions Facilitator——Supported school admissions team recruiting new students; Organized alumni interviews with prospective students and made detailed notes.
• Leader, Child at Street 11——Taught kids from low-income families; Planned and executed activities for a small class, including reading, art, maths, and games.
• Member, Girls In Tech——Brainstormed and solved coding challenges in a team setting; invited women in the STEM industry to give talks about their careers.
• Member, Swimming Club——Learned different types of swimming: breaststroke, freestyle.
• Traditional Chinese dance——Hobby, performed in the local community.
• Member, Author, School magazine——Wrote 4 articles per week during the summer for school magazine on international news and school memories.
• Member, Alumni Association——Helped organize events such as alumni reunion and alumni talks; Networking with alumni to discuss their strength and shared it with current students.
• Member—— Read English books to kindergarten children in our school; Practiced monologue speech; Ensured class participation.

Awards/Honors
List all awards and honors submitted on your application.

1. International Certificate of Education with Distinction
2. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages(CEFR) Diploma of Studies in French Language B1
3. National Economics Challenge China 2022 National Top Scoring Individual Bronze Award

Letters of Recommendation
(Briefly describe relationships with your recommenders and estimated rating.)
Maths Teacher- 7/10 Counselor - 8/10 English Teacher - 8/10
Interviews Not even a single one.
Essays
(Briefly reflect on the quality of your writing, time spent, and topic of main personal statement.)
Common App Essay: family background with no English speaking people, childhood of first-gen student, experienced gender prejudice in the community(with examples), process of overcoming above challenges
Decisions (indicate ED/EA/REA/SCEA/RD)
Acceptances:

• Brandeis University (ED2)——5-year undergrad and master program (direct into master if high GPA guaranteed until junior year) COMMITED
• Northeastern University (EA)——NUin program, first semester at partner schools in Europe, remaining at Boston campus

Waitlists: None
Rejections: Tufts (ED1)
Withdrawals: Boston University, Babson College, George Washington University, Rutgers University
Additional Information:
You don't need to be perfect to get into your dream school. Think of what you want to get out of university and what the school wants. Does it match? If no, don't try to fit in. Be yourself, show yourself. Be confident. Yall gonna have a satisfying career even without university. I was astonished when I received the 5-year undergrad and master offer when not even a single person in my family speaks English or has attended a proper high school fully.

Apologies in advance for the long post.
When I was a teenager I was so confident in my attraction towards women. I liked to look at women, I got crushes on girls. I knew I liked guys too and ended up in a relationship with one for 15 years up until very recently. During my relationship with him I never really thought about women, or other men for that matter. I was primarily focused on him. This led me to think my attraction to women was just a phase and I was actually straight.
Although when I look back now I would watch and read a lot of wlw TV shows/films/books
That was until January this year, I went on a solo trip (we were still together at this time, he was cheating on me though but I wasn't aware at the time) during this trip I met a woman, we only hung out for a few hours but we got on really well and I just thought she was so cool and sweet and pretty. We exchanged social media and when I was on the way back to my hotel she uploaded a cute video to her socials that was along the lines of 'I feel like something really special just happened'. I then noticed she had rainbow flags and wlw emojis in her bio. She told me to message her the next day if I wasn't busy so we could hang out before I went home.
I didn't do it because I was a bit confused, I wasn't sure if I was attracted to her or not and because I was in a relationship I decided against it. Not that I was worried anything would happen, but I didn't want to lead this woman on if her intentions were more than just meeting as friends, which the cute video made me think about. Probably silly in hindsight but the timing of it after I got the train just made me wonder if I was the something special. I felt guilty for even thinking she was attractive. Plus I was scared about the weird feelings and excitement I was having regarding seeing her again.
She posts to her story regularly and it seems like she lives an amazing life. She is happy and free and amazing. She's added me to her close friends list but that could mean anything really, but I do regularly like her posts etc. I'm not sure why I'm mentioning that it why it's relevant but there we go!
Anyway fast forward to April when my partner revealed his affair. It's been a really hard few weeks and I'm still struggling with the whole things as it was such a big chunk of my life.
There is no way I'm ready to start dating anytime soon and I won't do it I til I'm ready because I don't want to hurt anyone by messing them around but I do keep thinking about this woman, and I feel so confused about my own sexuality and what I want in the future. When I get notifications to say she's posted I'm excited to see what the post is. Obviously I have no idea of what she thinks of me and she could just be a friendly person but regardless meeting her has triggered something inside me that has been quiet for years. I feel like a silly excited teenager even though I can't imagine anything will ever happen between us.
Additionally, I've never had sex with a woman, or even done anything remotely intimate with one. Kissing and touching is all fine I have a desire to do all those things but the one big question mark is oral. Although I'd be more than happy to receive I'm not sure how I feel about giving? But I don't know if that's just fear? I'm in my early 30s so I feel like no woman would want me because I'm inexperienced and only been with men before.
Sorry for posting such a long post but if anyone has any advice, or stories to share about dating women after a long term relationship with a man it would be much appreciated!

Probably a shot in the dark, but I'm hoping someone will have seen a jacket I dropped this morning (5/29/24).
It is a tan women's jacket, two pockets and a short collar.
It would have been between 8:30-8:50am. I dropped it at some point during the walk between the Museuo Ferragamo and the Firenze Santa Maria Novella train station. I passed the Piazza Santa Trinita, I walked on the Via de Tornabuoni, Via del Sole, I passed the Piazza di Santa Maria Novella, the Basilica di Santa Maria Novella, and walked around and through the train station.
I will be so grateful if someone finds it! It was the perfect jacket and I'm so upset. If anyone has tips of where else to post or look, I appreciate it.

Hello!
I hope you're all doing well!
This is a fantastic event, and I had such a fun time writing about it. Although, I gotta say, a break is nice here and there, but getting back into the writing groove is tough lol, so if my writing is subpar here, expect it to be a bit better next week as my brain slowly switches back to writing mode!
(c) - Champ
D/DWCS - Debut/Dana Whites' Contender Series
FLS - Fight Lose Streak
FWS - Fight Win Streak
NS - No Streak
(#x) - Rank in division
x/3 - Confidence Levels
Lets go!
Prelims
Flyweight
Andre Lima (8-0-0, 8 FWS) v Mitch Raposo (D) (9-1-0, 4 FWS)
Striking: Despite the power of Raposo being a bit of a threat, I do think from a technical standpoint that Lima should be able to see a lot of the predictable attacks from Raposo coming, since Raposo’s best attack, which he uses very often, is his wide right during a two to three punch sequence, so as long as Lima avoids that and retaliates accordingly with his own boxing, we should be able to see Lima be the more effective striker.
Wrestling/Grappling: I don’t think either fighter wrestles when they fight, I mean, the footage I have seen from Raposo has mostly been him using his striking, and the same could very much be said about Lima. So, I call it a tie here, maybe?
Cardio: Lima is the one who is coming into this fight off a full camp in preparation for two other opponents who dropped out, and whilst a sudden change in opponent sucks because gameplans change, that cardio and conditioning work that has been done will still shine.
Prediction: Lima via KO R2 (1/3)
Women’s Bantamweight
Joselyne Edwards (+210) (13-5-0, NS) v Ailin Perez (-265) (9-2-0, 2 FWS)
Striking: I mean, considering this fight is between a striker and a grappler, I have to give the striking advantage to Edwards here, she is the longer fighter, she does have the power and the technique to make this a little bit tricky for Perez to close in and get that takedown she very much needs, but I don’t exactly rate Edwards’ striking to be particularly high in any regard.
Wrestling/Grappling: This is Perez’ bread and butter, she uses her wrestling almost exclusively when she fights, and the moment she is in a very strong top position, that’s when you typically see her let her hands go and land some solid ground and pound.
Cardio: I have criticised Edwards’ cardio in my main write up, she is a 1.5 round fighter at best and I do think that if Perez is the one to execute her takedowns effectively and with vicious amounts of activity on top, we will only see that fatigue appear sooner. Perez probably has the default advantage also given her style is practically to wrestle, and you need to have a good gas tank to do all that.
Prediction: Perez via KO R3 (2/3)
Welterweight
Mickey Gall (+225) (7-5-0, 2 FLS) v Bassil Hafez (-290) (8-4-1, NS)
Striking: I mean, this is a contentious one because on one hand Hafez has the power advantage, he was wild but he made it gritty against JDM in his debut, but is wildness enough on the feet to deal with Gall who, despite being away for two years, could be coming back looking like a brand new fighter? I am leaning on Gall being the more effective striker here, but it’s a bit of an unclear one due to that time away.
Wrestling/Grappling: This is a clash between a good BJJ fighter in Gall and an excellent wrestler in Hafez… and since Gall has dreadful takedown defence, sitting pretty at 36%, I cannot help but think Hafez has the advantage here. There is a possibility that Gall, using his height and reach advantage, could lock in a guillotine submission as a counter to one of Hafez’s takedowns, so if you want to sprinkle something on Gall winning this one by submission, i wouldn’t blame you, but I think the wrestling output from Hafez is enough to nullify a lot of the submission threat, as long as that guillotine is not locked in tight.
Cardio: I know there is talk about Hafez having bad cardio when he fought JDM, but I think he was stylistically backed into a corner. His main style is wrestling yet he faced JDM on short notice, and I mean, JDM’s takedown defence is legit.
Prediction: Hafez via UD (1/3)
Welterweight
Niko Price (+210) (15-7-0, 2 FLS) v Alex Morono (-260) (24-9-0, NS)
Striking: This is an interesting one because both have their little tendencies… Morono is a bit unorthodox with the way he strikes, he has an awkward stance, he plods forward and his leg is often exposed which I can see Price attacking very often during this fight, but Morono’s quick one two is pretty fascinating to watch, it comes from a slightly higher angle, shoulder height instead of chest height almost, and that could make it hard for Price to get a read on things. It’s pretty even here to be honest.
Wrestling/Grappling: If we are talking about straight grappling, Morono has a massive advantage here, although we don’t normally see Morono control his opponent enough to wrestle them to the ground, so I think his grappling is situational for the most part, instead of an active style he uses, if that makes sense?
Cardio: Pretty even here to be honest, although Morono has shown to be fairly good in three round fights, fighting at a relatively high pace, although he does wilt from time to time, that could just be his style, conservation in the last rounds and such. Price has great cardio too, he has ridiculously good output but I just don’t know if that output is going to be there when that one-two from Morono is going to be a bit problematic. 50/50 here.
Prediction: Morono via UD (1/3)
Welterweight
Phil Rowe (+135) (10-4-0, NS) v Jake Matthews (-165) (19-7-0, NS)
Striking: Rowe has the clear reach advantage in this fight, he uses his reach well, using awesome straight one-two combinations and stance switches, but the thing that makes this most interesting is that Matthews has a boxing style of weaving into range, and it’s in the pocket where Rowe doesn’t strike as well as he normally does at range, and I just see Matthews landing his strongest punches from that pocket position, just off the weave and angle change. Both fighters have very, very good striking, but the one with the advantage depends on the position of the fighters.
Wrestling/Grappling: Matthews built his career off wrestling, he’s got a very strong wrestling base, and whilst he doesn’t use it as much as he should these days, it is still very much a skill that he could pull out and surprise Rowe with. Slight advantage goes to Matthews, and it’s only slight due to how little he wrestles these days.
Cardio: Man, both are really durable fighters who can take a fight to the distance and still look fresh, it’s a tough one to decide who is better, so it’s a tie here.
Prediction: Matthews via UD (1/3)
Lightweight
Grant Dawson (#15) (-320) (20-2-1, NS) v Joe Solecki (+250) (13-4-0, NS)
Striking: Dawson probably has the advantage here, but since both fighters have such a focus on wrestling and grappling, it’s a bit hard to be confident in saying that Dawson has the better striking. I do know that Solecki doesn’t strike that much, and Dawson has shown to have decent boxing, so there’s that at least.
Wrestling/Grappling: I like Solecki’s BJJ, he’s very, very good on the ground, but BJJ is only good if you can catch someone in a submission, its ineffective until it is effective and I don’t think Dawson is going to let Solecki set up Submissions without a lot of resistance. So, it’s a battle of wrestling versus grappling here in my opinion, and its pretty damn close, I still think Dawson is going to control Solecki for most of the fight, but Solecki could pull off a funky little sub off his back.
Cardio: I don’t think this one matters a whole lot here, Dawson usually thrives in long fights, he’s great at grinding out his opponents on the ground, and since he is probably going to be in top position for most of the fight, I do think he can wear Solecki down here. So, Dawson probably has the advantage here.
Prediction: Dawson via UD (2/3)
Middleweight
Roman Kopylov (-135) (12-3-0, NS) v Cesar Almeida (+115) (5-0-0, 5 FWS)
Striking: This is going to first and foremost be a fantastic stand up bout, Kopylov is insanely quick with his southpaw powerside attacks, his straight left is a danger to almost anyone, but the problem that I see him facing is the fact he tends to be too hittable at times, I mean, if Fremd can smack around Kopylov a bit, what can Almeida do? Almeida is a very high level kickboxer who has a brilliant left hook (as well as practically every other attack a kickboxer might use, including leg kicks), and I only highlight the left hook because Kopylov leaves that right hand a bit out from a proper shell position, so I can’t help but think that left hook is going to be a dangerous weapon for Kopylov to deal with. Almeida has the better striking here, only due to his credentials though.
Wrestling/Grappling: I mean, Kopylov is a multiple time Sambo champion, so I do think he has the ability to mix it up and make it interesting for Almeida, but Almeida himself has decent takedown defence and grappling defence, so it kind of almost negates each other, but still, the longer the fight takes place on the ground, the better it is for Kopylov here. Slight advantage to Kopylov.
Cardio: Tough one to decide, but Kopylov is pretty good at fighting in the second and third round, whereas Almeida might be good in the second or third, but there’s not quite enough fights to where I can say that comfortably. 50/50 here.
Prediction: Almeida via KO R2 (1/3)
Main Card
Welterweight
Randy Brown (-155) (18-5-0, 2 FWS) v Elizeu Zaleski (+130) (24-7-1, 1D/2FWS)
Striking: It’s a bit of a battle of range and power here, Brown has the reach advantage to glide on the outside and let his hands go a bit more comfortably, but he is also quite good at mixing in teeps and leg kicks, so he’s quite dynamic at range. Zaleski is very, very good at making this a gritty fight, if he can close the range he can certainly land cleanly against Brown because Browns best defence is his distance management, so Zaleski’s best chance at a clean punch is to enter the pocket and fire away. It’s a bit of a 50/50 but given the reach advantage of Brown I think he has the very slight advantage here.
Wrestling/Grappling: I know Brown doesn’t wrestle a lot, but it could really play into his favour in this fight, just to mix it up a bit. I haven’t exactly seen Zaleski look for takedowns a whole lot, he’s mostly a striker but quite adaptable on the ground, so the advantage here is also a 50/50 as its situational.
Cardio: I know that Zaleski is getting up there in age, but he still holds up well in distance fights. Brown has great cardio too and he’s good at maintaining a high pace of activity, especially at distance. My only concern is if he gets his legs chewed up by Zaleski’s kicks, that might seriously sap his tank a bit. Maybe a 50/50 here.
Prediction: Brown via UD (1/3)
Heavyweight
Jailton Almeida (#6) (-300) (20-3-0, NS) v Alexandr Romanov (#14) (+240) (17-2-0, NS)
Striking: Almeida probably has better striking than Romanov, but its only very slight since he focuses a lot on his wrestling pressure and grappling.
Wrestling/Grappling: I can go back and forth about this one for quite some time, but you’re here for the plain and simples, not the fluff, so to put it bluntly, Almeida has much better aggressive wrestling than Romanov has defensive wrestling (outwrestled by Espino), I believe that Almeida also has that BJJ that will help him control Romanov on the ground.
Cardio: Almeida has decent cardio, he might be a bit lay and pray-ish but he’s great at pressuring his opponent and sapping their cardio quicker than he saps his own cardio, so I got Almeida having the better gas tank here.
Prediction: Almeida via UD (1/3)
Middleweight
Kevin Holland (-250) (25-11-0, 2 FLS) v Michal Oleksiejczuk (+200) (19-7-0, NS)
Striking: Holland has a wide range of attacks that he uses, although he is mostly known for his sharp long boxing, and its that long striking which could be most problematic for Oleksiejczuk. Holland is also moving up to 185 again so we might see some more impactful shots since he will be less depleted during fight day.
Wrestling/Grappling: Holland used to be a grappler, he has quite a few submissions under his belt, and it is proven that Oleksiejczuk is not good at all on the ground, so if Holland was to wrestle in this fight, he would be the far superior grappler. I mean, most of Oleksiejczuks losses have been from submission, so it just makes sense to me that Holland would be a lot better than Oleksiejczuk on the ground.
Cardio: You cannot count out Hollands cardio here, the dudes a bundle of endless energy. He is built for durability, he took severe punishment when he fought Thompson and MVP and still stood tall and hung in there. That’s not just a show of “heart”, that’s a well conditioned fighter.
Prediction: Holland via KO R2 (2/3)
Co-Main Event
Middleweight
Sean Strickland (#2) (-205) (28-6-0, NS) v Paulo Costa (#8) (+170) (14-3-0, NS)
Striking: It’s a story of two styles here, Strickland has an excellent jab cross, his boxing fundamentals are his strongest assets as a striker, he doesn’t stray from the ordinary too much, everything is clean, maybe a bit repetitive, but that striking, alongside his forward pressure, has resulted in some slick victories on his behalf. Costa on the other hand is the exact opposite. Big movements, big actions, massive power, that’s Costa in a few words, he is chaotic and is able to disrupt the pattern of Strickland, and if he looks good enough to the judges despite the strikes being a bit ineffective, then he could very well get the nod.
Wrestling/Grappling: I don’t think i’ve ever seen Strickland wrestle. I mean, he trains out of Xtreme Couture so he certainly should have some wrestling under his belt, but he doesn’t exactly use it a lot. Same as Costa, Costa is mostly a striker so he tends to avoid a lot of grappling situations as much as possible. I don’t think either fighter has an advantage in grappling here.
Cardio: Strickland doesn’t look any different in the 5th than he does in the first, so I think Strickland has the far better cardio, and Costa tends to throw big attacks early which saps the gas tank a bit. So, Strickland has the better cardio here.
Prediction: Strickland via UD (1/3)
Main Event
Lightweight Championship Bout
Islam Makhachev (c) (-480) (25-1-0, 13 FWS) v Dustin Poirier (#5) (+360) (30-8-0, NS)
Striking: There is little doubt that when it comes to technique and timing, Poirier is at a ridiculously high level. He holds all the cards when the fight takes place on the feet, all he needs to contend with is the wild power and speed of Makhachev, but Makhachev mostly uses his power and speed to close the distance and raise the guard of his opponents, making those takedowns a bit easier. I cannot wait to see if Poirier lands that fight ending left or right hook.
Wrestling/Grappling: This is all Makhachev, and whilst you might argue that Poirier has great grappling, I think it’s a bit basic in comparison to Makhachevs, and if you know Makhachev, he prepares for the best his opponent can ever do, I think he trains to overestimate everything his opponent has to offer, so as soon as the fight hits the ground, expect Makhachev to thrive.
Cardio: Both have reasonably good cardio to be honest, but there’s something special about Makhachev, he is so full on and fights at such a nasty pace throughout all 3-5 rounds that his opponent can barely keep up with him… He only wilted once before, and that was against Volkanovski, late into the 5th round, in that very first fight, that’s stupendously impressive.
Prediction: Makhachev via Sub R2 (2/3)
Primary Parlay - Price/Morono o2.5 or GTD + Dawson/Solecki o2.5 or GTD + Almeida/Kopylov ITD + Makhachev/Poirier ITD
Secondary Parlay - Price/Morono o2.5 or GTD + Almeida/Romanov R3 Starts Yes + Strickland/Costa o2.5 + Makhachev/Poirier u3.5 or ITD
Locks: Perez (optional), Dawson, Almeida, Holland and Makhachev.
Alt Bets: Kopylov Points, Zaleski KO/Points, Costa KO/Points, Poirier KO R1 2 or 3 (combo rounds)
Prediction Accuracy for 2024: 64.3%
If you would like to donate and support me, as this is my only income, please do so via Paypal. All write ups are free, donations are insanely optional! https://paypal.me/Slayertip?country.x=AU&locale.x=en_AU
if you wish to keep in contact with me or follow me on twitter, my twitter handle is @Slayer_Tip, and my Discord is Slayertip#7013.
Lets have a fun and friendly discussion down below about this weekends card!
I hope you all have an amazing day, look after yourselves, and enjoy this awesome event!

Found this article after doing a quick deep-dive after this post from u/evilez:
https://www.reddit.com/UFOs/comments/1d33m4l/does_anybody_remember_what_podcast_this_was/
"Hello fine ladies and gentlemen! I remember listening to a podcast less than a year ago. The main subject of the podcast was UFOs (I think)... anyways the guest told a story that a congressman or senator wrote a bill that was against the CIA or going to defund the CIA, in the 80's... and shortly thereafter, someone broke into his home, dragged his wife out into the street and stuck a gun in her mouth and told her to kill the bill."
Some light Googling brought up this article about the history of the CIA, the OSS, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan's attempts at defunding the agency in the 90s.
Here's an article about that attempt brought by Moynihan published on the Carnegie Endowment Website on December 20, 2005.
https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2005/12/the-case-for-abolishing-the-cia?lang=en
Here's the New Yorker piece about all of this from October 3rd, 2022.

Spooked -- What’s wrong with the C.I.A.? -- By Amy Davidson Sorkin -- October 3, 2022

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/10/10/has-the-cia-done-more-harm-than-good
According to the article regarding the resuscitation of the OSS as the CIA immediately following Roswell and the Twining Memo:
"Many of its officers moved straight to the new C.I.A. Most consequentially, perhaps, four future directors of the C.I.A. were O.S.S. veterans: Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, William Colby, and William Casey."
Here's the New Yorker article in full:
"On January 4, 1995, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, of New York, introduced a bill called the Abolition of the Central Intelligence Agency Act. It had been a rough stretch for the C.I.A. The year before, Aldrich Ames, a longtime officer, had been convicted of being a longtime mole for Soviet (and then Russian) intelligence. Despite having a reputation among his colleagues as a problem drinker who appeared to live far beyond his means, Ames had been given high-level assignments with access to the names of American sources in the U.S.S.R. When the F.B.I. finally arrested him, he was in the Jaguar he used for commuting to work at Langley; by then, he was responsible for the death of at least ten agents. Moynihan said that the case was such a flamboyant display of incompetence that it might actually be a distraction from “the most fundamental defects of the C.I.A.” He meant that the agency—in what he considered to be its “defining failure”—had both missed the fact that the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse and done little to hasten its end.
He gave a diagnosis for what had gone wrong. “Secrecy keeps mistakes secret,” he said. “Secrecy is a disease. It causes a hardening of the arteries of the mind.” He quoted John le Carré on that point, adding that the best information actually came from the likes of area specialists, diplomats, historians, and journalists. If the C.I.A. was disbanded, he said, the State Department could pick up the intelligence work, and do a better job.
Moynihan was, in some respects, being disingenuous. As he well knew, even if his bill had passed, spies and spying wouldn’t have gone away. The State Department already had its own mini agency, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. The Departments of Energy and Treasury each had one, too. The Defense Intelligence Agency conducted clandestine operations; U.S. Army Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, and the Office of Naval Intelligence kept themselves busy as well. The National Security Agency was nearly two decades away from the revelation, by Edward Snowden, a contractor and a former C.I.A. employee, that it had collected information about the phone calls of most Americans, but it was a behemoth even in Moynihan’s time. So was the Federal Bureau of Investigation. There were about a dozen agencies then; now, after reforms that were supposed to streamline things, there are eighteen, including the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (O.D.N.I.), a sort of meta-C.I.A. that has a couple of thousand employees, and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis. The Drug Enforcement Administration (which currently has foreign offices in sixty-nine countries) has an Office of National Security Intelligence. Four million people in the United States now have security clearances.
It can be hard to sort out which agencies do what; players in the espionage business aren’t always good with boundaries. Both the C.I.A. and the N.S.A. make use of satellite resources, including commercial ones, but there is a separate agency in charge of a spy-satellite fleet, the National Reconnaissance Office—not to be confused with the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which deals with both space-based and ground-level imaging, or with Space Delta 18, the nation’s newest intelligence agency, which is attached to the Space Force. Abolishing the C.I.A. might do nothing more than reconfigure the turf wars.
[NOTE: both Sean Kirkpatrick and David Grusch worked for the NRO and at least Grusch worked for the NGA]
As the senator from New York also knew, a large proportion of the C.I.A.’s resources are devoted not to intelligence gathering but to covert operations, some of which look like military operations. In “Spies, Lies, and Algorithms: The History and Future of American Intelligence” (Princeton)—one of several recent books that coincide with the seventy-fifth anniversary of the agency’s founding—Amy B. Zegart, a political scientist at Stanford, writes that it’s “getting harder to know just where the CIA’s role ends and the military’s role begins.” Yet the agency’s paramilitary pursuits and related covert activities go back decades. They include the botched Bay of Pigs landing, the brutal Phoenix Program in Vietnam, and a long list of assassination attempts, coup plots, the mining of a harbor (with explosive devices the agency built itself), and drone strikes. These operations have very seldom ended well.
Moynihan’s bill had no more luck than another that he introduced the same day, aimed at ending Major League Baseball’s exemption from antitrust laws. In each case, people understood that there was a problem, but both institutions were protected by the sense that there was something essential, and perhaps authentically American, about them, including their very brokenness. A sudden turn of events can convince even the C.I.A.’s most sober critics that the agency will save us all, whether from terrorists or from Donald Trump. But, seventy-five years in, it’s far from clear whether the C.I.A. is good at its job, or what that job is or should be, or how we could get rid of the agency if we wanted to.
How did we end up with the C.I.A.? A familiar explanation is that the shock of Pearl Harbor made the United States realize it needed more spies; the Office of Strategic Services was formed and jumped into action; and, when the war ended, the O.S.S. evolved seamlessly into the C.I.A., ready to go out and win the Cold War. But that narrative isn’t quite right, particularly regarding the relationship between the O.S.S. and the C.I.A.
[NOTE: We know how ended up with the CIA. ROSWELL.]
The United States has always used spies of some sort. George Washington had a discretionary espionage budget for which he didn’t have to turn in receipts. In the early part of the twentieth century, the State Department had an intelligence-analysis unit, along with a cryptography group called the Black Chamber, which operated out of a brownstone in New York’s Murray Hill until it was shut down, in 1929. The Army and the Navy had cryptography and reconnaissance units, too. When the Second World War began, their operations ramped up dramatically, and, as Nicholas Reynolds recounts in “Need to Know: World War II and the Rise of American Intelligence” (Mariner), these units, not the O.S.S., handled most of the code-breaking. The problem became the volume of raw intelligence. The task of making sense of it and of turning it into something that policymakers could use went to an office within the Army’s military-intelligence division (or G-2), which, Reynolds says, produced “the country’s best strategic intelligence” during the war. That office’s work was directed by Alfred McCormack, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Harlan Stone and a partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore. Many of the people he brought in were young corporate lawyers; the theory was that their training in plowing through mountains of documents made them ideal intelligence analysts.
William J. Donovan, who led and largely conceived of the O.S.S., was also a Wall Street lawyer, but one with an aversion to the “legalistic.” What Donovan envisioned was essentially an array of commando units that would operate stealthily and behind enemy lines. In practice, what he tried to build, according to a colleague, was a “private army.” His escapades often risked too much and gained too little. In late 1943, one of his own officers wrote to him that “the set-up has been incredibly wasteful in manpower and, except for a few spotty accomplishments, has been a national failure.” And it had produced “chaos in the field.” Donovan’s nickname was Wild Bill, but his staff called him Seabiscuit, after the thoroughbred, because of his tendency to race around, engaging in what was basically war tourism. In the end, though, the O.S.S. made real contributions, including through its contacts with the French Resistance. But Donovan’s complaint about D Day was that there was “too much planning.” Counterintelligence and strategic thinking bored him, and the O.S.S.’s analysis division was seen as secondary to its operations.
When Harry Truman became President, in April, 1945, he took a look at the O.S.S. and, in September, 1945, abolished it. About two years later, he signed the National Security Act, which established the C.I.A. (and the Department of Defense), but he didn’t want the new agency to be like the group Donovan had run. Instead, it was supposed to do what its name suggested: centralize the intelligence that various agencies gathered, analyze it, and turn it into something the President could use.
[NOTE: I tried doing some research after reading something yesterday about how the NSA was developed in 1952 under Project Sigma to try and decode "alien" communications. If anyone can offer anything, you'd be helping humanity.]
“It was not intended as a ‘Cloak and Dagger’ Outfit!,” Truman later wrote. He also had to deal with public apprehensions that he might create what a Chicago Tribune headline called a “Super Gestapo Agency”—which is why, in its charter, the C.I.A. was banned from domestic spying.
Reynolds’s book is the best of the recent batch, and the most readable. It does not retrofit the history of the O.S.S. around the assumption that the C.I.A. was the inevitable lead postwar intelligence agency. There were other contenders, including a version of McCormack’s office in the State Department—something like what Moynihan wanted. J. Edgar Hoover argued that “World Wide Intelligence” should be turned over to the F.B.I., with military intelligence subservient to him. In some alternative history, he might have pulled that off; by 1943, he was running undercover operations in twenty Latin American countries. And so things could have been worse.
[WHAT UNDERCOVER OPERATIONS WERE WE RUNNING IN LATIN AMERICANS COUNTRIES IN 1943.]
Donovan was an adept publicist, but what mattered most, in the end, was that he was good, or lucky, when it came to hiring people. Despite the “pale, male, and Yale” stereotype, the O.S.S. was somewhat more diverse than other units, and certainly more eclectic. Among its ranks were Ralph Bunche, Herbert Marcuse, and Julia Child. Many of its officers moved straight to the new C.I.A. Most consequentially, perhaps, four future directors of the C.I.A. were O.S.S. veterans: Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, William Colby, and William Casey. Each seems to have had glory-day memories of the O.S.S., which is to say that each, in various ways, was afflicted with what a general in Army intelligence called “the screwball Donovan effect.” Casey, who put a picture of Donovan on his wall, said of his old boss, “We all glowed in his presence.” Wild Bill lost the bureaucratic fight but won the personnel and mythology wars.
And, of course, the agency found customers and collaborators in the White House. There was no mention of covert action in the law that chartered the C.I.A., but Presidents—starting with Truman—began using it that way. One of the agency’s first operations involved meddling in the 1948 Italian election, to insure the victory of the Christian Democrats. The subsidies and outright bribery of Italian politicians, some of them on the far, far right, continued into the nineteen-seventies.
Almost from its creation, though, there was a sense that something about the C.I.A. was off. The split between covert action and intelligence gathering and analysis was part of it. The director of the agency was also supposed to be the leader of U.S. intelligence as a whole, but, invariably, the person in the job seemed more invested in preëminence than in coördination. That setup remained in place until the establishment of the O.D.N.I., in 2004, a move that thus far has mostly continued a tradition of trying to deal with the C.I.A.’s dysfunction by setting up ever more agencies, offices, and centers. (The N.S.A. was established, in 1952, in response to a series of cryptography-related failures.) “Legacy of Ashes,” Tim Weiner’s 2008 history of the C.I.A.—and still an invaluable overview—takes its title from a lament by Eisenhower about what he’d be leaving his successors if the “faulty” structure of American intelligence wasn’t changed. Since Weiner’s book was published, the ashes, and the agencies, have only been piling up.
Zegart’s “Spies, Lies, and Algorithms” aims to bring that history to the present. Zegart has served as an adviser to intelligence agencies, and she provides a decent guide to our current bureaucracy. Throughout, her book is clear and well organized—maybe a little too well organized, one feels, after taking in the “Seven Deadly Biases” of intelligence analysis, the “Four Main Adversaries” and the “Five Types of Attack” in the crypto area, and the “Three Words, Four Types” that define covert action. (The covert-action words, incidentally, are “influence,” “acknowledged,” and “abroad.”) Not a few paragraphs read like PowerPoint charts; contradictions are displayed without really being reckoned with. She observes that the balance between “hunting” and “gathering” seems off, but, in her telling, the fact that Presidents of both parties regularly turn to the C.I.A. for paramilitary and other covert tasks constitutes proof that doing so is part of the order of things. The impression she leaves is that if it all goes wrong, it’s because some checklist has been missed. One of the top priorities of U.S. intelligence today, she thinks, should be persuading tech companies to get with the program and help out. She moots the creation of yet another agency, to deal with OSINT—open-source intelligence.
In one chapter, Zegart provides a list of scandals involving spying within the U.S. by various intelligence agencies—notably the N.S.A., the F.B.I., and the C.I.A. “All of these activities violated American law,” she writes. “But that’s the point: domestic laws forbid this kind of surveillance of Americans.” How is that the point, exactly? She depicts the Senate’s 2014 Torture Report, which detailed profound abuses in the C.I.A.’s so-called black sites, as a they-said, the-agency-said, who-knows case. She turns it into a parable about the problems with Congress—suggesting that, although the committee structure may have needed rejiggering, the moral compass of those involved in the program of torture was just fine.
Another new volume, “A Question of Standing: A History of the CIA” (Oxford), by Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones, a professor emeritus of history at the University of Edinburgh, offers the insights of a more distant observer. He can be astute about how “false memories” of the O.S.S.’s accomplishments have led the C.I.A. astray. Part of his argument is that the agency has acted as if its influence depended on its standing with whoever is in the White House, thus motivating it to offer Presidents quick fixes that fix nothing. The net effect is to reduce its standing, and that of the U.S., with the public at home and abroad. But Jeffreys-Jones is prone to rash generalizations and pronouncements. He theorizes that, in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, George W. Bush’s national-security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, may have been susceptible to “war mongering” due to her status as “a descendant of slaves,” and that the working-class background of the C.I.A.’s director, George Tenet, made him more likely to vouch for the faulty intelligence on weapons of mass destruction used to justify the war. “Social mobility so often leads to conformity,” warns Jeffreys-Jones, himself the son of an academic historian.
During the Vietnam War, the C.I.A. had discouraging intelligence to offer, and, when successive Administrations didn’t want to hear it, focussed on being helpful by providing those supposedly quick fixes. That meant abetting a coup in 1963, spying on antiwar protesters, and launching the Phoenix Program, an anti-Vietcong campaign marked by torture and by arbitrary executions; in total, more than twenty thousand people were killed under Phoenix’s auspices.
Phoenix was run by William Colby, the O.S.S. alum, who was soon promoted to C.I.A. director. At lower levels, discontent about Vietnam fueled leaks. In December, 1974, the journalist Seymour Hersh told the agency that he was about to publish a story in the Times exposing its domestic spying. Whether in a miscalculation or (as Jeffreys-Jones somewhat breathlessly speculates) as an act of personal expiation, Colby gave Hersh partial confirmation. Amid the scandals and the Congressional hearings that followed, Colby angered some of his colleagues, and Henry Kissinger, by laying bare even more. It emerged that, in 1973, Colby’s predecessor had asked senior agency officials to produce a list of things the C.I.A. had done that might have been unlawful. The resulting document, covering just the prior fifteen years, was known in-house as “The Family Jewels,” and was almost seven hundred pages long.
The question of how much it matters who works at the C.I.A. is a perennial one. The influence of Donovan’s acolytes shows that decisions about whom you recruit can, in a formative period or at a critical juncture, make a big difference. But, once an institutional culture has become entrenched, it can be easier to see how the institution shapes the people within it than vice versa.
“Wise Gals: The Spies Who Built the CIA and Changed the Future of Espionage” (Putnam), by Nathalia Holt, comes at the question from a different angle. It’s about five women who worked for the early C.I.A.; three also worked at the O.S.S., and one, Eloise Page, began her career as Bill Donovan’s secretary. Holt is also the author of “Rise of the Rocket Girls,” about women in the early years of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and “The Queens of Animation,” about women at the Walt Disney Company. Her book contains fine material for a beautifully art-directed streaming series, with set pieces in postwar Paris, nineteen-fifties Baghdad, and nineteen-seventies Greece, where Page was the C.I.A.’s first woman station chief. It even has a framing device in the form of the “Petticoat Panel,” a working group of C.I.A. women that convened in 1953 to document their unequal pay and treatment. Holt quotes the transcript of the meeting at which the leadership of the agency summarily rejected their findings. Helms, the future director, says, “It is just nonsense for these gals to come on here and think that the government is going to fall apart because their brains aren’t going to be used to the maximum.” (In 1977, Helms was convicted of lying to Congress about the C.I.A.’s machinations in Chile.) What the book is not, unfortunately, is a coherent history of the C.I.A., of the era it depicts, or even of these women’s work.
Holt’s research does turn up evidence that Jane Burrell, one of her subjects, was the first C.I.A. officer to die in the line of duty, in a plane crash in France, in 1948, a fact that the agency itself apparently missed. Holt ends her book with a call for a star honoring Burrell to be added to the C.I.A.’s memorial wall. Of the hundred and thirty-seven officers represented there, she writes, forty-five died accidentally, the majority in plane crashes, meaning that Burrell’s case would be fairly typical. Burrell was on the return leg of a trip to Brussels, where she’d been sent to talk to war-crimes investigators about a mess the C.I.A. had created by relying on an agent who turned out to have worked with the S.S. and was now in custody. In that respect, too, Burrell, who had personally handled the agent, was typical of the C.I.A. (After Burrell vouched for him, the man was released.) The subject of the C.I.A.’s postwar relations with former Nazis—some of whom, like Reinhard Gehlen, it helped to install in West Germany’s new intelligence service—and with collaborationist émigré groups is, no doubt, a morass. Holt, alas, manages to make the story even more garbled than it has to be. In the end, she basically treats the whole sordid episode as a learning experience for the Gals.
The problem is that the agency doesn’t seem to learn much. Holt credits Mary Hutchison with helping to build a network of émigré Ukrainian nationalists. Beginning in 1949, the agency parachuted some of them (including one whom Hutchison apparently distrusted) behind the Soviet border, where they were quickly captured—and repeated the same procedure for a number of years. “Despite the catastrophe, the Ukraine operation would serve as a template moving forward,” Holt writes. “The C.I.A. had more success with back-to-back operations in Iran and Guatemala, where covert action was able to deftly oust leaders considered undesirable.” It’s odd to describe these coups as deft. One of Zegart’s handy lists is of the “unintended consequences” in Iran: “religious extremism, a revolutionary overthrow, the American hostage crisis, severed ties, regional instability, and today’s rising nuclear dangers.” Guatemala is still dealing with the violent legacy of the coup that the C.I.A. visited upon it. Then there’s the question of the intended consequences, which were, respectively, to elevate a shah and a military regime. Secret wars tend not to be so secret in the country where they take place.
It was, no doubt, frustrating for Hutchison when, a few years later, her colleagues on the Bay of Pigs task force failed to make use of her Spanish-language skills. But are we supposed to think that the whole misconceived enterprise would have gone off without a hitch were it not for the C.I.A.’s misogyny? One of Holt’s minor themes is that women in the C.I.A. were seen as more natural analysts than operatives—with analysis, in turn, seen as less manly, and less valuable, to everybody’s detriment. But she is more intent on showing that these women were also daring. The main point of “Wise Gals” is that it’s cool that women were in the early C.I.A., and therefore that the C.I.A. itself was cooler than we’d realized. Holt celebrates a big promotion Page got that afforded her access to the secret of a safe containing shellfish-derived poison. You don’t have to be pale, male, and Yale to be complicit in a bungled assassination plot, or, for that matter, a program of rendition and torture.
Why do so many books about the C.I.A. have trouble getting their story straight? It can’t just be the secrecy of the work itself, at least with regard to the earlier years, about which much has been declassified. (Much remains under wraps: Moynihan complained that classification created more than six million supposed secrets in 1993; Zegart writes that the number in 2016 was fifty-five million—not all of which can possibly have been critical.) The aura of secrecy, by contrast, probably does distort the judgment of its chroniclers. And the scope of the agency’s work is a challenge: it’s hard to write expertly on places as far-ranging as the Democratic Republic of Congo (where the agency initially planned to poison President Patrice Lumumba’s toothpaste, and instead ended up handing a quarter of a million dollars to Joseph Mobutu, the country’s future dictator, who facilitated the assassination) and Afghanistan (where the C.I.A. has had forty years of illusory gains and worse losses). But the biggest problem may be the agency’s own pattern of self-deception. Holt, for example, sometimes seems to go wrong when, rummaging through the archives, she gives too much credit to contemporaneous internal assessments of an agent’s or an operation’s worth.
In truth, the C.I.A. has had a “defining failure” for every decade of its existence—sometimes more than one. For Moynihan, in the nineteen-nineties, it was the lack of foresight about the Soviet Union; in the two-thousands, it was the phantom weapons of mass destruction, followed by torture and, in still evolving ways, by the drone-based program of targeted killings, with its high toll of civilian deaths. Barack Obama’s rapport with John Brennan, the C.I.A.’s director from 2013 to 2017, seems to have brought him to accept the view that the killing of American citizens abroad was acceptable, if managed prudently. The overuse of the agency on the battlefield is due not to a military-manpower shortage but to wishful thinking about the benefits of secrecy and of a lack of accountability.
It’s difficult to know, at this point, what the C.I.A.’s next defining failure—or, if one tries to be optimistic, its stabilizing success—will be. Donald Trump has had a complicated relationship with the intelligence community—increasingly capitalized and abbreviated to I.C.—which is presently conducting a damage assessment regarding documents with classified markings that he kept at Mar-a-Lago, his Florida home. He might, of course, be reëlected, and have the C.I.A.’s tools at his disposal again. If the C.I.A. isn’t the place to turn for an expedient solution to foreign-policy problems, neither is it bound to be the place to turn for a solution to our democracy’s political problems.
“If you ask intelligence officers what misperceptions bother them most, odds are they’ll mention ethics,” Zegart writes. She quotes an official who complains that “people think we’re lawbreakers, we’re human rights violators.” She insists that “officers think about ethics a lot.” She portrays the agency as being filled with hardworking moms and dads who do a great deal of “agonizing.” No doubt she’s right. But if the C.I.A. keeps falling down all the same, something must be tragically amiss in the agency’s structure or culture, or both. All the talk of coups and assassination plots, Zegart worries, distracts people from understanding the C.I.A.’s more basic intelligence mission. In fact, the party most distracted by such activities—and by the military role it has taken on—seems to be the agency itself. ♦
An earlier version of this article misstated the numerical designation of the Space Force unit dedicated to intelligence.
Published in the print edition of the October 10, 2022, issue.

Seems like they all have crashed or got ill...
van Aert obviously rides Norway and Jonas is supposed to be training... but Jorgensen, Gesink....
Me and my wife aint following races on a daily basis, we watch races at discovery a week+ after, mixing womens and mens races, so I'm not up to date with what's happened in races or around them last say 7-8 days.

Demographics

• Gender: M
• Race/Ethnicity: White/Asian
• Residence: WA
• Income Bracket: no aid
• Type of School: Small Public
• Hooks (Recruited Athlete, URM, First-Gen, Geographic, Legacy, etc.): none

Intended Major(s): Business, Finance, Entrepreneurship
Academics

• GPA (UW/W): 3.95, school doesn't have weighted
• Rank (or percentile): School doesn't rank
• Number of Honors/AP/IB/Dual Enrollment/etc.: 2 honors, 6 APs including senior classes (probably about as rigorous as the top students at my school)
• Senior Year Course Load: AP Calc AB, AP Stats, AP Lit, Physics, free period, Marketing, PE

Standardized Testing
List the highest scores earned and all scores that were reported.

• SAT I: 1510 (760RW, 750M), submitted everywhere
• ACT: didn't take
• AP: Lang (4), CSA (5), didn't take HUG exam

Extracurriculars/Activities
List all extracurricular involvements, including leadership roles, time commitments, major achievements, etc.

1. cofounded local service business with 25k annual revenue
2. part time job working in a kitchen
3. varsity cross country, team captain and team podium finish at state
4. varsity track jsr year
5. casual violinist for ~10yrs
6. varsity lacrosse for sophomore year
7. distance running in off-season which included training for and running a marathon

Awards/Honors 💀💀
List all awards and honors submitted on your application.

1. NHS participant
2. National Rural and Small Town Recognition Program

Letters of Recommendation
Math teacher (8/10) I did well in their class and I think they liked me
Chemistry teacher (7/10) I read it, it was short & sweet
Business teacher (5/10) Also read it, talked more about my business than about me but was nice
Interviews
Penn - 3/10 was not prepared at all but I guess it was a good learning experience for the rest of mine
Harvard and Stanford - 6/10 don't really remember much about either of these but they were about average, nothing really too good or bad
Babson - 10/10 interviewer and I connected really well and talked a lot about entrepreneurship & my experiences owning a business
Essays
PS - 7/10 I didn't think it was very good but several friends and family members read it including AOs and they said it was amazing so who knows
Decisions (indicate ED/EA/REA/SCEA/RD)
Acceptances:

• Bentley
• Cornell School of Hotel Administration -> Committed!!

Waitlists:

• Babson -> declined
• UMich -> declined
• UWashington (the audacity!?) -> declined

Rejections:

• University of Pennsylvania M&T and Wharton (ED)
• UVA EA
• USC EA -> deferred -> rejected
• Harvard
• Stanford
• WashU

Additional Information:
I am extremely grateful to have been accepted into Cornell. I actually got accepted at the end of February (the hotel school releases some acceptances early), which made March a lot less stressful especially when I was waitlisted from my state-school which I had mistakenly considered to be a safety. Anyways, I hope this helps some of you and good luck to any future applicants!

Before you answer my question, read my story please. I'm in my late 30's and I live and work in Atlanta. I have come across a few blk females (beyond lust or physical interest) that instantly aligned me back into my default heterosexual male role. What do I mean by this? Well, I always tell my true friend who is gay, that my gayness is like a light switch. I really can turn it on and off, FOR REAL. I honestly have always been straight and have always been with black women all of my life. Back in my young adult years (20-24) I had mistaken a feminine looking guy for a gurl and had interest in him and fell into the LGBTQIA+ world (It is hard to tell if someone is a guy / gurl now days). Since then, I had discarded my religious upbringing to test the waters of all the attention I would get from guys. I sorta liked it, and once I was exposed, I guarded myself as far as not just getting with anyone because they were sexy or fine or whatever but got with guys who didn't seem like they had sex a lot or with nerdy guys.
I remember in my early 20s, I was dealing with a horrible time of being rejected and being undesired by women in general. I had trained myself to see past women in the grocery store and act as if they never existed. Fast forward to 2024, I see my training works here and there, but my inner manliness is still present where the gay shit goes away as soon as I see a female that genuinely interests me. Not just black, but majority of women in all races won't date a guy who is bisexual (although they want you to accept that you shouldn't judge a bisexual woman and accept her for who she is or what she has done). It's a double standard, it's bullship. So, how is a handsome man in his 30s able to date a straight woman, but can't expose his bisexuality? Most women are not open-minded and will banish me instantly. Any Advice?

My name is Jessica, and I live in a small central American city of about 80,000 people.Today I'm going to share a story about Korea.First, I'd like to tell you a little bit about my family.When I was born, I already had an older brother.I don't mean just a little sister with an older brother.My brother was adopted from Korea.It's an unusual situation, isn't it? My parents struggled with infertility for several years before I was born, and they ended up adopting my Korean brother.Then, a few years later, they got pregnant with me, and I was born.My brother had different hair color, skin color, and eye color than me, but we got along very well.Even though we knew from a young age that we were adopted because of our differences, we got along well, and we were a family that loved each other deeply.
We played the same games, read books together, and spent a lot of time together. He always took good care of me, and he was a good brother who made me laugh.
I would say, “Brother, let's read this book together!” and he would always smile and read it to me. I think I liked and enjoyed his warmth to me, rather than focusing on the content of the book.
When we left our cozy home environment, it was time to go to school, and during this time, my brother and I were asked a lot of embarrassing questions.One day, while my brother and I were playing together, a friend asked me, “Jessica, why does your brother look different from you?”The question gave me pause, but he smiled and replied, “Because we are a family, looks don't matter. His positive attitude had a good effect on me, and I'm sure he had a good effect on himself, too.Watching him grow up right, and our family became interested in Korea. If he was a troublemaker and always in trouble, he wouldn't have had the time to take the time to learn about his country of origin, Korea, but when he studied well, didn't fight with his friends, and was a good person who always loved and cared for his brother, we couldn't help but wonder about his roots.
I think my parents also had the will to share Korean culture with my brother and me, to learn what they could, to broaden our horizons and deepen our family's understanding.Many years ago, when I was in middle school, my family visited Korea for the first time, and the experience left a great impression on me.
We visited many tourist spots in Seoul and saw the harmonious combination of Korean tradition and modernity.And Korea, with its many dark-haired, dark-eyed people like my brother, was somehow not foreign to me.For Americans traveling to Asia for the first time, this could have been difficult because people look different and give off different vibes, but not for me. My parents, of course, were very excited to revisit Korea, the country of my brother's birth, and spoke so many blessings about the land of my brother's birth.Of course, there were many good things to see and many fun things to do in Korea, but the most memorable moment was when I suddenly developed a high fever.
It was a quiet night in Korea at the time, and I suddenly developed a high fever.This change was so sudden that my parents panicked.Eventually, with the help of the hotel we were staying at, they were able to get me to the emergency room in Korea, where I was quickly treated.Upon arrival, the medical staff quickly assessed my condition and ran the necessary tests.The whole process was organized, and thanks to the professionalism and quick response of the medical staff, I was able to get comfortable quickly. My situation was so serious that my head hurt like a rock and I could barely understand what was being said around me, but thanks to their quick response, my fever started to come down and I was able to return to my senses.The tests showed that I had a severe flu, which had been contracted in the United States and had incubated in Korea.I had to stop traveling in Korea and be admitted to the hospital for treatment, but thanks to the fast and efficient healthcare system in Korea, this was not a problem.
My parents breathed a sigh of relief and expressed their deep gratitude to the Korean healthcare system.“If it wasn't for Korea, I would have been in trouble,” my father said.Although my family had to stop our trip to Korea and spend the rest of my stay in a Korean hospital, looking back, it was also a unique experience abroad.
Many years later, as an adult, my relationship with my brother was still good. We enjoyed Korean dramas, movies, and music together, cooked Korean food together, and learned Korean together.
However, there was a clear difference between me and him: he seemed to be better at learning, even if he spent the same amount of time studying, and he went to a prestigious university, while I failed to get into college and became depressed.
He helped me with my studies every vacation, taught me how to study, and helped me to get into a prestigious university, but the results were not good. I was rejected by all the universities I applied to, and I was going through a very difficult time. After he graduated from college, he moved back home from the East Coast of the United States and helped me study for the college entrance exam, and with his help, I was able to get into college, albeit late.
Although I didn't get into a prestigious university like my brother, I still had a satisfying college experience and broadened my horizons.Naturally, I discovered that Korea has been on the global radar lately, which was very exciting.Korea may be the latest trend for Americans these days, but for me and my brother, it's like going back to our roots.I've always loved Korea, and it was very interesting and fond to reminisce about my trip to Korea when I was in middle school and look through my photo albums, even though half the time I was sick. So, my brother and I decided to visit Korea again, and this time, we had several goals for the trip: we wanted to make sure that we got it right this time, because we didn't get it right the first time, and my brother wanted to get to know his Korean roots better, even though he is now an adult, working as an American and living as an American, and I wanted to get to know my Korean roots better in relation to my major in college, and this time, I wanted to research more about the Korean healthcare system that I had experienced as a child.
Of course, I also wanted to have fun in Korea and enjoy the freedom to roam around the country unlike when I was a student, but I didn't take it too seriously.
Korea was so different from the U.S. It had the look of a big city in the U.S., but it had its own unique vibe. It was much more developed than the neighborhoods we live in in the U.S., and everywhere you looked was filled with people, and there were hundreds or thousands of stores selling a variety of things. If you were walking around and traveling, and you got thirsty and needed a break, there were cafes all around you that you could just pop into and take a break, and you didn't have to go far to find a restaurant that had one Korean food and sold it, because all the infrastructure was there.
Everything is around you, and everything you want or need is always right around the corner, which is why people call city life so convenient and love it.The public transportation system in Korea, which is light years better than the big cities in the U.S., helped us get around without any difficulty.It was also so much fun to get a T-money card, carry it around, and use it to get around Korea for a very low cost.
And when my brother and I would walk around, going to cafes, restaurants, and other places where there was something to do, many Koreans would tell us that we made a good looking couple.When I would tell them, in a pleasant and complimentary way, that we were actually brother and sister, they would look surprised and apologize.
But it's completely understandable, because even in the U.S., more people think of us as a couple or friends than they do as siblings, and there's not much of an adoption culture in Korea, and no one adopts and brings European or American children to Korea, so it's no wonder we get these funny misunderstandings.
To be honest, even in the U.S. nowadays, you can still encounter people who ask my brother and I questions about our relationship with unpleasant intentions to hurt us, assuming that we are not a couple or friends, but maybe even a man.A recent memory is of an American grandfather in his 70s who made a very rude remark to us, asking us what kind of father our father was to have two women give birth at the same time.
In the U.S., most people are friendly and kind to me, but the problem is that some people sometimes make fun of my brother because he looks Asian, but this was not the case in Korea at all.No one discriminated against me because of my different appearance.
And there's actually a story I wasn't going to tell in this article, but I'm writing it down because I had my brother's permission to do so.After arriving in Korea, we decided to search for my adopted brother's birth parents in order to trace his roots.My parents and I respected his decision to pursue this endeavor in Korea, and of course, we decided to support it. We visited the Korean adoption agency and requested my brother's adoption records.The representative provided us with all the information possible and was eager to help us, saying that efforts to find one's roots are ongoing every day.Together, we were able to find some important clues in the records.
My brother decided to visit his birthplace based on those clues, and of course, I joined him on the journey.We were always laughing since we came to Korea, but at this moment, there was more seriousness than laughter.We visited my brother's birthplace together and talked to the local people.
At the time, there was only a vague record of my brother's father and mother, but no proper records, so we only knew where he was born, and we had to go there and find someone who had lived there for a long time.But Korea is a very fast-developing country, and the sad thing is that the area where my brother was born and spent the first few months of his life was already torn down and replaced by a huge apartment complex. We felt that if we had come sooner, at least before these new apartments were built, things would have been at least better than they were, but there was no point in regretting what had passed.We visited the social welfare center and police station in the area, explained our situation, and asked for help.The Korean people were very kind, listening to my brother's story and letting us know what we could do.
We were told that when a new apartment building is built in Korea, new people who have no connection to the area move into the apartment, but that some of the people who live in these new apartments have been living here for a long time, most likely elderly people, and that the best thing to do is to find them and ask them about their past.We felt that this information would be very useful to us, as we were very confused and frustrated.
So my brother and I, along with a Korean lady who felt sorry for us and wanted to help, approached the elderly people who came in and out of the apartment and asked them questions.But despite all our efforts, we were unsuccessful in finding my brother's biological parents.We had many clues and information, but we were unable to find any conclusive evidence.My brother was disappointed, but we were comforted by the fact that we had done our best. Maybe if we could have spent a few weeks, maybe even a few months here to find and talk to an elderly person with memories of the past, we could have found a clue to the solution, but we couldn't stay in Korea, so in the end, we had to give up without proceeding any further.When I saw the look on my brother's face as he said that if he had the chance, he would visit Korea next time for this sole purpose, I felt a great sense of disappointment.“It's a shame that we couldn't find them, but thank you for trying,” he said to me.I couldn't say it anymore.
It would have been great if he could have completed his homework, but he didn't.Contrary to my initial expectations, the Korean adoption agency tried to be as helpful as possible, and I was very grateful to the government officials in the place of my brother's supposed birth, who were very sympathetic to his situation and actively tried to help him, and to the Korean lady who passed by.
Having been treated by the Korean healthcare system in the past, I took this level of care for granted and thought that it was something that everyone could enjoy, but then, when I was a high school student in the U.S., I was seriously ill and did not receive the same care as I did in Korea, so I remember suffering terribly and tried to understand why this difference occurred.
Before I came to Korea, I had already arranged to meet with someone, and although I didn't get to visit any specialized institutions, I was able to meet with Korean college students, and I learned a lot of information from them: medical students, pharmacy students, and I was able to get a lot of information from them.
The Korean healthcare system was different from the U.S. in many ways: it was fast, efficient, and provided a high level of care at a relatively low cost.The quick response and organized system for emergencies was especially impressive.The emergency rooms in Korea were very reasonably priced, allowing people to go to them for minor and mild symptoms.At this point, I thought that if there were a lot of people going to the emergency room for minor symptoms, it would be a problem if someone came in who needed emergency care, but the hospitals in Korea made it very easy to answer that question. I also learned that when a really urgent patient comes in, the emergency room prioritizes the emergency patients and treats them first, ignoring the minor ones. It's so simple and obvious: the doctors have the skills to determine the severity of the patient's condition, and they can prioritize the treatment accordingly.
Not only that, but it was very easy to get an appointment in Korea and the wait time was short. The Korean medical staff emphasized patient care and prompt treatment, and they utilized the latest medical technology and equipment to provide the best possible medical care.
In the U.S., medical care is often very expensive, complicated, and difficult to access quickly, and many people are unable to get proper treatment due to insurance issues.I also received prompt treatment in Korea when I was in middle school without insurance and had to pay a reasonable price, but the experience was a nightmare as I remember being very sick in middle school and high school, and I felt that the Korean system was far superior.I felt that the Korean healthcare system is not for profit, but is dedicated to protecting the health of the people.
Through my experiences in Korea, I learned about a much broader world than what my brother and I knew before.There are many factors that make Korea such a great country, but the culture and system that my brother and I experienced firsthand helped us understand why.And most of all, Korea is the country that made my brother.I have grateful feelings for Korea, which is also my brother's roots.
My brother and I could tell without speaking to each other that through this visit, we saw in each other a willingness to continue to love Korea more and more, and to strive to learn and understand Korean culture.
Korea is now a country that has special meaning to me as an adult, and I think it will be a great pleasure for me to honor my brother's roots and watch Korea develop and grow.I will continue to connect with Korea and try to help more people discover its charms.
And next year, he plans to visit Korea to find his roots once again. He plans to stay in Korea for more than a month, and he will continue his best efforts during that period.

Hi ladies, in need of advice here. My closest friend seems to be going down a rabbit hole and her viewpoint is really changing on core subjects. I’m worried about her. Any advice on how to talk to her without totally shutting things down?
This was all in one conversation:

1. She was telling me about this alternative healthcare provider that offers amazing home remedies to keep you out of the hands of big pharma. When I Googled Barbara O’Neill, first thing that comes up is a Wikipedia page stating she is known for advertising dangerous and unsupported health practices and ideas and has no formal healthcare training. When I asked my friend about that, she said, “Well they don’t want us to know about it.”
   
2. She was always pro-choice but now is starting to use slut-shaming terminology to discount women’s reasons for choosing that option.
   
3. She was also talking about the war in Gaza and saying not great stuff about Jewish people. She was never antisemitic before.
   
4. She said Autism is 100% caused by big pharma to make money, and we all need to go naturalistic like everyone she sees on instagram. (My kiddo is autistic so I take this stronger than most.)
   

I support a person having the right to their own opinions, but these big changes are concerning to me. She’s not religious and considers herself progressive. She did start dating someone new about 6 months ago and I’m wondering if that might have something to do with it.

I can't believe I'm writing this. But I need some insight cause I find myself getting angry and confused. This is my first reddit post. Please excuse my redditor literacy.
This is the most convoluted story. It is long. But it's a ride.
You've been warned.
(Fake names obviously)
I (20f) have a best friend, Karl (20m) of 4 years. Now I see what you might assume. No. We're close but I'm mainly into women, I currently have a partner and have had a partner 90% of the time they where dating.
Now Karl got with Regina(19f) late 2022, the relationship started off rocky as she said "I only want you" but then kissed her ex, and then couldn't decide who she wanted. But still insisted once she chose Karl, she wanted to stay friends with her ex. Posted pictures when they'd "hang out" where it looked like she was sitting on his lap. But she swore she wasn't. Constantly blocked him after things would happen, then unblocked him, lied, then cried when Karl would find out.
Yes. Infuriating. But here you go. That's how Regina was introduced to our lives.
It took a while but eventually I tried to look past this. I care about Karl, if this was who he loved. We accepted it. Infact made it a point to invite her out to gatherings, made sure to offer her food, offer her drinks, chatting. Making sure she's involved. Gassing her up. Girlie things. (God I'm so desperate for everyone to love me it's a problem.)
Then her friends, ex boyfriend began to follow me, I had hoped this was because of how well I'd done to make friends. But this waa short lived.
Originally I'd just hoped it was banter. I'd chat to them, often sending pictures with Regina in her classes and joking with me.
Unfortunately I have social impairments, Slowly it became clear they where just laughing at me, calling me names but with cutesy emojis. Remember the girls in highschool? The ones thatd pretend to be your friend in class because it was funny? Like that.
So i stopped paying attention, often ignoring them. Unfortunately it only got worse. It got to a point I'd be spammed and have my instagram story replies with slurrs, calling me a pdf. File??? (I was talking to someone 6 years older than me?) Weird references, calling me cringe (I know. I know, worst thing ever right.), picking on my hair, my eyes(strabismus), my clothing. So I folded. Told Karl I wouldn't be dealing with it anymore. I'd blocked them, and asked karl To ask Regina to ask her friends to stop contacting me, I was doing my finishing project in college (uk) to get into university and it was getting to point I couldn't focus. I told him what had been happening, that I didn't know what her problem was. But I am a adult woman and this was bizarre.
Now, that alone. I forgave and in time, forgot. She had allegedly appologized "for them" and didn't know any of that was happening and had no I'll intent and hoped we could still be friends. Okay, sure.
Weird semi important point: she confessed in a groupchat that she used to be a 'chav' I said " you do look like someone who'd have bullied me" Banter. She then posted on her Instagram story (Paraphrased by memory) "When someone says you look like someone who'd have bullied them- but your friend died" I can't remember, but it was along the lines of that kind of 'what the fuck does that even mean'
Upon a later night of drinking, regina was talking to Karl about the ex, Mike. I brang up the fact her ex boyfriend kept liking my photos and was following me Hoping to bond over the fact this guy was weird, common girly bonding
"You know he only follows you so he could make fun of you and how cringe your posts are". She laughs.
The group goes quiet and holy shit I'm embarrassed. I just internalise that and change the subject.
Later I repost a reel of a guy saying something vaugely corresponding to this convosation. Basic premise when someone tells you their friend talks shit about you, then obviously you ask "why do they do that to you" (I know childish but at this point I was starting to really dislike her. My friend had sent it to me, It was late.) When i say She launched, "if you've got a problem talk to me instead of being weird and I'd tell you I was so scared of Mike and he held such a power over me and I just let him chat shit" I'd love to just mention this is after the 2nd time she'd unblocked him to talk to him behind Karl's back. I put up with it. Karl is at this point family. And if this is who he loves. We have to love her too.
This is all important to the point I swear.
Anyway.
My partners (now ex) friend Frank (22) and us fell out. Unimportant to this story but he let me know, Regina and an old very close friend had a groupchat to say very unpleasant things about me in, despite this old friend I never stopped speaking well of. Hoping we'd find eachother again. He'd been scouted when we had fallen out. But respected me enough to tell me. Another confrontation where she is so misunderstood and I'm making a big deal out of nothing and she's never ever had a problem with me.
Okay. Talked to Karl again. He is shocked but takes her word. As I'd kinda expect. Its his girlfriend. He took her to London over my birthday, he didn't want to ruin it. So he gave it up.
Karl throughout this is withdrawing from us. When he's with us it's like the light is gone from his eyes. He's distracted, quiet, doesn't laugh as much. Often tries to slip out of meetups because he'll "only bring you guys down". He's constantly picking up his phone. Constantly messaging. Cancelling plans. He won't talk to us. We where all worried.
Karl few months later calls me for advice. Turns out she kept getting caught in lies about her ex and general behaviours. Ignoring him for days again, threatening to game quit if she doesn't get the attention she wants. It'd all gotten so tiring that he didn't have any attraction to her anymore. He had no sex drive. He dreaded seeing her. But had to constantly message her. He's been feeling like this for months. Karl didn't want to leave her just before her birthday, he felt it cruel. But then it was the anniversary coming up. He didn't want to be responsible. He'd tried gifts, trips, anything just to make her happy. No matter what he did he still felt like nothing was enough. I managed to talk him through. About threatening suicide if someone wants to leave, is indeed abuse. He wasn't himself. How we felt and how we where worried. He got choked up. Not realizing anyone cared. He asked if he should leave. I asked if he was happy. "I can't imagine not having her there." Okay no. Not what I asked. Eventually he confessed He'd never felt lower. I said. Can you see yourself marrying her? No. Infact he said the thourght freaked him out. I said. Well. Why are you with her. Eventually it got to a point He left her. She said she'd been thinking about it. Yay? No 12 hours later he calls me saying its all fixed. Its all okay. How He's a horrible person for doing this to her. How it's him that needs to change. How he will spend a long time making this up to her. You know. I'm a domestic abuse survivor. But I never realized how much hearing that killed abit of my sould. Trying to convince Karl that he's worth anything is like trying to convince a deaf non signing American Conservative that the gays aren't trying to make him gay too.
They do eventually a few months later split. She says she wants to breakup as he "doesn't love her the way she wants him to" he is hurt but says okay. She then obviously realizes hey, he isn't gonna start begging on his knees. You can only hurt someone so much. She then asks "breakup sex" directly after and to this day its our favourite quote. But he says no, she asks for one more night, he says no you just broke up with me? Leave? She complains about not being able to get to the train station. Now. Karl didn't have his licence till a few weeks later. So queue the weirdest car ride with his DAD you've ever heard of. She cried. Hugged him. Begged him to reconsider. Karl officially has realized how disconnected he's become. Nah.
Queue a weird amount of messages ranging between "I'm sorry baby" to "I CANT BELIEVE YOURE GIVING UP ON US" and sexually charged messages, After karl finally blocks her. She begins to call him from various different numbers. Tries to get with his friends. Fails. Still calls him crying for the next 6 months. In which these events happen.
Frank from before. Now it turns out. While we don't have full timeline but either weirdly around the time they broke up they got /very/ close. To the point despite Frank having a partner. She was begging him to sleep with her. But Being weird with it. One minute she wants him. Next she doesn't. Basically, she loves the idea that she could have him. But doesn't want to keep any of them. Frank had a girlfriend. Goddess of a lady. Daisy. Regina proceeded to pick on every little thing to Frank about daisy she could. Always. Physical appearance.
Then. Now I am simply not making this up. after Frank separates himself from this situation. Regina begins to harrass Daisy, With telling Daisy about how much Frank's missing out on not shagging her instead.
And making 6 different instagram accounts to harrass them, and this is where I come in further.
Regina now, after the hate group chooses some last straws she can pull to drag him back. She makes a fake account. Goes to message Frank. With the opener of gossip about me and my partners sex life. I talked to Regina less times than I can Count on one hand.
The main one I'm aware of is "Did you know my partner drinks my names piss" Which I'm not here to kink shame; but this does not happen unfortunately but i still find it beautiful of a statement.
I one day due to some more harassment and more attention than I'm used to.
Decide to private my instagram. It was only for 24 hours in full so I could change some settings and archive some things. Within 15. An account. David, requests to follow. Strange. Cause my account is shadow banned and cannot be shown to non followers. I click. Heavens foretold dear friends. Regina's new boo. Id like to clarify. 2 weeks before Karl was still getting snotty teary calls telling him she misses him. Karl's friends where sending screenshots of Regina trying it on with them then getting snotty when she was rightfully laughed at.
I ask "hi??"
"Hi me and my girlfriend just wanted to stalk how cringe your posts are" I wish I could have been funny and not caught off guard. And shamed them. Oh god. I wish I had. Basically I told him, the gym is waiting. She will chew you up. Idk what I did but I'm sorry. Godamn. Leave me be. And they said "It's not that deep lighten up" I am indeed embarrassed.
But they kept mentioning my workplace. I am a bartender, and one day she did come in with a man, they seems very loved up but then again. It certainly wasn't this guy. then said bad things about me infront of a coworker. It was a little satisfying seeing her face fall and hit the table from shame as I was carrying an ice bucket past her. She was already cut off at this point for her antics.
David's best friends memepage now follows me. But has been the first out of 5 accounts not to say anything. I'm sure they think I don't know. David claimed I was lying in my encounter. I do wonder if I could flip the table entirely.
but I also wonder if she's just very mentally unwell. But it's been 1.5 years of this and I'm just abit knackered and pissed off.
I'm 20 feeling like a highschooler. But I'm working for a bipolar diagnosis and I have ADHD, the paranoia. Is driving me up the wall man. Like this woman knows enough of my details and she's spread where I work. She's been to my house. She has clearly gotten multiple people involves historically and despite me trying to apologise, it makes no difference.
If I knew what the issue was, I'd gauge it. But it's not knowing and not being told. But it's reassuring it's not just me. With daisy, I'm wondering if this is historic. Might be vanity? She (used to?) Post alot of ...suggestive photography and always wears a lingerie corset and heavy makeup, filters. Nothing wrong with that of course but she's a very sexually orientated person, and given the contexts to that behaviour. I wonder if its to cover some in depth issues. But that's just a theory. Part of feels hey, if she needs men to tell her that I am ugly, cringe and worth nothing. Then she van have that. The other half makes me want vengeance for the boy, prove that I'm not whatever she'd been making me out to be and make her realize she needs to change. But that's. abit pathetic innit.
Anyway I doubt anyones made it this far and if you have. Thank you for reading my story and the weirdness of it. I hope it hasn't been too shit. Just needed to get it off my chest. And maybe if anyone has anything to say.
TLDR: my best friends ex has always had an issue despite my efforts. Getting various people to harrass and bully me, She tried to get with his friends, other guys we knew and harrassing us all. All while still crying she misses him. Her new bf thinks I'm lying and is joining in, his best friend now follows me too. My partner allegedly drinks my piss <3

I am not The OOP, OOP is u/WanderingWifie
I'm a gaming widow
Originally posted to TrueOffMyChest & Marriage
TRIGGER WARNING: addiction, physical violence
Original Post Apr 20, 2024
How is it not me? Help me understand as a gaming widow
My(38f) husband(34m) spent $1800 in 3 months on a mobile game. He recently started purchasing google play cards behind my back so it's not apparent on the bank statement. I caught him because I found it in our truck under the seat. Now he asks for google play cards...except I'm too scared to say no..he's so mean and cold and the walls have holes from it.
I started going to therapy because he's forced us into living almost below paycheck to paycheck. Ofc we've had multiple convos and he knows he may lose me.
I asked my therapist, "How is it not my fault when the kids and me are his life he's trying to escape?" . My therapist kept repeating, "I promise it's not, this is something within him".
I hate her answer.
Can you help me see it from his view? I feel like he doesn't want to be a father to our kids (2m, 7f). Maybe he doesn't want a life with me and can't admit it? Is therapist trying to coddle me? Like is she worried if she says, "WanderingWifie, you are a shit mom. You are a shit partner. You are a shit person. This is your fault because you're a SAHM and he hates living with you in the life you've created together!" That I'll never come back or hurt myself?
He tells me, "at least I'm here. I could be doing (xyz event away from home)after work". At this point I might as well consider him a "cardboard cutout that's glued to the chair". No, really. Our 2yr son got all the way out the door when I was in the backyard letting the dogs out.
I miss my husband so fucking much. We don't go to bed together anymore. He goes to bed at around 130am. I'm never his focus after the kids go to bed. He thinks he's "present" but I doubt he could tell you the plot of any movie or show we've watched lately. He's glued to it for all but maybe 1-2 waking hours...that's me being generous and counting all total points he briefly engages with us. He gets angry when I ask for help putting the kids to bed because it's in the middle of one of his battle raids.
Please please be brutally honest. I don't want to fight for someone to stay in a life they hate.
My MIL is trying to save me from her own son Apr 21, 2024
It just hit me this morning as I sat processing my most recent appointment. It was at her insistence that I saw a therapist that worked closely with women's health. My MIL is the one that briefed the therapist on the situation with her son and his addiction.
My therapist asked, "Does your MIL know how bad the situation at home can get?".
For a moment I didn't answer and the pieces slowly came together as I spoke, "I didn't need to. She saw the holes in the wall and now the shattered glass in the cabinet. I didn't even have a conversation about the cabinet. She texted me after that she was booking me with you and that a wife should never fear her husband. But I never said I was afraid. She knew.."
I cannot imagine how hard this must have been for my MIL; accepting her son is capable of evil and knowing the therapist would guide me into seeing the addiction and abuse wasn't normal, knowing it would leave to me putting plans in place to leave him. She did this knowing the divorce will be nasty and I will have main custody of the kids.
This woman stood up for other woman over her son and I don't know how to begin to thank her.
Edit: info: FIL & MIL grew up in physically abusive households they are not abusive.
My husband is verbally abusive. The concern is it transferring from holes in the walls/smashed glass to my face being met with his fist. For those that don't see holes in walls as warnings....you are blind the way I was...it can turn on a dime, it's a question of when. I had become so used to it preaddiction that it no longer phased me as "not normal". The addiction has ramped his anger issues up. I do not feel safe saying no when he asks to spend money on it.
Edit 2: I promise to continue to update and make posts. It's hard for me to not delete because this addiction...and what it's done...not only is it not talked about (on the rise according to my therapist and WHO has classified it as a disorder similar to gambling) but people that "don't get it" are like "WHAT A LOSER". Please understand this is a 13 year relationship (married for 9 of them) and he was not always like this. I loved the man I married. I do not love this man that has replaced him.
He said something really mean but it's true Apr 27, 2024
"At least I haven't wasted 30K on an education that resulted in nothing".
We've been fighting a lot...mostly about the mobile game addiction. I don't want to get into it here but it's a lot of money and time. My post history talks more about it.
I started crying on the spot when he said it. It was a low blow for many reasons.

1. I tried several different majors in my 20's but bad mental health got in my way and I failed.
   
2. I graduated last summer from a medical trade there are no jobs for.
   
3. I got fired in Jan (2 weeks from the 90 day probation) from my last job and it devastated me because I tried my hardest at it...I guess I'm just garbage at admin work.
   
4. I've been feeling very lost in life and wondering my purpose. Should I go back to my career I had before the kids? I was just a dog groomer...average at best..I tried to break away with a career change but that failed..as you can see.
   

He has tried to apologize but I'm too hurt. I don't feel like I have the right to be mad because what he said is true.
I was supposed to start volunteering at the animal shelter and groom strays for free as per my therapist's hope to "get me out there". Instead, I'm sitting with my daughter watching movies... not wanting to see the light of day.
Update: My MIL is trying to save me from her own son May 22, 2024
Well...It's been over a month... and a lot happened. He blew up my chance to volunteer at the animal shelter. He did not like it when I got strong and said, "I'm not nothing without you; I have rights, you will owe my alimony, half of the house for starters". So he went after the therapist who also mainly runs the shelter... whatever he said made her not respond to my emails or messages. I believe he accused her of purposely ruining a marriage and probably some legal threat from his response. I'm really sad and feel like I can't trust therapists after this...I worry that maybe I'm too damaged... mostly I wonder what was said. I feel freaking abandoned but I don't want to unpack that in this post tbh.
Last night all hell broke loose and I said the words out loud, "I want a seperation- I'm done". I was/am done with doing all the house chores; (laundry, dishes, all & any house cleaning, pet feeding/walking/poop clean up, all the emotional labor of helping 7f with school & teachers, taking on all the finances because he can't be trusted not to spend stupidly & selfishly). I was/am tired of doing all the potty training with 2m and 95% of diapers. I was/am tired of feeling embarassed to let people in the house because of the holes in walls.
I bet you can guess how well it went. New wall holes. Hooray. I went into the laundry room, locked it, and screamed, "No! You don't come in here! This is my safe space. I will fucking call the cops.".
I stayed there for two hours. He kept trying to get me to come out and talk. I said, "I do not feel like we can have a conversation without fighting. " each time. Then I went to bed and pretended to sleep as he got ready for work (omg I was so happy he got called in).
In the morning I texted my mil that it was over and I was leaving at the end of the month. I asked her to make sure he has support during this time...because...I still love him and don't want him to anything dumb. She responded with simply "We (meaning my fil as well) love you ". Omg I cried. I cried because, as a mother myself, I cannot imagine how painful this is for her.
Later on my husband called me. I listened to that canary sing like his life depended on it. He said he would delete the game or not spend anything on it. He said he would create a chore sch with me so I wouldn't be doing everything.
My heart so badly wanted to believe it. I knew I couldn't give in...he needed to feel the gravity of his fuck ups; the almost 3k he spent on a game in 4 months, preventing me from going to therapy, ruining my chance to restart my former career (dog groomer), and just everything.
So that's all for now...I'm sitting here..at midnight...nervous for when he comes home tomorrow (he's gone 12-48 hours at a time for his job).
Ps. My dad is doing his second round of chemo and so far-so good. They did find cancer in his lymph nodes after surgery..so yes it spread but not as bad as it could be. Thank-you to the redditor's that said such kind things.
RELEVANT COMMENTS
OOP when asked why she is still talking to her husband and doesn't take the kids and leave

It's a funny thing. This is someone I've been with for 13 years. The major shift in everything happened 4 months ago when he found the game. It's not so easy when you've been a sahm for 7 years esp in this job market.
I used to say the same thing as you when I heard of people in abusive situations. All I can say is unless you've been in a situation similar you do not and cannot possibly understand.

THIS IS A REPOST SUB - I AM NOT THE OOP
DO NOT CONTACT THE OOP's OR COMMENT ON LINKED POSTS, REMEMBER - RULE 7

Hello everyone! 🌟

I was watching the Pokimane episode, and she said something that really hit home about the need for online security information, especially for women. She mentioned how scary it is to deal with stalkers, tracking devices like AirTags, and the lack of adequate stalking regulations. This really hit home that we need to be vigilant.
I've had people try to hack my accounts and make fake profiles using my photos. It's a bit much. The law hasn't quite caught up yet, so we need to stay vigilant! Here are some tips to keep us all safe online:
This will be a long guide but it's so important to stay informed.

🌐 General Online Safety Tips

Use Strong Passwords:

• Create unique passwords for each account: Use a mix of uppercase letters, lowercase letters, numbers, and symbols.
• Avoid using easily guessable info: Steer clear of using birthdays, pet names, or other obvious choices.
• Consider using a password manager: I use 1Password, and it’s a lifesaver! A password manager securely stores and generates strong passwords for you. It was a bit of a hassle to set up, but it’s so worth it now because it helps me store everything. Plus, I can share my Netflix password and other accounts with my family easily. 🌸
• Need help setting it up? They also have great user guides here and support here if you get stuck.

Enable Two-Factor Authentication (2FA):

• Extra layer of security: 2FA requires a second form of verification, like a text message or app notification, in addition to your password. It’s like having a double lock on your door, making it much harder for anyone to break in! 🔒✨
• Why it works: Even if someone gets your password, they’d still need your phone or access to the second verification step to get into your account.
• Always enable 2FA: Turn it on for accounts that offer it, especially for your email, banking, and social media. It gives your accounts an extra level of protection. 🌟
• Need help setting it up? For more details on how 2FA works and how to set it up, check out this detailed guide and JumpCloud's explanation.

Be Cautious with Personal Information:

• Avoid sharing personal details: Don't post your address, phone number, or financial information online. This info can be used by scammers or stalkers, so keep it private.
• Be mindful of social media sharing: Think twice before sharing personal updates. Make sure you know who can see your posts and adjust your privacy settings to keep things tight.
• Learn more: For additional tips on staying safe online, check out these great resources from Stay Safe Online.

📧 Email Security

Beware of Phishing Scams:

• Be cautious of unknown senders: If you get an email asking for personal info from someone you don’t know, be super sceptical. Scammers love to pretend they’re legit to trick us.
• Watch out for suspicious links and attachments: Even if it looks like it's from a friend, always double-check before clicking on anything. Phishing emails can be sneaky!
• Verify the sender: Check the email address carefully and look for signs of phishing, like bad grammar or urgent requests that seem a bit off.
• Learn more about phishing: Dive deeper into spotting phishing scams with Phishing.org.

Use Secure Email Providers:

• Choose providers with strong security measures: Popular email services like Gmail offer robust security features such as two-factor authentication, spam filtering, and protection against phishing attacks. These are great for general use and offer strong security.
• End-to-end encryption: For the highest level of privacy, consider using email providers that offer end-to-end encryption, like ProtonMail. This ensures that only you and the recipient can read the message, and not even the email provider can access it. This is particularly important if you're handling sensitive information or just want the peace of mind that your messages are truly private.
• Robust privacy policies: Ensure your email provider has a solid privacy policy that protects your personal information and doesn’t share it with third parties. Gmail has strong security, but it’s important to understand how your data is used by reading their privacy policy. ProtonMail, on the other hand, is designed with privacy as a priority and doesn’t collect or share user data.

🔒 Social Media Safety

Adjust Privacy Settings:

• Review and update regularly: Regularly check and update your privacy settings to control who can see your posts and personal information. This ensures you're always in control of your online presence.
• Limit visibility: Set your profile visibility to friends only or create a custom list of trusted people. This helps keep your personal information and posts private.

Limit Location Sharing:

• Avoid real-time sharing: For safety, avoid sharing your location in real-time. If you want to share your location, do it after you've left the place. This prevents anyone from knowing your exact whereabouts at any given moment.
• Be mindful of tagging: Be cautious about tagging your location in posts or stories. This also applies to tagging friends; make sure they're okay with sharing their location too.

Be Selective with Friend Requests:

• Accept only known contacts: Only accept friend requests from people you know in real life. This helps prevent scammers and stalkers from accessing your personal information.
• Be wary of strangers: Be cautious of friend requests from unknown people, as they often create fake profiles to gather personal information. Look out for red flags like a lack of mutual friends or minimal profile information.

🛡️ Device Security

Keeping our devices secure is just as important as online safety. Here’s how to make sure your gadgets are protected:
Keep Software Updated:

• Regular updates: Always update your devices and applications to fix security vulnerabilities. This includes your phone, computer, and any apps you use regularly.
• Enable automatic updates: Turn on automatic updates so you don’t have to worry about missing any important security patches.
• Learn more: Check out this information from US-CERT.

Install Antivirus Software:

• Use reputable antivirus software: Protect your devices from malware and other threats with reliable antivirus software. Some popular options include Norton, McAfee, and Bitdefender.
• Regular scans: Schedule regular scans and keep your antivirus software updated to ensure maximum protection.
• Read reviews: Find out which antivirus software is best for you by reading reviews from AV-TEST.

Use a VPN:

• Encrypt your connection: A Virtual Private Network (VPN) encrypts your internet connection, adding an extra layer of security, especially on public Wi-Fi networks.
• Protect your data: VPNs help protect your data from being intercepted by hackers. Some popular VPN providers include NordVPN, ExpressVPN, and CyberGhost.
• Learn more: Discover more about VPNs from NordVPN.

💬 Communication Safety

Use Encrypted Messaging Apps:

• Choose apps with end-to-end encryption: For private conversations, use apps like Signal or WhatsApp, which offer end-to-end encryption to ensure that only you and the recipient can read the messages.

Be Wary of Strangers:

• Caution with unknown contacts: If someone you don’t know tries to contact you, be cautious. Don’t share personal information or agree to meet them in person without verifying their identity.
• Learn more: Get tips from Get Safe Online.

💖 Mental Health and Safety

Seek Support:

• Reach out for help: If you’re experiencing online harassment or threats, seek help from trusted friends, family, or support organisations. Every situation is different, so it’s important to reach out to the appropriate authorities or professionals who can provide guidance specific to your circumstances.

Remember, your safety is paramount. I could yap all day about this, but for all of us (the girls, the gays, the theys) who are more susceptible to harm, the law doesn't usually catch up until tragedy strikes. So let's stay vigilant! 🌟💖

Welp VPR got exactly what they wanted. They switched the narrative so the women are fighting and the boys who cause all the issues are left unscathed.
Sandoval and Schwartz spent the season insulting every single woman on the damn show! Sandoval continued to pick at Ariana literally three months after uprooting her life! He insulted Scheana and Lala for their past relationships. God knows he's got a hate boner for Katie.
Schwartz continues to act like Katie was the big giant drama queen still causing havoc in his life. While all he was doing was being a fuck boy to Jo! Then he decides to launch the "Ariana has an ego" train as if him and his best friend aren't the most self -involved fucks!
But who comes out losing at the end of this season? The women. Every post on here has been about Lala and Scheana. And let's be real, they deserve all the hate they get for their spineless behavior.
But once again, the boys. These said, pathetic, broke, sloppy, manipulative, LOSERS can skip on home to their child brides.
Hope you happy LVP and Bravo. The boys won.

Hello everyone, today i want to request Project Zomboid
I have longed to have an obsession with zombies in general. And, as a gamer (kinda), i absolutely love Zombies or some apocalyptic games. Not only games but i also love movies about zombies. From TWD(peak fr),WWZ, 28 Days/Week, Zombieland, Train to busan, ect. But movies cant express the true fear and horror that zombies bring about like video game does.
Of course, i have heard about games like Dying Light and Dead Island, Days Gone, L4D, TWD, ... But all of the games above seem to have one thing in general. They are all story-based. I have long searched for a true survival game. Not the story and shi. I want a true experience of surviving in the wild, the apocalypse day by day. And Project Zomboid is a perfect solution to that. Also because the game met my pc' specs. Not too graphic card based but a decent graphic.
So what is PROJECT ZOMBOID?
PROJECT ZOMBOID is an indie game. Yes youve heard that right INDIE. such cool. Its is a hyper realistic survival sims in a zombie apocalypse, where your only goal is to survive. What is so special about the game is that the gameplay is so special and unique. The game is intended to be a hardcore survival game so it has so many mechanics. Some of them such as:
Weather, Illness, Durability, Scavenging, Base building, Realistic health system, Food, Water, .... And so many more that i cant list Lol. Upon reading thst must me an amazing game 🎮
Why cant i afford to buy the game? To be honest, i was born in an Asian Countries. Where the game cost on Steam is 3-4 times more expensive when changing to our countries currency 💵. Not to mention the game cost can be a week supply of food and goodies. Im also a 16 years old so i cant be working (18 or more can work). So that sucks. I really hope that i can successfully request the game and play it myself, not by watching Youtube or sth haha
Thank you if you ve read this far. I really appreciate that. Thank for giving me a chance. Thank you! Love love love 😘
My Steam Id: https://steamcommunity.com/id/tranquyngudan/

Hello everyone,
While I was assigned male at birth, I have recently found myself deeply interested in feminism. Maximizing freedom and human dignity is one of my key values, and these conditions cannot be realized if they do not first and foremost apply to women. Therefore, during my current time in college, I decided to educate myself further and take more courses on women's history. For a course in Women and Gender in U.S. History, I wrote the piece I am sharing today.
I am posting it here because I don't know where else to post and am planning to publish this work as a zine and am seeking any preliminary feedback, constructive criticism, or thoughts and suggestions on rewriting the piece to communicate more effectively. I hope you enjoy the read and find it interesting.
Thank you!
A Grand Domestic Revolution.
The American Material Feminist Movement of 1860s – 1930s and Their Strategy to Abolish the Second Burden.
Introduction.
In her 1981 book 'Grand Domestic Revolution', Dolores Hayden coined the term 'material feminism' to describe a branch of feminist thought and practice that emerged within the first wave of feminism in the United States. Material feminists were activist women who were the first to articulate the dependence of the society on unpaid women’s reproductive labor, in turn demanding economic and social justice for their sex. Their ideas and practice centered around a call to women that to become truly equal and thriving members of society, they must work together to alter their material conditions through creation of feminist cooperative economic institutions, homes, neighborhoods and cities that are designed to socialize housework, eliminating the ‘double burden’.
Despite being overlooked by the public and even contemporary feminist scholarship, the material feminist movement played a crucial role and influenced not only feminism but also other progressive and egalitarian movements of its time, lasted between 1860s and 1930s. Although the material feminists movement ceased to exist over a century ago, the social critiques and proposed solutions it put forth remain more than relevant to this day. This essay aims to provide an overview of some of the participants of the movement, their theory and practice as well as influence on the feminist and other movements.
Context of the time.
Although the practice of the movement can be formally seen to have begun with the founding of the Cambridge Cooperative Housekeeping Society by Melusina Fay Peirce in 1869 (to be discussed in detail below) the critique of the traditional domestic life in America traces to the beginning of the century with the utopian socialist movement. Members and practitioners of the movement engaged in construction of ideal communities, “building new world in the shell of the old” as a saying of the time went, believing that the power of example would lead to larger transformation of society. Emancipation of women being one of the goals of the movement, Charles Fourier, French philosopher and socialist thinker, argued that “the degree of emancipation of women is the natural measure of general emancipation” and that a society where women enjoyed economic independence was superior to one where they were condemned to domestic drudgery[[1]](#_ftn1). Followers of the movement thus worked to build close knit communities with socialized childcare, laundry and cooking.
Religious communities too contributed to the rise of the movement. Between 1774 and 1826 the Shakers, an offshoot of The Society of Friends, built over 19 settlements in northeastern US, [[SK1]](#_msocom_1) although utopian communities would thrive well until the Civil War[[2]](#_ftn2). In her Seven American Utopias: The Architecture of Communitarian Socialism, 1790 – 1975, Dolores Hayden counted over 130 separate communities, most of them situated in the New England and Midwest regions[[3]](#_ftn3). In such communities’ domestic work was treated equally as important as agriculture or production, with men and women equally being required to participate in agriculture as well as social reproduction. Domestic chores became social labor, with the people singing songs while they worked. Communal kitchens were the “dynamic centers of the village”[[4]](#_ftn4).
It was such communities that Elizabeth Cady Stanton, an aspiring suffragette, came to encounter in 1847 when she moved to Seneca Falls, New York. At the time, the community housed two Shaker villages and at least eight Fourierist Phalanxes[[5]](#_ftn5). The following year at the Seneca Falls Women’s Rights Convention she would give a rousing speech in support of co-operative living and against isolated home:[[6]](#_ftn6)
“my duties were too numerous and varied, and none sufficiently exhilarating or intellectual to bring into play my higher faculties. I suffered with mental hunger. . . . I now fully understood the practical difficulties most women had to contend with in the isolated household, and the impossibility of woman’s best development if in contact, the chief part of her life, with servants and children. Fourier’s Phalansterie community life and co-operative households had new significance for me.”
Some 50 years later in 1899 at the National American Woman’s Suffrage Association, she would urge Susan B. Anthony to add cooperative [[SK2]](#_msocom_2) housekeeping to the organization’s agenda[[7]](#_ftn7).
After conclusion of the civil war, Americans were witnessing a drastic change of their nation as industrialization was picking up steam. More and more people were moving into ever denser towns and cities, where row houses gave way to apartment hotels and horses beginning to give way to street cars and trains. Alongside industrial factories, commercial laundries and large-scale restaurants were mushrooming. In such context, housework began to change as well.
First Practical Experiments.
In 1864, Melusina Fay Peirce (1836-1923), published an article in The World magazine, where she first imagined housekeeping cooperatives – women’s associations where housewives and former servants would work together to produce clean laundry, mended clothing and cooked food which would be delivered to husbands for cash on delivery[[8]](#_ftn8).
Melusina Fay Peirce was one of nine children, born in 1836 to a Vermont clergyman father and a severely overworked housewife mother, Emily Hopkins Fray (1817-1856). Emily died at the age of 39, and the toil that plagued and cut short her life instilled in Peirce an ardent desire to improve the lives of housewives. Despite coming down in the annals of herstory as originating the theory of co-operative housekeeping, she must have gotten inspiration from her great aunt Caroline Howard Gilman (1794-1888), who advocated for creation of municipal cooked food services, and professionalization of housekeeping services in her 1834 book Recollections of a Housekeeper[[9]](#_ftn9). Majority of Melusina’s cooperative theorizing would come out in a series of articles published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1868 and 1869 where she developed her critique of women’s economic position in industrial society[[10]](#_ftn10):
“It is one of the cherished dogmas of the modem lady, that she must not do anything for pay; and this miserable prejudice of senseless conventionality is at this moment the worst obstacle in the way of feminine talent and energy. Let the cooperative housekeepers demolish it forever, by declaring that it is just as necessary and just as honorable for a wife to earn money as it is for her husband”.
Peirce preceded many feminists who viewed unpaid domestic labor as the source of women’s oppression, both economic and intellectual. She argued that women’s intellectual talents suffer a “costly and unnatural sacrifice” to “the dusty drudgery of house ordering” [[11]](#_ftn11). Since women's economic dependency on men was identified as the root cause of their inequality, she and other reformers aimed to create new women's public institutions and professions to foster women's economic independence. The professionalization of women’s household chores was to be done with scientifically planned equipment, built environments, and training by professional female teachers. She aimed to transform household chores into public businesses and in turn create female professions of equivalent status to that of men[[12]](#_ftn12). Even if not explicitly organized under cooperative structures, this ethos would be central to the material feminist movement. However, cooperative form of organizing became the dominant model of organization for in cooperation these women were able to carve out oases of female-dominated and -controlled space, resisting male dominated, hierarchically organized, household and the firm[[13]](#_ftn13) – in other words:
“Cooperatives were the material embodiments of changes the reformers created in gender and class power dynamics involved in the performance of household chores.[[14]](#_ftn14)”
For domestic servants turned employees, cooperative environments offered a more pleasant working experience compared to individual households. The collaborative nature of cooperative labor made tasks lighter and more manageable. Cooperatives often had access to more modern equipment, which facilitated easier completion of tasks. By working in cooperatives rather than individual households, servants were freed from the vulnerabilities associated with being employed in private residences, such as the risk of sexual assault or social isolation. Moreover, participation in cooperatives elevated the status of servants to that of higher-status and higher paid wage laborers, allowing them the opportunity to marry and establish their own independent households. From the perspective of housewives, joining cooperative environments provided a reprieve from the constant supervision of servants. Many housewives utilized this newfound free time to engage in domestic reform organizations or self actualization[[15]](#_ftn15).
On May 6^th, 1896 Peirce’s famous Cambridge Cooperative Housekeeping Society (CCHS) located in Cambridge, Massachusetts would hold its first meeting. The experiment was partially successful but would last only until 1872. Since women had to have permission of their husbands to participate in the co-operative, Melusina decided that the board of CCHS would be overseen by a Council of Gentlemen, a board made of husbands of the members. Although praising Peirce’s scheme overall, a feminist paper The Revolution run by the Elizabeth Cady Stanton, labelled establishing the Council of Gentlemen as “licking of the male boot”[[16]](#_ftn16). Indeed, the Council of Gentlemen would be its downfall. At the beginning of the experiment, the Council consciously altered the original constitution developed by the women to hinder the experiment and restrict their wives’ labor to the household[[17]](#_ftn17). In the original constitution, each department—a grocery store, a bakery, a kitchen, and a laundry—was to be directed by four directresses answerable to a thirteen-member executive committee. This structure ensured that “the responsibility would have been so shared that it would not have fallen too heavily upon any, and the decisions arrived at in a number of cases would have been wiser”[[18]](#_ftn18). However, the new structure made Peirce an "active and responsible agent for the whole [enterprise], as in a manufacturing company," quickly overwhelming her with all the supervisory work and eventually leading to her complete burnout.
The society first opened a laundry since it was needed the most by the community. Women working in the laundry were paid higher wages than at any other industrial laundries[[19]](#_ftn19). However, despite collective efforts, the laundry could not turn a profit since the volume of the laundry being processed was a quarter of the size for which machinery had been installed[[20]](#_ftn20). On July 1870 the society opened a cooperative grocery store which Melusina expected to manage, something she could not meaningfully do due to her involvement with the laundry. Because of what Melusina would label Husband – Power, only 10-12 members patronized the society, not nearly enough for the society to break even. Indeed, many board members, managers and the president would avoid the CCHS due to opposition of their husbands. To cite one example among many, the president was made to resign because her husband expressed dissatisfaction with the frequent visits of the directors to their home for meetings. He was particularly furious when he had to wait for his wife to finish a meeting before she could sew a button for him[[21]](#_ftn21). As Peirce describes him, a famous Cambridge abolitionist would exclaim “What! My wife cooperate to make other men comfortable? No indeed![[22]](#_ftn22)” The Council of Gentlemen would vote to close the operation on April 1^st, 1871[[23]](#_ftn23).
Despite failure of the experiment, Peirce remained a respected theoretician. Her articles would remain in global print from Colorado to London UK[[24]](#_ftn24). Peirce would go on long traveling tours, first domestically then abroad to Europe where the cooperative movement was much more developed. Many of her ideas and practices would ultimately manifest themselves in those regions[[25]](#_ftn25). In 1884 she would publish her famous book Co-Operative Housekeeping; How Not to Do It and How to Do It. A Study in Sociology which summarizes and organized all her experiences so far. In the work, her feminism was sharp. She wrote that:
“No despotism of man over man that was ever recorded was at once so absolute as the despotism — the dominion of men over women. It covers not only the political area. It owns not only the bodies of its subjects. Its hand lies heavily on their inner most personality, and its power is so tremendous that whatever they are, it is because these absolute lords have willed it.” [[26]](#_ftn26)
Although brief, Perice’s experiment would ripple through the ages and continents, sparking constant attempts at the Grand Domestic Revolution.

Growth of a Movement
The movement was diverse in both class and political ideology. In 1880s Kate Field, a New York socialite, started a Cooperative Dress Association which only hired women and specialised in “healthful clothing for women”. A neat feature of the operation was that all the employees, whether seamstresses or clerks, all were provided with comfortable seating[[27]](#_ftn27). In 1885, Marie Howland (1836-1921), a New York editor and writer, fierce advocate of free love, anarchism and trade unionism, would publish extensive plans for co-operative housekeeping. Howland came to the movement when in the 1860s she lived for a year at the at the Familistere or Social Palace established by Fourierists in Guise, France. It was a vast complex of buildings which contained centrally heated apartments, day care facilities and cooked food service for 350 iron foundry workers and their families[[28]](#_ftn28). Howland would later expand the agenda of cooperative housekeeping to include collective childcare. As an urban planner, she designed and built neighborhoods with central kitchens and kitchenless houses, catering to socialists who established communities in California and Louisiana.[[29]](#_ftn29).
In 1874 Marie Howland wrote Papa’s Own Girl, a utopian novel inspired by her experience in France. The material feminist movement would inspire a whole genre of utopian literature[[30]](#_ftn30). 1887 Edward Bellamy published Looking Backwards, a utopian socialist novel set in Boston in the year 2000. In the city of the future all the cooking is done in public kitchens while washing is done at public laundries. This work became an instant success and only accelerated the movement, spreading the ideas of material feminism to the larger socialist movement.
In 1873, Ellen Swallow Richards (1842-1911) achieved the milestone of becoming the first woman to receive a Bachelor of Science from MIT. Two years later, she made history once again by becoming the first woman appointed to its faculty. In her role, she headed a "Woman's Laboratory," which was the world's first laboratory dedicated to teaching science specifically to women.[[31]](#_ftn31) In 1892 she coins the term “oekology” as a science of consumption and social reproduction, in the future the science would lose its political rigor and would come to be known as ‘home economics’. In 1890, she established a New England Kitchen, a community kitchen that provided affordable, ready-cooked, and nutritious meals. The Kitchen was particularly geared for working classes who had to summon the energy to prepare meals at home after spending ten or more hours each day laboring in factories and mills. Her first Boston location was country's first health food restaurant, as well as its first large-scale nutrition laboratory or a “household experiment station”[[32]](#_ftn32). These Kitchens were established in cities across New York, Rhode Island, Boston, Chicago, and Hull House, and were run by well-paid women scientists nutritionists[[33]](#_ftn33).
In 1898 Charlotte Perkins Gilman(1860-1935), daughter of an impoverished single mother, published her seminal work Women and Economics: The Economic Factor Between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution. In the work Gilman asserted that patriarchy was impeding human evolution by confining women to the domestic sphere. She believed that human progress could be accelerated by relieving women of domestic duties and childcare responsibilities, enabling them to pursue both motherhood and paid employment, thus granting women economic independence from men. It was her original contribution that the advancement of socialism would be facilitated by the establishment of socialized domestic work and the creation of new domestic environments, not the other way round as was traditionally thought[[34]](#_ftn34). Thus, Hayden suggests that Gilman effectively developed “a solution with-out a name to what Betty Friedan was later to call 'the problem with no name'.[[35]](#_ftn35)” Harriet Stanton Blatch, suffragist and member of the Socialist Party, saw Gilman’s work as her “Bible”, while NAWSA’s[[36]](#_ftn36) leader, Carrie Chapman Catt considered Gilman to be the greatest living American feminist [[37]](#_ftn37).
By the turn of the 20^th century collective housekeeping became a recognizable solution by the feminist movement to the problem of domestic drudgery. To some examples of many, in 1907 Carthage Missouri, local suffrage group organized a community kitchen and dinning hall to furnish which all the members of the community brought their dinner tables. Having freed themselves from constant need to cook, the suffragists converted their old dinning rooms into offices for their cause[[38]](#_ftn38). Along side Carthage, countless other community kitchens, dinning halls and cooked food delivery services would be organized across the country[[39]](#_ftn39). In 1915 Henrietta Rodman and her Radical Feminist Alliance in NYC organized a feminist apartment house in Greenwich Village[[40]](#_ftn40). In September 1918 Zona Gale published an article in the Ladies’ Home Journal, stating that “The private kitchen must go the way of the spinning wheel, of which it is the contemporary.[[41]](#_ftn41)”

Reaction and redbaiting.
Despite all this context, a pertinent question arises: what happened to this movement, and why does the second burden persist over a century later, despite attempts to address it? The answer to that question can be summarized as follows: forces of reaction. Not just the Material Feminist, but the larger feminist activist movement fell under heavy and sustained attack that came with the Red Scare starting in the 1919. Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent represented countless women’s civic organizations as being part of a “red web” answerable to Alexandra Kollontai, the head of Zhenotdel (Women’s Department) in the nascent Soviet Union[[42]](#_ftn42). Adjacent organizations were set up like the Woman Patriot which was “dedicated to the Defense of the Family and the State AGAINST Feminism and Socialism”[[43]](#_ftn43). Fears ignited by waves of labor strikes and demonstrations domestically, coupled with revolutions abroad, prompted captains of industry in the US to contemplate a variety of strategies to mitigate conflict between labor and capital. One of the results was the 1919 campaign by the Industrial Housing Associates, stating that – “Good Homes Make Contented Workers”[[44]](#_ftn44). This would be the root of the famous Levitt Towns and the modern suburbia. As Levitt himself would say in 1948: "No man who owns his house and lot can be a Communist. He has too much to do"[[45]](#_ftn45).
Among countless other contributors, in 1928 American anti-feminist Christine Frederick, would publish a book that still defines the consumer economy to this day: Selling Mrs. Consumer. She dedicated the book to Herbert Hoover, American industry, and advertising executives. In her words, advertising was to be aimed at women’s “inferiority complexes”[[46]](#_ftn46), while the industry was to flood the market with labor saving devices but implement “progressive obsolescence”[[47]](#_ftn47) to insure steady consumption.[[SK3]](#_msocom_3)

Conclusion.
Even though the American material feminist movement was not led by Alexander Kalantai, it held significant potential for sparking a genuine domestic revolution. By establishing economic institutions rooted in feminist and mutual aid principles, reformers were effectively engaging in economic direct action. They were, as the saying of the time went, "building a new world in the shell of the old," one neighborhood, town, or city at a time.
Despite losing to the forces of reaction, the movement can never completely die because the fundamental critique of the Material Feminist movement remains valid: social reproductive labor is still predominantly performed by women, unpaid, which keeps them economically dependent on men.
The hegemonic consumerist ethos made the home nothing more than a box to be filled with commodities. Incapable of addressing the multitude of crises that such an ethos created, its only response is to silence and medicate dissent. In a true capitalist realist fashion, a 1978 advertisement for Valium and Librium—drugs mass-prescribed to housewives suffering from myriad mental health problems caused by this ethos—read, "You can't change her environment, but you can change her mood."
This is the central insight of the Material Feminist School of Thought: the material environment can be changed through reason and collective action, leading to an improvement in women's lives and a deeper independence, both personal and economic. In the current crisis of imagination regarding a meaningful future, bold experiments like those undertaken by activists in previous centuries are essential to demonstrate that a better order is not only possible but preferable. As David Graeber points out, "revolution happens when there is a change in common sense of what is possible." By projecting their imagination and reason into the polit–economic realm, material feminists provided working examples of a better order, offering hope and instructions of a liberated future. Hence, the movement faced such strong opposition, because it presented a viable alternative to the hegemonic patriarchal order.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Frederick, Christine.1929. Selling Mrs. Consumer.
Peirce, Melusina. 1884. Co-Operative Housekeeping; How Not to Do It and How to Do It. A Study in Sociology.
Peirce, "Cooperative Housekeeping II,” Atlantic Monthly 22 (December 1868)
Zona Gale, “Shall the Kitchen in Our Home Go?,” Ladies' Home Journal, 36 (March 1919).
Secondary Sources
Albinski, Nan B. 1988. “Utopia Reconsidered: Women Novelists and Nineteenth-Century Utopian Visions.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 13 (4): 830–41.
Hayden, Dolores. 1979. Seven American Utopias: The Architecture of Communitarian Socialism, 1790 – 1975. MIT Press.
Hayden, Dolores. “Melusina Fay Peirce and Cooperative Housekeeping*.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 2, no. 1–3 (March 12, 1978):
Hayden, Dolores. 1981. The Grand Domestic Revolution: a History of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neighborhoods, and Cities. MIT Press.
Hayden, Dolores. 1984. Redesigning the American Dream: the Future of Housing, Work, and Family Life. W.W. Norton.
Spencer-Wood, Suzanne. 2004. A historic pay-for-housework community household: The Cambridge Cooperative Housekeeping Society.
Stanley, Autumn. “Scribbling Women as Entrepreneurs: Kate Field (1838-96) and Charlotte Smith (1840-1917).” Business and Economic History 21 (1992)
Swallow, Pamela Curtis. The remarkable life and career of Ellen Swallow Richards: Pioneer in science and Technology. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley, 2014.
End-notes.
[[1]](#_ftnref1) Hayden, Dolores. 1981. The Grand Domestic Revolution: a History of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neighborhoods, and Cities. MIT Press. p. 35.
[[2]](#_ftnref2) Ibid, p. 39.
[[3]](#_ftnref3) Hayden, Dolores. 1979. Seven American Utopias: The Architecture of Communitarian Socialism, 1790 – 1975. MIT Press. p. 362-366.
[[4]](#_ftnref4) Ibid.
[[5]](#_ftnref5) Ibid, p.51.
[[6]](#_ftnref6) Ibid.
[[7]](#_ftnref7) Ibid.
[[8]](#_ftnref8) Spencer-Wood, Suzanne. 2004. A historic pay-for-housework community household: The Cambridge Cooperative Housekeeping Society. P. 142.
[[9]](#_ftnref9) Ibid; Hayden. Grand Domestic Revolution. p. 78.
[[10]](#_ftnref10) Peirce, "Cooperative Housekeeping II,” Atlantic Monthly 22 (December 1868), p. 684.
[[11]](#_ftnref11) Peirce. Co-Operative Housekeeping; How Not to Do It and How to Do It. A Study in Sociology. Massachusetts: J. R. Osgood and company, 1884. p. 181
[[12]](#_ftnref12) Spencer-Wood. The Cambridge Cooperative Housekeeping Society. p.138.
[[13]](#_ftnref13) Peirce, "Cooperative Housekeeping II,” Atlantic Monthly 22 (December 1868), p. 691.
[[14]](#_ftnref14) Ibid, p. 142.
[[15]](#_ftnref15) Ibid.
[[16]](#_ftnref16) Hayden. Grand Domestic Revolution. p. 79.
[[17]](#_ftnref17) Ibid.
[[18]](#_ftnref18)Spencer-Wood. The Cambridge Cooperative Housekeeping Society. p.150.
[[19]](#_ftnref19) Ibid. p.147.
[[20]](#_ftnref20) Ibid.
[[21]](#_ftnref21) Hayden. Grand Domestic Revolution. p. 81: Peirce. Co-Operative Housekeeping. p. 107-109.
[[22]](#_ftnref22) Peirce. Co-Operative Housekeeping. p. 108.
[[23]](#_ftnref23) Spencer-Wood. The Cambridge Cooperative Housekeeping Society. p.150.
[[24]](#_ftnref24) Hayden. Grand Domestic Revolution. p. 82.
[[25]](#_ftnref25) Pearson, Lynn. The architectural and social history of Cooperative Living. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1988.
[[26]](#_ftnref26) Peirce. Co-Operative Housekeeping. p. 184.
[[27]](#_ftnref27) Stanley, Autumn. “Scribbling Women as Entrepreneurs: Kate Field (1838-96) and Charlotte Smith (1840-1917).” Business and Economic History 21 (1992): 76.
[[28]](#_ftnref28) Hayden, Dolores. 1978. “Two Utopian Feminists and Their Campaigns for Kitchenless Houses.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 4 (2): p. 277.
[[29]](#_ftnref29) Ibid. Architectural & social history of cooperative living. 242
[[30]](#_ftnref30) Albinski, Nan B. 1988. “Utopia Reconsidered: Women Novelists and Nineteenth-Century Utopian Visions.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 13 (4): 830–41. Hayden. Grand Domestic Revolution. p. 137-147.
[[31]](#_ftnref31) Swallow, Pamela Curtis. The remarkable life and career of Ellen Swallow Richards: Pioneer in science and Technology. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley, 2014. c.12.
[[32]](#_ftnref32) Ibid. p.103.
[[33]](#_ftnref33) Ibid. c.19.
[[34]](#_ftnref34) Hayden. Grand Domestic Revolution. p. 184.
[[35]](#_ftnref35) Hayden, Dolores. “Melusina Fay Peirce and Cooperative Housekeeping*.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 2, no. 1–3 (March 12, 1978): p. 415.
[[36]](#_ftnref36) National American Woman Suffrage Association – One of the main women’s suffrage organizations in United States. Existed from 1890 to 1920.
[[37]](#_ftnref37) Ibid, p. 5.
[[38]](#_ftnref38) Hayden. Grand Domestic Revolution. p. 207-208.
[[39]](#_ftnref39) Ibid. Chapter 10.
[[40]](#_ftnref40) Hayden. Utopian Feminists. p. 282.
[[41]](#_ftnref41) Zona Gale, “Shall the Kitchen in Our Home Go?,” Ladies' Home Journal, 36 (March 1919).
[[42]](#_ftnref42) Such organizations included General Federation of Women’s Clubs, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, the Young Women’s Christian Association, the American Home Economics Association, the American Association of University Women, the League of Women Voters. Dolores. Grand Domestic Revolution. p. 281-282.
[[43]](#_ftnref43) Ibid.
[[44]](#_ftnref44) Ibid. p. 283.
[[45]](#_ftnref45) Hayden, Dolores. 1984. Redesigning the American Dream: the Future of Housing, Work, and Family Life. W.W. Norton. p. 8.
[[46]](#_ftnref46) Frederick, Christine.1929. Selling Mrs. Consumer. p. 43-54.
[[47]](#_ftnref47) Ibid. p. 245-255.