🪞
Welcome back to the Asylum write-up, where we explore the decade-long slow-motion car crash that is the Emilie Autumn fandom.
Sorry this installment took so long to upload! Just a heads-up, I may take some time to deliver the last one too – these posts take forever to format on Reddit's finicky-ass editor, and my dumb real life is currently keeping me from precious Internet time. Thank you for your patience! You have my word that everyone who pre-ordered the final installment will receive a PERSONAL, HANDWRITTEN letter autographed and illustrated by me, a list of the snacks I consumed while composing this write-up, some exclusive behind-the-scenes secrets, and a pony.
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4.1 – Part 4.2 Part 5

Places, everyone This is a test Throw your stones Do your damage Your worst, and your best (...) And if I had a dollar For every time I repented the sin And commit the same crime I'd be sitting on top of the world today (“God Help Me”, 2006🎵)

Quick recap of where we left off. First, there were five to ten halcyon years of pleasant and meaningful interactions between EA and her blossoming fanbase, prominently by way of her official forum. Then, circa 2009-2010, EA's online presence shifted towards sudden anger outbursts, ban-hammering, and an increasingly top-down communication style.
This created a sort of primordial rift within the fanbase, between those who supported EA's right to speak her mind and regulate her own fan spaces however she pleased – and those who thought that her reactions were rude and inappropriate (at best), and that even fan spaces should allow for reasonable, non-abusive criticism of the artist.
Between a poorly-handled book release (see Part 3), the controversial (Part 2) or dubiously true (Part 4) contents of said book, and serious shade from various former collaborators (Part 5), more and more fans had pressing thoughts about EA's work ethic and choices. EA attempted damage control through drastic forum rules that made it virtually impossible to voice any “serious” critical opinion. It didn't work, of course: instead of squashing the mutiny, she created a schism.
Critical fans and active haters started congregating on unofficial platforms.

“WITH MUFFINS LIKE THIS, WHO NEEDS ENEMIES?”: TROLL LIKE A GIRL

So here we were, the early 2010s. The official forum (which had about 700 members in 2006, if you recall) was now thousands-strong, reaching just over 12,000 registered users in 2012 – not all of them active, but still. In terms of sheer numbers and content creation, the party was POPPIN'... but increasingly in parts of the Asylum that escaped EA's jurisdiction, such as Tumblr, where they could speak their mind freely.

You play the victim very well You've built your self-indulgent hell You wanted someone to understand you Well, be careful what you wish for, because I do (“I Know Where You Sleep”, 2006🎵)

In one wing of Asylum Tumblr, a smattering of call-out blogs emerged, which laid out EA's various lies, faux pas, shitty takes, and general deep-seated terribleness in detailed timelines and screenshots (or, short of that, long-winded bullet points). While many such blogs framed it as “serious” whistleblowing and did their best to remain as fact-based and neutral as they could, there was some genuine disgust, animosity and creepiness towards EA on that side of Tumblr; for some ex-fans, “exposing the truth” was mostly justify obsessive hatred, prying and verbal abuse. Some, for instance, felt the bizarre need to side with EA's mother in their estrangement. (One user, with the URL “emilyautumnfischkopf”, argued in a serious and down-to-earth tone - but with zero sources - that EA's upbringing had been nothing but peaceful and supportive until she ungratefully kicked her loving family to the curb for no reason at all. They were later revealed 🔍 to have an alternate handle as “eaisalyingcunt”.)
Either way, through these blogs, a number of potential drama bombs that had mostly flown under the radar were dredged up from over the years – some of which were hard to ignore, even for supportive fans. Where to begin?
There was that nonsense in-joke song, captured twice on camera during the 2009 tour (to very little outrage, at the time), crassly called “Manatee Retard”📺. Or EA's scathing response, in print, to a wheelchair user who found it insensitive that she used a bedazzled wheelchair as a prop to do sexy acrobatics on stage. (“Your offence taken at my hard-won self-acceptance proves that I indeed have something to fight against”, she wrote). Spoken word tracks where she made trivializing knock-knock jokes about serious mental illnesses she didn't have, like schizophrenia and OCD. Multiple instances of calling Britney Spears a “bimbo” and a “Hollywood fucked-up”, resentfully claiming that she only shaved her head because she was “hopped up on drugs” and certainly not because she was “bipolar”, a word the press liked to wield as an insult anyway. (“That's almost like calling someone a retard!” Yeah, heaven forbid.) The meanest, most distasteful paragraphs in the book. Basically everything problematic EA had ever said or written.📝 In retrospect, it had been a long time coming, but it was a lot to take in – and certainly more off-putting, even to less emotionally invested fans, than silly lies about her age and last name.
In another wing of Asylum Tumblr, some fans had had it up to here and just wanted to have fun. 🎵 If Plague Rats had learned one valuable lesson from EA, it was how to crack a joke in the face of absurd tragedy – and the general state of the EA fandom certainly warranted a few.
In 2012, Fight Like a Girl was released. After six long years, three of which had been peaceful, the Opheliac era was officially over. The new album and ensuing tour confirmed that the Asylum had entered a process of glamorous Broadway-style militarization. 🎵📺
The mood board was “Roman general meets Vegas showgirl meets Victorian street urchin”.🪞 The color palette was, to naysayers, “musty pink and rotten, stale piss yellow”. 🐀 The keyword was “REVENGE” (through the power of... self-expression! sorority! brutal assault with rusty medical implements!). The chorus of the title song had an intriguing run-on line about getting “revenge on the world, or at least 49% of the people in it” 🎵 – which seemed like an awful lot, and was widely interpreted (to cheers, boos, or uncomfortable sighs) as a misandrist jab at literally all men on Earth.
The show was essentially a demo version of the musical, in that the setlist vaguely reflected the order of events in the story – but prior reading was essential in order to get what the hell was going on on stage. This one Broadway reviewer had not perused the literature before seeing the show 🔍, and hated: the set, the choreography, the skits, the plot, the lyrics, the music, the concept. (Seriously, you should read the review. It's not even my show and I feel like quitting show business.)
Pre-show VIP encounters, now violin-free, were lorded over by EA's new manager🐀, whose official title was “Asylum Headmistress”. (Interesting choice – she sounds fun!) The swag bags were less substantial than before, and the “greet” part of the meet-and-greet was rarely more than a quick hug and photo op.
On Twitter, EA continued to embrace her “I am very badass” fronting attitude...

Often wonder if cyberbullies r aware they’re fucking w/ a girl who’s BFs w/ maker of the SAW films & is marrying a knife-throwing scorpion. (🐀📝)

...and her taste for needlessly inflammatory statements. About an aisle sign in a supermarket:

If this does not infuriate you, then you're a fucking potato.

(Again with the confounding crypto-ableism, EA! 🔍) She also went through a phase of raging against Lady Gaga 📝, who had stolen her idea of using a wheelchair on stage as an able-bodied woman. 🔍 That failed to convince anyone that she wasn't the histrionic diva that haters made her out to be.
Spurred on by EA's rallying cries and “us vs them” mentality, loyalists turned the white-knighting up to 11. On Twitter, some Plague Rats got into cat fights with Lady Gaga's Little Monsters (what a time to be alive). Others tried to balance out the Tumblr negativity with initiatives like “Spreading a Plague of Love” – a “positive-only” confession blog, whose extreme fangirling, comically drastic rules and hyper-defensive tone📝 did not debunk the increasingly popular notion that “true Plague Rats” were a bunch of authoritarian and hopelessly brainwashed fanatics.
EA truthers and other anti-fans started lashing out at anyone who dared express any positive opinion of EA, solidifying claims that the backlash against EA was just a conspiracy of bitter, hysterical bullies.
All this to say: every passing day brought new reasons for fans to get mad at EA and each other, and everyone in the Asylum was in need of a laugh. It's not easy having a good time.🦠
Leading up to Fight Like a Girl and in the years that followed, user-submission-based meme blogs took off, most notably “Spreading a Plague of Lulz / Troll Like a Girl”. A lot of the early submissions were absurdist humor and toothless, cheezburger-Impact memes (a style that was, oddly, already dated at the time). Those often originated in good fun, and from loyal fans, on the official forum. But there was also true snark, satirizing EA's questionable ethics, outrageous claims, and easily spoofed artistic gimmicks. A new slang of Asylumspeak emerged: Glittertits (slight NSFW), GAGA!!, EA Gusta and all its memeface variants, Get outta mah house!, Are You Suffering?, Fight Like A Goat, [Random celebrity] copied EA (a subgenre in its own right), ...
Most of the “trolling” was directed at unrepentant bootlickers and, to a lesser extent, red-in-the-face haters and creeps. Meme blogs would post joke comments under “serious” or gushing submissions on Wayward Victorian Confessions, and taunt loyalist accounts by tagging them in their posts. When a few people complained on WVC that almost all of the Bloody Crumpets to date had been thin white able-bodied women, and a few fans responded by sharing their dream-casts for a more diverse line-up, the blog was flooded for days with confessions that “X should be a Crumpet” (candidates included RuPaul, Mitt Romney, Nicki Minaj, EA's therapist, and the WVC admins). Farcical shenanigans like that.
Ah, but some people will always cross the line, won't they. EA threads popped up on merciless, bully-friendly snark platforms like Lolcow, Pretty Ugly Little Liar, and Encyclopedia Dramatica. Snarkers with a mean streak and obsessive haters mingled in some of the more aggressive, 4-chan-spirited retaliation against EA – which would be called “brigading” in modern parlance. This included flooding EA's Goodreads page with one-star reviews (see part 4), repeatedly editing her Wikipedia page to include her legal name and birth year, and ensuring that Googling said name would bring up current pictures of her.
All of this compounded agitation fragmented the once-united fandom beyond recognition.🦠 Through substantial disagreements among fans, personal bickerings, layers upon layers of inscrutable in-jokes, and cross-platform telephone games, the Asylum morphed into a booby-trapped Escher room.
Satire blogs were taken in earnest. Earnest fan blogs scanned as satire. Memes would get called out as abuse. Appreciation without attached criticism would get mocked as bootlicking. Obvious jokes made by EA would be taken at face value. One divisive confession could trigger days and days of debate, to the point that WVC eventually banned confessions in response to other confessions. New waves of infighting created a confusing web of rival sub-factions🐀, each accusing the others of being toxic, cliquish, and delusional.
The shared fantasy was broken, the collective vision had crumbled, no onez was speaking the same language anymore. Fans would jump down the throat of other fans who held almost identical views about EA, except for that one thing she said or did that one time. Everyone had differing thoughts on what should or shouldn't acceptable to discuss, question, excuse, make fun of.
War is hell.

SCORCHED EARTH SHENANIGANS: HONEY, I SHRUNK THE ASYLUM

Would you tear my castle down Stone by stone And let the wind run through my windows Till there was nothing left But a battered rose? (“Castle Down”, 2003🎵)

Haters vs sycophants is not really the kind of conflict where one side can come out on top (if you're participating, you've already lost). But in the long tug-of-war between “grassroots” and “EA-sponsored” fan spaces, the ultimate winner is obvious – in that the former is gasping in agony, a shriveled husk of its former glory, while the latter... is non-existent. This is due in no small part to EA's tendency, like the Czars of old, to settle conflicts by setting Moscow on fire.🔍)
That's not entirely fair: unlike EA, the czar only did it that once.
By early 2013, as EA was gearing up for her third Fight Like a Girl tour at the end of the year, the official forum was... not as lively as it once had been. Not just because of the stifling rules and disgruntlement towards EA, or because EA herself hadn't really posted anything on there in years; the Internet was also changing, and forums in general were fast becoming passé.
This made it difficult for EA to create a safe space where she could talk to fans, and fans could talk to and about her, in a way she deemed suitable (ie, a space she could gate-keep and regulate enough to keep it completely free from negative criticism). Social media was a minefield; she still posted regularly, but didn't interact very much. So EA and the Headmistress came up with a way to filter out the unbelievers: an official fan club📝, aptly called the “Asylum Army”, with a $100 entry price.
Joining the AA came with a dog tag, a sew-on patch, and a lifetime membership certificate signed by EA and – for some reason – the Headmistress. (Unlike EA's best friend and sound engineer back in the forum's heyday, I don't think fans ever really embraced the FLAG-era manager as part of the Asylum in-group. She came across more as a coordinator / businessperson / adult chaperone, at best.🐀) So, slightly better goodies than you'd get by joining the other AA 🔍 ... but not by much. The main appeal was that members would have access to exclusive content, special merch, giveaways, early bird tickets for future shows, and regular video chats with EA.
The concept itself drew a fair amount of criticism, as you can imagine. Between the name🐀, the price, and the inherent gatekeeping of a pay-to-join fanclub, many balked at the monetizing of a concept that had once (like, three years back) been significantly more DIY, grassroots, and inclusive. 📝🐀
Then again, many also longed for a positive, drama-free space where fans could just be fans. And while the creation of the AA was generally recognized as a quick cashgrab, a lot of people were surprisingly cool with it. EA was trying to finance her dream musical, after all – although a number of fans wished she had gone about raising funds in a less sketchy way.
So around 400 fans shelled out (which, according to the Headmistress📝, “basically cover[ed] the cost of running the fanclub itself – keeping the database up, website, etc.”). Enough for a close-knit, but sizable community. But already, there was a conflict of interest: a high fanclub entry fee essentially demands that you pledge loyalty to the artist over loyalty to your fellow fans, who wish to join but can't afford to. Sharing, caring, and ensuring no one felt left out were some of the more positive values cultivated in the fandom... but leaking exclusive content would surely piss off other paying members🐀, and make EA feel betrayed all over again. (And she had barely just started to mellow out on social media!)
...But then again, this is the internet. After the first month of secret AA drops (lyric sheets, some photoshoot outtakes – nothing too juicy, really), there were, yes, some leaks. EA was predictably miffed, and retaliated by... ghosting the fanclub for weeks at a time in its first few months of existence (great look!). She eventually found the “solution” to her problem, by providing something you couldn't right-click-save (and which had been part of the promised perks to begin with): live interaction.
Over webcam, she was her usual in-person bubbly, charming, funny self. Everyone seemingly had a good time during the fanclub video chat, and this gave people faith and hope.
There were a few more events, giveaways, etc. As promised, ahead of the fall 2013 tour (the last one to date, it would turn out), AA members got priority access to show tickets and VIP bundles. The latter were much pricier than before, and only included soundcheck, a photo-op, and three goodies: a tin of loose-leaf tea, a signed printer-paper setlist, and a small flag that said “F.L.A.G.”.🔍 Some stuff continued to leak – but, as some of the outlaws pointed out (scroll down to the Disqus comments), they were mostly relaying information that was relevant to the entire fanbase, such as updates about ongoing projects (the dragged-out recording of the audiobook, for one).
In early 2014, lifetime memberships were closed, and replaced with monthly, quarterly and yearly subscription tiers. Bizarrely, you ended up paying $3 more per month if you bought a $99 yearly subscription📝 – but it did include the patch, dog tag, and piece of paper!

Sometimes I kind of want to be part of the cool kids and register to the Asylum Army. Then I remember how it came about, what you could get for the same price a couple years ago, how the whole thing was and is handled, and that I won’t support any of this bullshit. (And then I roll around naked in all the money I’m saving.) (🐀)

Still, a number of fans rejoiced at the affordable monthly option, and joined – if not for the exclusive content and merch (which were... okay, but not much to write home about), then for the friendly, drama-free exchanges with an artist they actually did love, in spite of all the frustration.
For the still-too-poor or still-undecided, there was always the forum! It wasn't as active as it used to be, but a few die-hards still managed to keep the lights on... until, inevitably, Someone Did Something and Ruined Everything. (Once again: EA's wrath is spectacular, but rarely completely unprovoked.) The incident features one notable figure in the Asylum community. Let's call him the Collector.
OK, so maybe you remember the meme I linked to in Part 4, with Christian Grey and the ginormous EA hoard. Well, that's the Collector's collection. The “Violin” promo that I called the "Holy Grail of the fandom" in the same paragraph? Also his. The handwritten lyrics that went for $940? Guess who won that auction. Over the years, the Collector had probably spent five figures on EA merch and shows, and although that fact was a little unsettling, he was a very active, easy-going, and generally well-liked fixture of the fandom.
One day in 2012, shortly after the Headmistress had replaced EA's old Chicago BFF as main forum admin, the Collector's account got banned or restricted over something dumb. When the ban wasn't lifted as quickly as he hoped, he took it... the way one takes things when one is unhealthily invested: he started spamming Headmistress and the mod team with increasingly rambling and abusive emails (lost to time, probably for the best). When that didn't work quickly enough, he tried a different route.
One of the many auctions that the Collector had won, some years prior, was EA's old iPod Touch📝 – which contained all of her favorite tunes and, buried somewhere in the data cache... a phone number. Which the Collector tried calling. And wouldn't you know it: EA picked up. She congratulated him on his sleuthing skills, listened patiently as he made his case, apologized for any distress caused by the unfair account restriction, and then they got married.
Kidding! She freaked the fuck out, hung up, and banned him for life from the forum and all EA shows and events.
After his ban, the Collector allegedly still tried to attend at least one VIP pre-show (one source in the comments says he was allowed to buy some merch, refunded for his ticket, and escorted out). He joined the Reform forum to bitch about EA and try to rally people to his cause, possibly made revenge posts about her on darker snark forums, and continued to hound the Asylum mod team. So in June 2014, EA came up with a radical and unexpected fix to the Collector problem.

The official Asylum Fan Forum has been shut down permanently. I have personally paid thousands of dollars each year to keep the forum safe and secure for you ... Unfortunately, the forum has not been kept safe and secure for me, a truth which disappoints me greatly, instead becoming a place where people who have physically threatened myself and my staff prey upon forum members, pressuring them to contact me and my staff on their behalf. If the gullible wish to humor my stalkers (who live in their parent’s basement at age 30 something) and thus put me in danger, they may do it on their own dime. They may also fuck off, because stupidity can kill, and I won’t be your victim. To those who enjoyed the forum, you know who to thank for its closure. (“On the closing of the Asylum Forum”)

Voilà! This is how a decade-long archive of shared history ends: not with a bang, but with a dirty delete and a sod-off communiqué.
The obliteration of the forum took everyone by surprise...

I was actually on the forum when it was taken down. I was navigating between posts and when I went to click on a different board, an error message came up. I honestly cried a little, I'm not ashamed to say. (WVC admin on Reddit, 2024)

...and I do mean everyone:

Chicago BFF / ex-admin, the next morning: Whoa, EA forum shut down? Ex-mod: It turns out that if someone spends enough years actively “waging war” to destroy what they can’t have, eventually they’ll be successful. * eye roll * Not even mods got prior warning. Just all the sudden, poof, gone. BFF: Really? She did not let the moderators know?! This is sounding worse and worse. Uggh. I’m so sorry. Such a loss. (...) Ok, threats are serious, but why not just put it in archive mode so no one can post? (...) Sad. I shall light a candle in the forum's honor. (Facebook posts; scroll down for screenshots)

It was a gut punch, especially for people who had poured countless hours into the community, or could have used some prior warning to save years of their own writing from the role-playing threads. One last chance to take a look around the place that had meant so much to so many.

From the wording of the announcement of closing the forum and a number of other things, it sometimes seems like EA doesn't like her fans much. :/ (🐀)

Three months after the forum was nuked, Battered Rose (a venerable EA fansite, which had been around since the Enchant era and had one of the most complete EA galleries online) announced that it was shutting down too.📝 The admin, who had also been a long-time forum mod, cited a lack of “time, energy, passion, or money” to keep the website going... and being upset at the sudden disappearance of the forum. It was, truly, the end of an era for the Asylum.
...Well, no point in living in the past. For those who could afford it, and still wanted to talk to/about EA after that (not everyone did 🐀), there was always the Asylum Army fanclub!
Over the summer of 2014, EA held regular live chats and Q&A's, and... many attendees really enjoyed them, and thought the AA was well worth the money after all. She also quietly parted ways with the much poo-pooed Headmistress around that time.

Just spent over 4 hours giggling, drinking tea and playing guessing games in chat with EA and other Asylum Army members ... No griping, no downers, just lots of fun. I think I like the way the ‘new fandom’ is going and now I’m really glad I finally decided to join the Army. (September 4, 2014🐀; Battered Rose had closed the day before)

The forum was lost forever, but perhaps that was a chance for a fresh start. Could this fanclub thing really be the Asylum Renaissance that fans had been longing for?

...I have come today to a very difficult but necessary decision, and that is to discontinue the Emilie Autumn Official Fanclub. The site itself, and the community chatroom, will remain open to you indefinitely, but I will no longer be making updates to the site. (Newsletter, September 8, 2014📝)

...Never mind, then.
Turns out the fanclub had been the Headmistress' idea all along. EA had been reluctant from the start, and although she really enjoyed the live chats with a safe community of people “who are there for the right reasons”, she couldn't overcome her fundamental discomfort with the concept. Lifetime and regular members would receive a bunch of digital downloads and a -35% coupon on the Asylum Emporium for their troubles. EA said she would definitely pop back once in a while for live chats, for free, just for fun, but to my knowledge, she never did.
And so the most devoted fans were left standing in the rain...

She is happy, she made it. She is fulfilling her dreams, found love and happiness after all the pain. I understand that she now doesn’t need “us” anymore ... That doesn’t change the fact she broke my heart with taking the Asylum Army and the forum from me. Yet, I am happy for her. (🐀)

...while naysayers pointed and laughed, Nelson-style.🦠

I don’t feel sorry at all for the people that paid for the Asylum Army fan club. Most of them knew that EA is an atrocious business woman and has broken many promises before. In fact, I laugh at them. They seriously thought that EA would actually stay consistent with this? (🐀)

EVERYTHING MUST GO: THE ASYLUM WHOLESALE

EA fans were left without an “official” home for about three years. This gave them plenty of time to be annoyed at EA for: not releasing the audiobook on time, not materializing any new project for a while... and the new sin of peddling random, ridiculously marked-up AliBaba jewelry as “merch” on her official store. Think faux-antique cameo pendants and $30 Big Ben rings (...because the Asylum story is set in London, get it?).

The whole accessories section looks like a tacky overpriced English souvenir shop. (🐀)

The fanbase lost a lost of steam in those in-between years, because there wasn't much to stick around for. As evidenced by the positive reception of the AA live chats, even in the midst of unresolved drama, out-loud interactions in a friendly environment have always been EA's saving grace. Considering the amount of online hate, there are shockingly few accounts of bad IRL encounters with EA: most people say that in live conversation, she comes across as a fun, warm, and genuinely sweet person. Some report that their negative opinion shifted after meeting her.
But there were no chats or live shows anymore. There was only social media, where she ignored questions and vague-posted about overdue projects – and the newsletter📝, which was all saccharine love-bombing to promote bland dropshipped trinkets. For fans who remembered the handcrafted merch (and two-way communication) of the early years, it was a bitter pill to swallow.

CONTINUED IN COMMENTS

​

In 2010, I had an accident that resulted in an ACL injury in my right knee. At that time, my weight was 68 kg. Since then, my weight increased and remained consistently between 85-90 kg for a period. I did not undergo surgery then because I was uncomfortable with the idea of having a screw or other external object placed inside my body. Following the injury, I experienced swelling in my knee for a week, which then required fluid drainage. Despite this, I have been able to run and play cricket. However, occasionally, a small movement or twitch can cause my knee to dislocate, which I have been able to put back into the socket myself.
Now, I am back to weighing 68 kg and have recently graduated as an international student. I have paid the IHS amount.
Is there any solution for my problem at the moment? If so, how should I proceed? What are the costs involved, and how much time will be required for rest? How long will the consultation, MRI, and surgery take? Given that the accident happened a long time ago, will it affect further treatment? Why hasn't my ligament healed after all these years?

What would you guys think about a self contained adventure time movie in between the end of the series and distant lands? To be honest, if any Cartoon Network show deserves a movie it’s adventure time. And I’m surprised it hasn’t gotten one yet. The other 3 of the 2010’s 4 has one, I think adventure time should get one

In today’s evolving and competitive landscape, the value of innovation is shifting from the traditional closed systems approach to a more open, decentralized, and community-driven approach. Paul Lalovich and Tesha Teshanovich from Agile Dynamics outline what is driving the trend, its implications for organizations, and how leaders can successfully operate at the forefront of the shift.
Innovation transcends the mere conceptualization of fresh ideas; it is the actionable process of enhancing existing products or conjuring entirely new offerings. While there is a strong correlation between R&D and innovation – with the former serving as a wellspring for pioneering thoughts – the journey from groundbreaking research to practical utility can be intricate and protracted.
However, it’s worth noting that innovation isn't solely tethered to structured R&D. It can spontaneously arise from sheer curiosity, a spark of inspiration, or even the simple act of refining or tweaking existing methodologies.
Firms might invest in R&D to catalyze innovation, but they can also harness external advancements – referred to as ‘spillovers’. After all, groundbreaking knowledge isn't always the exclusive domain of its creators, making external inspirations invaluable.
Emerging from a robust foundation of innovation, soft power presents tangible advantages. Leaders in technology often establish benchmarks that others deem beneficial to adopt. As a result, global standards lean favorably toward those pioneers. Moreover, countries recognized for their innovative acumen become prime territories for patent filings. These innovation hubs magnetize not just domestic but international investments and capital.
Perhaps the most profound testament to their soft power is the allure they hold for top-tier talents. For instance, Silicon Valley has evolved into a global nexus, drawing in exceptional minds from the realms of information, communication, and digital technologies. Such concentrations of talent can significantly influence a nation’s trade dynamics.

Tech monopolies slow down innovation

In the arena of global economic dominance, competition emerges as the cornerstone, propelling nations to the forefront of innovation and growth. While Chinese strategies appear to have adapted, embracing the dynamism of competitive markets, the United States stands at a crossroads. Some of its tech behemoths promote their size and market leadership as pivotal for cutting-edge innovation.
Yet, it is crucial to discern the nature of this innovation and whose interests it truly serves. Does it prioritize shareholder returns, or is there a broader, national interest at play? As smaller, agile firms emerge, emphasizing true boundary-pushing innovation, one must ponder: Is the spirit of unbridled competition – a force that once fueled the American economy – being overshadowed by the looming giants?
In the nuanced interplay between governmental oversight and market forces, recent actions within China's technology sector provide a captivating study of regulatory boundaries. This phenomenon, aptly termed ‘de-tycoonification’, captures a deliberate effort to harmonize enterprise innovation with centralized checks.
A leading digital commerce platform in China encountered regulatory attention. The swift determination that its practices were anti-competitive, accompanied by a significant financial penalty, symbolizes a broader intent to redefine market paradigms. Prompt official communique following these events conveys a clear perspective: monopolistic behaviours can inhibit the holistic evolution of a market-based economy.
This stance also emphasizes that thoughtful regulations, rather than restricting growth, might actually serve as pillars to stabilize and nurture it. The regulatory web further ensnared another major digital entity in China, underscoring the principle that technological ingenuity should operate within established ethical and legal frameworks. Such internal checks within China challenge certain dominant narratives in global tech centres.
The notion that maintaining a robust market stature acts as a shield against global tech adversaries comes under scrutiny. The introspective regulatory steps within China necessitate a broader re-evaluation of such assumptions.
The tech landscape today is unmistakably marked by the towering presence of Big Tech, but what underlies this dominance might point towards a concerning reduction in competitive intensity. For two decades, the profits raked in by American tech behemoths have remained unparalleled, with market valuations suggesting this trend is expected to continue, if not amplify, in the coming years.
Such sustained, sky-high profitability isn't typical in a genuinely competitive market. In such a setting, rivals and newcomers usually exert downward pressures, ensuring no single entity retains an overwhelming edge for extended periods. The tech industry's trajectory further points towards a rising penchant for consolidation. This is evidenced by the substantial acquisitions of budding companies by the tech titans.
Data sourced from Mergermarket underscores an uptick in acquisition activity by these colossal tech firms, particularly post-2010. The symbiotic relationship between persistent high profits and a trend toward industry concentration suggests that the tech market might be veering away from the vibrant competitive arena it once was.

Cardwell’s law

The tech landscape’s evolution, in its relationship with innovation, is witnessing a palpable shift in entrepreneurial motivation and vision. Historically, the fervour of pioneering something transformative, encapsulated in the ‘moonshot thinking’, drove entrepreneurs. This audacious spirit envisioned groundbreaking entities akin to the tech luminaries of the late 20th and early 21st century. Yet, today’s entrepreneurial aspirations seem more tempered.
Instead of fostering ambitions of building the next revolutionary tech empire, there’s a growing inclination towards securing an acquisition by an existing tech colossus. This shift in sentiment dims the likelihood of a new tech juggernaut rising to challenge the incumbent titans. Post the era of computer-centric, web-driven, and smartphone-related innovations, a cloud of uncertainty looms over the emergence of new tech powerhouses.
Notably, the promising technological domains of the upcoming decade – be it autonomous vehicles with their exorbitant R&D costs, virtual or augmented reality's significant development expenditures, the data intensity of artificial intelligence, or drones and the Internet of Things with their challenging profit margins – present formidable entry barriers.
These hurdles, combined with a changing entrepreneurial landscape, cast a shadow on the future dynamism of tech innovation. Cardwell's elucidation on the patterns of technological evolution offers a poignant lens through which to view the current landscape dominated by Big Tech.
Donald Stephen Lowell Cardwell’s seminal work from 1972 suggests that technological vigor within societies is not an enduring flame, but a fleeting burst of brilliance. Within the European context, as one nation's innovative energy began to wane, another would rise, ensuring a consistent relay of progress across the continent.
Visualize this relay of innovation as a torch, brilliant yet intense. Historically, regions such as Northern Italy, Southern Germany, Spain, and Portugal, and later Holland, Britain, the United States, and Germany, took turns in holding this torch, leading the march of innovation. Yet, no single society clung to this leadership for extended durations. The relay ensured that as one nation's innovation diminished, another took up the mantle, propelling the collective forward.
This phenomenon, coined as ‘Cardwell’s Law’ by Joel Mokyr, posits that when left in isolation, a society’s technological creativity is but a brief spark. Over time, conservatism’s stifling grip, intent on preserving existing structures of power and privilege, often curtails this innovative drive.
This is where the analogy becomes particularly relevant for the Big Tech landscape. In today’s digital age, a few colossal entities dominate, much like the leading nations of old Europe. Yet, as these tech giants solidify their positions, they risk becoming victims of the very conservatism Mokyr speaks of.
Instead of being conduits for continual innovation, their sheer dominance and entrenched positions could lead to a stagnation in technological creativity. As they grow in size and influence, there is an increasing tendency to preserve the status quo, which inadvertently suppresses the innovative spark found in smaller, more agile entities.

Decentralization and open innovation

In the contemporary milieu characterized by the overwhelming dominance of Big Tech monopolies, the paradigms of decentralized innovation and open innovation emerge as potentially transformative alternatives.
The concept of distributed strategy borrows from nature, suggesting that in the same manner that organisms such as trees maximize their efficiency by creating multiple self-similar structures like leaves instead of solely relying on a single core trunk, businesses too need to shift their focus from purely scaling their core processes to nurturing multiple iterative strategies at the organizational peripheries. This can be encapsulated in the mantra of ‘Think Local, Act Global’.
In essence, companies must attune to the nuanced demands and opportunities of each local market, while simultaneously integrating these learnings into a broader global strategy. This is particularly evident in industries undergoing rapid transformation; for instance, the automotive industry's evolution from merely selling cars to offering comprehensive mobility solutions, a shift that is predicted to significantly alter its revenue structure by 2035.
In parallel, in our data-driven age, there is an increasing realization that the sheer volume of data is less crucial than its meaningful interpretation. Organizations need to pivot from prioritizing data accumulation to developing advanced algorithms capable of drawing insights from fragmented, patchy datasets. In the rapidly shifting landscape of today's global business environment, numerous established multinational corporations find themselves at a perplexing crossroads.
The crux of their predicament stems from a foundational dilemma: how to juxtapose traditional scale-driven strategies with the emergent imperative of Distributed strategies. To dissect this conundrum, one must appreciate the inherently divergent organizational philosophies underpinning scale and distributed strategies. Transitioning from a scale-centric model to a distributed-oriented one is not merely about implementing a series of organizational modifications, no matter how profound.
The shift demands a comprehensive reimagining of the organizational ethos and operational mechanics. Moreover, it is a fallacy to view these strategies as mutually exclusive. In actuality, they exist on a continuum, each holding its unique value. The challenge for modern enterprises lies in striking an optimal balance between harnessing the benefits of scale and the agility of Distributed strategies. Regrettably, the journey to this equilibrium is riddled with pitfalls, and many companies, even with their vast resources and global reach, have faltered in this endeavor.
Contrary to scale-centric entities that depend on static assets, with streamlined yet inherently slower supply chains, Distributed organizations harness networks characterized by adaptability and continuous transformation. These networks are primed for swiftly addressing specific local requirements and seizing niche market prospects.
Such frameworks incorporate a blend of proprietary micro-production facilities, possibly utilizing innovations like 3D printing; leasing assets from providers offering asset-on-demand services; and coordinating flexible ecosystems of regional digital collaborators. The overarching aim is twofold: continuously devise innovative solutions tailored for local clientele and escalate them to various markets with optimal speed.
Distributed-oriented organizations prioritize decentralization, contrasting with the top-down hierarchies commonly seen in scale-driven entities. Within these structures, decision-making isn't confined to a centralized corporate core. Instead, considerable authority is delegated to customer-centric teams positioned away from the primary headquarters. This design fosters agility, allowing for a rapid response to localized demands and new opportunities.
Some multinational corporations have observed marked improvements in their performance metrics after such decentralization. They empowered regional leaders with financial oversight, decision-making rights, streamlined communication channels to the central office, and enhanced access to market analytics.
Another trend, seen in the case of an appliance industry giant, involves an even more radical shift. This entity introduced a unique organizational framework aimed at minimizing the distance between the enterprise and its customer base. In a bold move, an entire level of middle management was eliminated, redistributing power to numerous newly-formed, semi-independent, customer-aligned business segments. These units operate in synergy, linked by a unified digital platform.
Further reading: Knowledge and venture capital as a driver of innovation.
Meanwhile, ‘Open Innovation’ offers a complementary model, championing a departure from insular corporate research and development approaches. Instead, it advocates for the amalgamation of external insights, be they from academia, startups, or independent innovators, into the innovation process. This synergistic approach addresses the often-criticized inertia inherent in large tech monopolies, promoting a more dynamic and collaborative innovation ecosystem.
Both these paradigms, however, necessitate a significant cultural shift within organizations, demanding a more flexible, adaptive, and outward-looking ethos to truly harness their potential in countering the inertia often associated with tech giants.
The rise of open innovation, propelled by reduced communication costs and advancements in memory and computation capabilities, has ushered in significant changes in market dynamics and societal interactions. Unlike the traditionally centralized, firm-driven innovation models, open innovation champions a decentralized, peer-based approach that emphasizes intrinsic motivation and societal benefits.
Indeed, the literature has delved into the nature of these peer innovation communities, understanding their social structures and intricacies.
However, the repercussions of this shift towards open innovation on established and emerging firms remain inadequately explored. Current organizational and strategic theories don't fully encapsulate the nuances of community-driven innovation. Despite the transformative potential of open innovation, its influence on mainstream organizational and strategic discourses has been somewhat muted.
As we progress, it becomes imperative to develop a more comprehensive understanding of firms in this new context, addressing the interaction between traditional organizational structures and emerging community-based innovation paradigms.

Conclusion

In an evolving landscape where tasks are increasingly modular and knowledge about solutions becomes more widespread, the traditional closed systems of innovation shift towards open, community-driven models. The implications are profound: we can no longer rely solely on conventional understandings of innovation rooted in cost efficiency, control mechanisms, and external incentives.
As innovation gets embedded in a spectrum ranging from strictly internal processes to open community collaborations, our conceptualization of firms and their boundaries need revisiting. This doesn’t negate the value of traditional models, but it requires a hybrid approach where both internal and open strategies coexist.
A pivotal question arises: under what circumstances should firms toggle between these different modes of innovation? The answer, it appears, lies in understanding the nature of the product and the distribution of problem-solving knowledge.
For products that are inherently integrated and where specialized knowledge is centralized, the conventional in-house R&D model, bolstered by a strong innovation-centric culture, remains relevant. Here, innovation is typically cocooned within the firm's boundaries, spanning from distinct functional divisions to intricate, ambidextrous designs.
However, when a product can be broken down into modular components and the requisite knowledge is dispersed, the limitations of a closed innovation system become evident. In these contexts, the power dynamics of innovation are reshaped by the principles of openness, collaborative sharing, intrinsic motivation, and community engagement.
The challenge, then, for modern enterprises is to discern when to internalize and when to externalize, ensuring that they harness the best of both worlds while navigating the complex terrain of innovation.In today’s evolving and competitive landscape, the value of innovation is shifting from the traditional closed systems approach to a more open, decentralized, and community-driven approach. Paul Lalovich and Tesha Teshanovich from Agile Dynamics outline what is driving the trend, its implications for organizations, and how leaders can successfully operate at the forefront of the shift. Innovation transcends the mere conceptualization of fresh ideas; it is the actionable process of enhancing existing products or conjuring entirely new offerings. While there is a strong correlation between R&D and innovation – with the former serving as a wellspring for pioneering thoughts – the journey from groundbreaking research to practical utility can be intricate and protracted. However, it’s worth noting that innovation isn't solely tethered to structured R&D. It can spontaneously arise from sheer curiosity, a spark of inspiration, or even the simple act of refining or tweaking existing methodologies.
Firms might invest in R&D to catalyze innovation, but they can also harness external advancements – referred to as ‘spillovers’. After all, groundbreaking knowledge isn't always the exclusive domain of its creators, making external inspirations invaluable. Emerging from a robust foundation of innovation, soft power presents tangible advantages. Leaders in technology often establish benchmarks that others deem beneficial to adopt. As a result, global standards lean favorably toward those pioneers. Moreover, countries recognized for their innovative acumen become prime territories for patent filings. These innovation hubs magnetize not just domestic but international investments and capital. Perhaps the most profound testament to their soft power is the allure they hold for top-tier talents. For instance, Silicon Valley has evolved into a global nexus, drawing in exceptional minds from the realms of information, communication, and digital technologies. Such concentrations of talent can significantly influence a nation’s trade dynamics. Tech monopolies slow down innovation In the arena of global economic dominance, competition emerges as the cornerstone, propelling nations to the forefront of innovation and growth. While Chinese strategies appear to have adapted, embracing the dynamism of competitive markets, the United States stands at a crossroads. Some of its tech behemoths promote their size and market leadership as pivotal for cutting-edge innovation. Yet, it is crucial to discern the nature of this innovation and whose interests it truly serves. Does it prioritize shareholder returns, or is there a broader, national interest at play? As smaller, agile firms emerge, emphasizing true boundary-pushing innovation, one must ponder: Is the spirit of unbridled competition – a force that once fueled the American economy – being overshadowed by the looming giants? In the nuanced interplay between governmental oversight and market forces, recent actions within China's technology sector provide a captivating study of regulatory boundaries. This phenomenon, aptly termed ‘de-tycoonification’, captures a deliberate effort to harmonize enterprise innovation with centralized checks. A leading digital commerce platform in China encountered regulatory attention. The swift determination that its practices were anti-competitive, accompanied by a significant financial penalty, symbolizes a broader intent to redefine market paradigms. Prompt official communique following these events conveys a clear perspective: monopolistic behaviours can inhibit the holistic evolution of a market-based economy. This stance also emphasizes that thoughtful regulations, rather than restricting growth, might actually serve as pillars to stabilize and nurture it. The regulatory web further ensnared another major digital entity in China, underscoring the principle that technological ingenuity should operate within established ethical and legal frameworks. Such internal checks within China challenge certain dominant narratives in global tech centres. The notion that maintaining a robust market stature acts as a shield against global tech adversaries comes under scrutiny. The introspective regulatory steps within China necessitate a broader re-evaluation of such assumptions. The tech landscape today is unmistakably marked by the towering presence of Big Tech, but what underlies this dominance might point towards a concerning reduction in competitive intensity. For two decades, the profits raked in by American tech behemoths have remained unparalleled, with market valuations suggesting this trend is expected to continue, if not amplify, in the coming years. Such sustained, sky-high profitability isn't typical in a genuinely competitive market. In such a setting, rivals and newcomers usually exert downward pressures, ensuring no single entity retains an overwhelming edge for extended periods. The tech industry's trajectory further points towards a rising penchant for consolidation. This is evidenced by the substantial acquisitions of budding companies by the tech titans. Data sourced from Mergermarket underscores an uptick in acquisition activity by these colossal tech firms, particularly post-2010. The symbiotic relationship between persistent high profits and a trend toward industry concentration suggests that the tech market might be veering away from the vibrant competitive arena it once was. Cardwell’s law The tech landscape’s evolution, in its relationship with innovation, is witnessing a palpable shift in entrepreneurial motivation and vision. Historically, the fervour of pioneering something transformative, encapsulated in the ‘moonshot thinking’, drove entrepreneurs. This audacious spirit envisioned groundbreaking entities akin to the tech luminaries of the late 20th and early 21st century. Yet, today’s entrepreneurial aspirations seem more tempered. Instead of fostering ambitions of building the next revolutionary tech empire, there’s a growing inclination towards securing an acquisition by an existing tech colossus. This shift in sentiment dims the likelihood of a new tech juggernaut rising to challenge the incumbent titans. Post the era of computer-centric, web-driven, and smartphone-related innovations, a cloud of uncertainty looms over the emergence of new tech powerhouses. Notably, the promising technological domains of the upcoming decade – be it autonomous vehicles with their exorbitant R&D costs, virtual or augmented reality's significant development expenditures, the data intensity of artificial intelligence, or drones and the Internet of Things with their challenging profit margins – present formidable entry barriers. These hurdles, combined with a changing entrepreneurial landscape, cast a shadow on the future dynamism of tech innovation. Cardwell's elucidation on the patterns of technological evolution offers a poignant lens through which to view the current landscape dominated by Big Tech. Donald Stephen Lowell Cardwell’s seminal work from 1972 suggests that technological vigor within societies is not an enduring flame, but a fleeting burst of brilliance. Within the European context, as one nation's innovative energy began to wane, another would rise, ensuring a consistent relay of progress across the continent. Visualize this relay of innovation as a torch, brilliant yet intense. Historically, regions such as Northern Italy, Southern Germany, Spain, and Portugal, and later Holland, Britain, the United States, and Germany, took turns in holding this torch, leading the march of innovation. Yet, no single society clung to this leadership for extended durations. The relay ensured that as one nation's innovation diminished, another took up the mantle, propelling the collective forward. This phenomenon, coined as ‘Cardwell’s Law’ by Joel Mokyr, posits that when left in isolation, a society’s technological creativity is but a brief spark. Over time, conservatism’s stifling grip, intent on preserving existing structures of power and privilege, often curtails this innovative drive. This is where the analogy becomes particularly relevant for the Big Tech landscape. In today’s digital age, a few colossal entities dominate, much like the leading nations of old Europe. Yet, as these tech giants solidify their positions, they risk becoming victims of the very conservatism Mokyr speaks of. Instead of being conduits for continual innovation, their sheer dominance and entrenched positions could lead to a stagnation in technological creativity. As they grow in size and influence, there is an increasing tendency to preserve the status quo, which inadvertently suppresses the innovative spark found in smaller, more agile entities. Decentralization and open innovation In the contemporary milieu characterized by the overwhelming dominance of Big Tech monopolies, the paradigms of decentralized innovation and open innovation emerge as potentially transformative alternatives. The concept of distributed strategy borrows from nature, suggesting that in the same manner that organisms such as trees maximize their efficiency by creating multiple self-similar structures like leaves instead of solely relying on a single core trunk, businesses too need to shift their focus from purely scaling their core processes to nurturing multiple iterative strategies at the organizational peripheries. This can be encapsulated in the mantra of ‘Think Local, Act Global’. In essence, companies must attune to the nuanced demands and opportunities of each local market, while simultaneously integrating these learnings into a broader global strategy. This is particularly evident in industries undergoing rapid transformation; for instance, the automotive industry's evolution from merely selling cars to offering comprehensive mobility solutions, a shift that is predicted to significantly alter its revenue structure by 2035. In parallel, in our data-driven age, there is an increasing realization that the sheer volume of data is less crucial than its meaningful interpretation. Organizations need to pivot from prioritizing data accumulation to developing advanced algorithms capable of drawing insights from fragmented, patchy datasets. In the rapidly shifting landscape of today's global business environment, numerous established multinational corporations find themselves at a perplexing crossroads. The crux of their predicament stems from a foundational dilemma: how to juxtapose traditional scale-driven strategies with the emergent imperative of Distributed strategies. To dissect this conundrum, one must appreciate the inherently divergent organizational philosophies underpinning scale and distributed strategies. Transitioning from a scale-centric model to a distributed-oriented one is not merely about implementing a series of organizational modifications, no matter how profound. The shift demands a comprehensive reimagining of the organizational ethos and operational mechanics. Moreover, it is a fallacy to view these strategies as mutually exclusive. In actuality, they exist on a continuum, each holding its unique value. The challenge for modern enterprises lies in striking an optimal balance between harnessing the benefits of scale and the agility of Distributed strategies. Regrettably, the journey to this equilibrium is riddled with pitfalls, and many companies, even with their vast resources and global reach, have faltered in this endeavor. Contrary to scale-centric entities that depend on static assets, with streamlined yet inherently slower supply chains, Distributed organizations harness networks characterized by adaptability and continuous transformation. These networks are primed for swiftly addressing specific local requirements and seizing niche market prospects. Such frameworks incorporate a blend of proprietary micro-production facilities, possibly utilizing innovations like 3D printing; leasing assets from providers offering asset-on-demand services; and coordinating flexible ecosystems of regional digital collaborators. The overarching aim is twofold: continuously devise innovative solutions tailored for local clientele and escalate them to various markets with optimal speed. Distributed-oriented organizations prioritize decentralization, contrasting with the top-down hierarchies commonly seen in scale-driven entities. Within these structures, decision-making isn't confined to a centralized corporate core. Instead, considerable authority is delegated to customer-centric teams positioned away from the primary headquarters. This design fosters agility, allowing for a rapid response to localized demands and new opportunities. Some multinational corporations have observed marked improvements in their performance metrics after such decentralization. They empowered regional leaders with financial oversight, decision-making rights, streamlined communication channels to the central office, and enhanced access to market analytics. Another trend, seen in the case of an appliance industry giant, involves an even more radical shift. This entity introduced a unique organizational framework aimed at minimizing the distance between the enterprise and its customer base. In a bold move, an entire level of middle management was eliminated, redistributing power to numerous newly-formed, semi-independent, customer-aligned business segments. These units operate in synergy, linked by a unified digital platform. Further reading: Knowledge and venture capital as a driver of innovation. Meanwhile, ‘Open Innovation’ offers a complementary model, championing a departure from insular corporate research and development approaches. Instead, it advocates for the amalgamation of external insights, be they from academia, startups, or independent innovators, into the innovation process. This synergistic approach addresses the often-criticized inertia inherent in large tech monopolies, promoting a more dynamic and collaborative innovation ecosystem. Both these paradigms, however, necessitate a significant cultural shift within organizations, demanding a more flexible, adaptive, and outward-looking ethos to truly harness their potential in countering the inertia often associated with tech giants. The rise of open innovation, propelled by reduced communication costs and advancements in memory and computation capabilities, has ushered in significant changes in market dynamics and societal interactions. Unlike the traditionally centralized, firm-driven innovation models, open innovation champions a decentralized, peer-based approach that emphasizes intrinsic motivation and societal benefits. Indeed, the literature has delved into the nature of these peer innovation communities, understanding their social structures and intricacies. However, the repercussions of this shift towards open innovation on established and emerging firms remain inadequately explored. Current organizational and strategic theories don't fully encapsulate the nuances of community-driven innovation. Despite the transformative potential of open innovation, its influence on mainstream organizational and strategic discourses has been somewhat muted. As we progress, it becomes imperative to develop a more comprehensive understanding of firms in this new context, addressing the interaction between traditional organizational structures and emerging community-based innovation paradigms. Conclusion In an evolving landscape where tasks are increasingly modular and knowledge about solutions becomes more widespread, the traditional closed systems of innovation shift towards open, community-driven models. The implications are profound: we can no longer rely solely on conventional understandings of innovation rooted in cost efficiency, control mechanisms, and external incentives. As innovation gets embedded in a spectrum ranging from strictly internal processes to open community collaborations, our conceptualization of firms and their boundaries need revisiting. This doesn’t negate the value of traditional models, but it requires a hybrid approach where both internal and open strategies coexist. A pivotal question arises: under what circumstances should firms toggle between these different modes of innovation? The answer, it appears, lies in understanding the nature of the product and the distribution of problem-solving knowledge. For products that are inherently integrated and where specialized knowledge is centralized, the conventional in-house R&D model, bolstered by a strong innovation-centric culture, remains relevant. Here, innovation is typically cocooned within the firm's boundaries, spanning from distinct functional divisions to intricate, ambidextrous designs. However, when a product can be broken down into modular components and the requisite knowledge is dispersed, the limitations of a closed innovation system become evident. In these contexts, the power dynamics of innovation are reshaped by the principles of openness, collaborative sharing, intrinsic motivation, and community engagement. The challenge, then, for modern enterprises is to discern when to internalize and when to externalize, ensuring that they harness the best of both worlds while navigating the complex terrain of innovation.

I was made redundant last year and was eventually paid my notice pay gross so needed to do a self assessment to pay the tax due on it.
However the self assesment is telling me I need to make a payment on account in addition to the tax I owe. I think this is because the system is assuming that I will have similar in taxed earnings next year? But actually this isn't the case as i hopefully won't get made redundant and then paid gross again!
Is there a way to avoid the payment on account or do I have to pay it and then get it back next year?

I am not the OOP. The OOP is u/SRBias posting in relationship_advice
Ongoing as per OOP
1 update - Long
Original - 10th May 2024
Update - 13th May 2024
​
I (50 M) just learned my spouse (47 F) was unfaithful years ago in marriage. She came clean from guilt. Where do I go from here?
​
This will be quite a lengthy read because I'm laying out everything to get honest opinions with all the context. There's a TLDR at the end for those who'd rather skip the backstory. I know that most people go incognito with a throwaway account for this kind of post. But I wanted this to be authentic, using my real account. I didn't want anyone to think this was disingenuous. If we know each other in real life or you find me on my other socials, let's keep our chats here or in PMs. I don't want anyone harassing anybody, and I have a sixteen-year-old daughter who has been spared this drama so far.
I tied the knot shortly after high school, and let's just say, if my marriage were a collegiate course, it would be "F*** Up - 101." It was a masterclass in what not to do, featuring every red flag in the book. I was fresh-faced and barely off on my life journey, thinking I'd hit the jackpot. I'd assumed I'd accomplished what my parents did, that being the poster couple for marital bliss. I was so naive, always giving the benefit of the doubt. Meanwhile, my then-wife, fresh from escaping her parental fortress of solitude, went bat s*** crazy, deciding that 'living life to the fullest' didn't include me in the picture.
Before I knew it, I was Mr. Mom with our toddler while she was trapped underneath a few individuals, making up for lost time. After finally catching her in the act, I filed for a divorce and braced for the impact. Divorcing in '97 in the heart of the bible belt was not favorable towards the husband back then. What followed was straight out of a horror movie. I paid my attorney five thousand dollars to watch her take everything from my guitars and video games. She even claimed keepsakes from a departed relative, and the judge seemed happy to grant her every wish. Not only did I bid farewell to everything I owned, but my time with my son got slashed to a mere Wednesday afternoon and alternating weekends.
My faith in women was broken. I went on a few dates here and there but mostly kept it to casual encounters and dinners. I never let anyone get too close. But, in early 1999, at a friend's birthday party, I met a woman whose marriage had crashed harder than mine. She'd had a stillbirth six months into her pregnancy, and her husband dared to bring his girlfriend to the funeral. She was heartbroken, to say the least, to learn about her husband's affair and the end of her marriage on the day they laid her daughter to rest. We sat on a couch that night, swapping tales of romantic ruin. She was clever, and to me, that is an instant connection. It's rare for me to find someone who makes me laugh instead of vice versa. As I headed home, I couldn't shake her from my thoughts, kicking myself for not asking for her number.
The next, my phone rang, and it was her! She'd gotten my phone number from someone we both knew and asked: "Would you like to get food sometime?" I said, "Now sounds great!" So, I drove to her grandmother's house, and off we went on what turned out to be what I still consider the perfect date. Now, I get it; we were both lonely and had our hearts broken, but trust me, this was no spark; it was an inferno. And believe it or not, we've been inseparable since that day. We have not spent a night apart. That was twenty-five years ago, with us marrying a year after our meeting. Go ahead and facepalm, I know how it sounds, but it's hard to put the connection between us into words. Even I'm still shaking my head in disbelief.
Our families adored the two of us together. I was certain I had found my soulmate, if you believe in that, and I was certain she felt the same. We enjoyed each other's company, and our lives meshed perfectly. As with life, however, it finds those moments of bliss to take a giant s*** on you. In 2006, I began feeling ill; eating resulted in violent illness, which I initially thought was a virus. But after a week with no improvement, it was clear this was something else. I was admitted to the local hospital and underwent numerous tests. When I was first admitted, I weighed 222 pounds at a height of 6'2". Within a year, I had dropped to 146 pounds, and my condition dumbfounded the doctors. My health was deteriorating rapidly. Throughout the ordeal, she never left my side, her hand in mine, begging me not to leave her.
In late 2007, a last-ditch effort sent me to the Cleveland Clinic, where a young doctor rushed me into surgery. When I awoke three hours later, she was there, hand in mine, with a smile. It was a success; I was cured. While I'll spare you the details, it involved my colon. Finally, I could eat and move without agony. My life resumed, and we were happy again. The following year, she received a lucrative job offer in her field, earning more than I did. That didn't bother me at all; she worked hard, and she'd earned it.
After her miscarriage, my wife was unable to conceive. We had been trying since 2000 and eventually came to terms with the fact that it might not happen. In 2010, we got a call from the state of Minnesota about a two-year-old girl who had been taken from her mother due to drug-related charges. They asked if we would consider adopting her because the mother had requested she be placed with family members before her parental rights were terminated. My wife and I drove for 30 hours to meet her, and after a few months, we adopted her and welcomed her into our home.
Our daughter faced social challenges and had endured abuse, leading the two of us to decide one of us needed to be at home with her. As mentioned, my wife earned significantly more, so it made sense for me to be the one to step into the role. I dedicated each day to supporting our daughter's mental health. While I played a part, I can't claim all the credit for this; her preschool, kindergarten, and therapist were instrumental in her learning to socialize and trust again. Eventually, I took up freelance journalism, so I was home when our little one finished her school day.
Our evenings were family time, and we took small trips on weekends. It was in 2017 that my wife returned from work one evening, deeply shaken by what she told me was a workplace argument. Despite my attempts to console her, she remained incorrigible. She was declaring her intent to find a new job. She'd never had any issues before, so I was stunned. For days, she was a mess and withdrawn. When I pressed for details, she'd say, "It would only upset you. Let me deal with it."
True to her word, she left for a new company within a week, accepting a 15 percent reduction in pay. I should have questioned it then, but she never gave me cause for concern. Once she began her new role, life returned to normal, and our family happily moved forward. In 2022, I published my first novel with an independent publisher, fulfilling a lifelong dream. I could sense the pride emanating from both my wife and daughter. I had achieved this milestone before my fiftieth birthday, and I couldn't wait to start on my second one.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, this is where my world breaks. In 2023, as I was finishing up my new novel, my twenty-seven-year-old son from my first marriage died suddenly of a heart attack. He had an underlying condition that none of us knew about. I want everyone to understand that when you say, "I couldn't imagine my child dying," you truly can't. There is no pain quite like it. My wife and daughter, who also felt his loss deeply, did their best to support me. But there is no way to deal with such a tragedy. In the months following his death, I immersed myself in my work, striving to complete my second book for him.
On the day I finished it in January, my father passed away after a long battle. Dad had been ill for a long time. You think you can prepare yourself for that, but that's a lie you tell yourself. The loss was hard, and my daughter was instrumental in getting me back on my feet. My second book was released in February, and I tried to smile as I had my release party. At the beginning of April, I started feeling better, writing outlines for my third novel and doing the same things I'd always done with my wife and daughter.
My wife and I have a Wednesday tradition where she picks a random recipe she finds online, and we cook it together. On April 3rd, while making crockpot chicken tacos, I thanked her for everything. She asked why, and I thanked her for everything she'd done to get me through the tough times. I shared a lot of pent-up emotions, telling her I couldn't have managed without her. She started crying, then weeping, and soon she was sobbing uncontrollably. I tried to comfort her with a hug, but she pushed me away. I apologized, not realizing my words would stir such a reaction.
Suddenly, she confesses her infidelity. I laughed, mistaking it for a joke. She grabs my shoulders and then details how, back in 2017, a 28-year-old at her former job started flirting with her, and she reciprocated. She believed it was innocent, yet it persisted. My wife has always feared growing old. Her birthdays were days she dreaded every year. She admitted that the attention from a younger man was exhilarating. She told me that turning 40 had sent her into a tailspin and that she couldn't talk to me about it because I would have just shrugged it off.
He invited her to leave work early and come to his place one day. She couldn't understand why she chose to; maybe it was the thrill. She said she didn't know, but she went and ended up sleeping with him. Afterward, she felt terrible, glaring at her keychain in his driveway because it had a photo of me holding our daughter. She drove home, and that's when she lied about having a workplace argument. She never wanted to return there. It's why she suddenly went somewhere else. She then told me she wanted to tell me but didn't have the fortitude to do it.
I remained silent, just wide-eyed and open-mouthed. She apologized, saying she couldn't live with it any longer. I just shook my head, unable to speak a single word. She offered to leave if that's what I wanted, to attend counseling, or even to beg for my forgiveness. Instead, I picked up my AirPods and phone and walked out. I wandered from six in the evening until almost eleven that night. When I returned, she was on the loveseat, asking if I was ready to talk. I shook my head again, went to my office, where I had a couch, and slept there.
The next day, after our daughter left for school, she asked if I had anything to say. I said yes. I questioned why she brought this up after the worst year of my life. Why couldn't she have kept it to herself until I could somewhat deal with something of this magnitude? She just looked away. I scoffed and told her to go to work and to try not to f*** anyone during her lunch break. That would have been April 4th; those were the last words I said to her until last night.
She had attempted to talk to me several times, but I would just walk past her into my office, trying to focus on my upcoming science fiction comedy book. Writing something funny is challenging when the thought of your spouse rolling around with another man stuck in her consumes your thoughts. A week ago, my daughter asked in the car if everything was okay, and I lied to her, which made me feel sick. Then, last night, my wife came to the office door and asked, "Are we getting a divorce?" I looked at her and replied, "Looks like it." She started crying and closed the door.
I haven't consulted an attorney, and the thought of divorce hadn't crossed my mind until she mentioned it. That's why I wrote this essay. Where do I go from here? How do I start to untangle this mess? I have no desire for therapy. I don't even want to step outside. I'm broken at this moment. The burden of everything has been overwhelming. There's been so much to bear this past year. What do you say to someone who has been by your side through it all, only to tear your heart apart?
Thank you for reading to the end. And for those who are part of the TLDR crowd, my wife decided to go home with a younger man, felt guilty about it, and quit her job. She waited eight years to tell me about it.
​
Comments
​
Foreign_Flight4566
Jesus, man. I’m sorry for your loss(es). Timing of your wife’s confession is mind-boggling. Realistically, this is above Reddit’s pay grade. I’ll recommend therapy, but probably above a therapist’s pay grade too. I know you also state you don’t want therapy, but that sounds like the exact time you need it. They can offer grief support, which is what you’ll need as you tease out emotions from losing loved ones and a very nasty betrayal. I hope you find happiness in whatever you decide.

OOP: I contemplated several different subs and I have no idea why I chose this one. I should have clarified above that after my son died, local hospice house around here has grief counseling, which I used extensively. I don't want to do couple's counseling is what I should have said. My apologies. I posted this to try and get outside perspectives from people, and maybe give me a different angle to look at this.

​
cakivalue
Not couples counseling but individual therapy for you. You need the support right now after all you've been through and an unbiased third party to support you through the pain and demise of your marriage, next steps and co-parenting.
My unprofessional angle here is that this is most likely over. Had she come clean in 2017 you would have been able to make a choice regarding forgiveness, couples therapy etc. she held on to this secret for seven years and then dumped it on you at the worst time in order to ease her own guilty feelings. Especially knowing that you had both been hurt in this exact way in the past is especially jaw dropping that she did all of this.
​
Magnum_tv
Fuck man! This is...just fuck...
Firstly, I'm so sorry for your losses. I extend my sincere condolences.
You need grief counseling. This would help you put things in perspective. At least you'll be able to eventually make decisions based on logic than just pure emotion.
Secondly, your spouse. She not only betrayed you, she lied to you for eight years. EIGHT YEARS! That's fucking scary, because now you're gonna be wondering what else she can be hiding.
Now I'm an asshole, I'd be out of that marriage tomorrow. You however, have truly built a life with her. If, and I mean a big fucking IF, she's regretful, you should divorce, it would be less stress in your life having to be her warden. Because the trust is gone.
If, she's remorseful, you could try to work it out. But she needs to put in the work. Not you, HER. Because she's the one who fucked up.
Remember, regret and remorse are two completely different things.
I'd recommend you still talk to a lawyer before making a final decision. The more informed you are, the better choice you'll be able to make.
I'm truly sorry you're dealing with this, best of luck brother.

OOP: Thank you so much. This is another thing in the back of my mind what else has she been dishonest about?

​
​
Update - 3 days later
​
UPDATE - After spending Saturday morning formulating and reading the staggering number of comments, I've made my decision. Some said my issue was far beyond the Reddit pay grade – they were mistaken. I deliberately avoided turning to family and friends, seeking a view from an outside perspective, and I think it worked. My gratitude goes out to all who sent private messages and responded; your thoughts on the matter helped me come to my conclusion.
On Saturday evening, I approached my wife to apologize for the silent treatment, I told her I wasn't attempting to punish her and acknowledged that it was childish. I told her if I would have opened my mouth, I would have been overly harsh and ruined any opportunity of a civil conversation. I promised we'd discuss it the next day.
On Sunday evening, I let it all out; I didn't cry, or raise my voice. I asked the man's name, which she provided. I asked her if the man was married when she betrayed us, and she confirmed he was. That hit me hard, because she knew he was also with someone. I asked if he was still married. She told me she had no clue, she hadn't seen him since the day she left for her new job. I told her I hoped they were, because I was going to make sure she knew. If my life had to be ripped apart, so would his. I thought that would get a rise out of her, it didn't. She just nodded.
I expressed my doubts about the affair being an isolated event, echoing the comments of several others. She maintained it was a one-off and was the sole reason she left her job. I explained that after eight years of this lie, it's natural for me to question anything she said. I then made it clear that if there's more to the story than what she's admitted, now is the time to be as open and honest as possible.
Any further revelations would be a deal-breaker for me, and there would be no excuse that could rectify it. She pleaded it was a singular occurrence and that she's been wanting to confess since it happened. I asked if he had reached out after her departure, she denied any contact. I responded that it didn't surprise me, assuming he got what he wanted and moved on to another person at work. It was the only cheap shot I threw.
I requested that she leave the house for a few weeks, I wasn't telling her it was over, but I wanted to be away from her. I suggested she could stay with her sister, her mother, or even rent a place—anywhere but here. I also informed her of my intention to discuss the situation with our daughter, who is 16 by the way, some people have commented believing her to be quite younger. To my surprise, my wife revealed she had already told her about a week ago, which I was completely unaware of. She inquired about the tone of the house, and my anger, and my wife confessed to her. Before my daughter went to bed, I asked her, and indeed, my wife had admitted that she had been unfaithful. I wanted to know why she hadn't come to me about it, and she told me she didn't want to make me feel worse.
I've decided to keep her home from school tomorrow to have a heart-to-heart about everything. It's important for me to understand her feelings and to emphasize that harboring hatred towards her mother isn't the goal. Her mother has always been loving and supportive. It's natural for her to feel angry, and that's okay, but picking sides isn't beneficial – nobody wins in this situation. It's a tough reality I'm coming to terms with, everyone loses. Tomorrow, I plan to contact three local therapists and reach out to the grief counselor I met after my son's death. I'm not interested in couple's therapy; I believe individual therapy is what I need, and since it's highly recommended, I'm going to pursue it.
My daughter's school year is ending soon, and I'm looking forward to spending quality time with her. I prefer to keep our plans private from family and friends; it's our personal matter. Someone advised me about controlling the narrative, but the only thing that matters now is that my daughter knows the truth. I need some time to come to terms if this relationship is salvageable. I need this time for self-reflection and to assess the situation. When she asked if we were going the route of legal separation, I clarified that it wasn't the case. I told her that when I look at her it brings up feelings of anger, which isn't healthy.
To my astonishment, she consented to everything. She doesn't want our relationship to end, and I reminded her that her actions with him forfeited that choice to me. She mentioned my wedding ring as a sign that she still matters to me, and I assured her that she does. I proposed we conclude things there. As I walked by, I touched her shoulder; she nodded in agreement. Later, she phoned her sister and made plans to stay with her the following evening after work.
TLDR. I want to express my gratitude to everyone for their support and guidance, except to the asshole that just wanted to pick a fight. I apologize for the length of my initial post; I believed the full context was necessary to help you understand why I'm so conflicted. To those who reached out privately and know my identity, your discretion is deeply appreciated. I'm looking forward to spending the next month with my daughter and starting therapy. Your messages are welcome, and I'll do my best to respond to each one. I'll provide another update in the future when I've made a decision about our next steps or if it's time to move on. I am not rushing into this decision lightly.
​
Comments
​
Bolt_McHardsteel
Clearly you have given this a lot of thought, and come up with a way forward that is best for you. Good luck in therapy, get yourself mentally right, there is no rush to make a final decision on your marriage. Take good care of your daughter! She seems like an amazing kid. Hang in there.
​
I am not the OOP. Please do not harass the OOP.
Please remember the No Brigading Rule and to be civil in the comments

Economic Abuse of Palestinian Mothers in Israel: The Case of Participants in a Welfare-to-Work Program
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maha-Sabbah-Karkabi/publication/354109345_Economic_Abuse_of_Palestinian_Mothers_in_Israel_The_Case_of_Participants_in_a_Welfare-to-Work_Program/links/63b7ef5e097c7832ca9665f4/Economic-Abuse-of-Palestinian-Mothers-in-Israel-The-Case-of-Participants-in-a-Welfare-to-Work-Program.pdf
Assistance programs for Israeli Palestinian mothers are insufficient to extract them from economic abuse due to not seeing economic abuse as a real facet of domestic violence. Even the US is barely now putting together how economic violence is violence. Both Israeli and Palestinian sides show toxic masculinity to women in terms of economic abuse. Palestinian women are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
The findings also suggest that the assistance the women receive from the welfare-to-work program has been insufficient to extricate them from their abusive situation.
Non-Jewish Palestinian mothers living in Israel factually see less socioeconomic, civil and political rights. In the US this is unconstitutional, but there are some signs this is becoming normalized in the US as well.
. Israel is considered an “ethnic democracy” that grants most rights to its Jewish citizens, while non-Jewish citizens are less able to exercise their socioeconomic, civil, and political rights (Smooha, 2017).
Palestinian mothers suffer economic abuse in the private sphere, inflicted by husbands and ex-husbands and the public sphere inflicted by the labor market and the norms set by the private sphere, such as not punishing the interruption of gainful employment by abusers.
Our research questions are twofold. First, do Palestinian mothers suffer economic abuse in the private sphere, inflicted by their husbands or ex-husbands, and in the public sphere, inflicted by the labor market and welfare laws? If so, how do the women describe the forms of economic abuse? Second, how do women who have suffered economic abuse—whether they have left the abusive situation or remain in it— perceive their participation in the WTW program as a platform for economic independence and as a source of resilience?
Women see extreme social criticism when they are the breadwinner in Palestine or when Palestinian, even in Israel.
Therefore, the breadwinner norm is still highly dominant and the woman is still expected to be the primary caregiver in the family. Women bear the burden of proving that they can combine their dual family and employment roles successfully in the face of social criticism and sanctions by their husbands and families (Sabbah-Karkabi, 2020).
The willful enforcement of the dependence of women by men purposefully reduces their bargaining power which therefore impairs their ability to exercise their rights. This should be a screaming red alert when paired with the fact that these non-Jewish women have to just accept they’re not treated as worthy of the same quality of law as Jewish women. This should show how domestic violence is used to keep inequality in place. This can especially be seen by non-Jewish women not being seen as worthy of protection from sexual harassment and not seeing the same enforcement, often to keep them down and unequal. This shows how war creates injustice, injustice creates incongruent boundaries upon exchange values, and incongruent boundaries upon exchange values ultimately cause economic collapse. Essentially, the effects of war create economic collapse, no matter where they are happening in the globe. Nobody is immune.
claims that the dependence of women on local employment and the lack of state supervision, especially in the private sector, reduce their bargaining power and significantly impair their ability to exercise their rights to receive fair wages, overtime wages, and protection from sexual harassment.
Male abusers control the finances. As part of severe abuse, they may force women to beg for money. They may put them on a strict allowance or exclude them from financial decision making; worst of all they may deliberately intercept the completion of their education, forbidding formal or informal employment.
Olufunmilayo (2008) identified partner economic abuse against women as situations in which a male abuser maintains control of the family finances, deciding on his own how the money is to be spent or saved and thereby reducing the woman to complete dependence on him to meet her personal financial needs. It may involve putting women on a strict allowance or forcing them to beg for money. It may also be expressed by excluding women from financial decision making, preventing them from commencing or completing education, forbidding their formal or informal employment (Meler, 2016; Durusay, 2013), or controlling their access to dwelling land resources (Abou-Tabickh, 2010; Anitha, 2019).
Even if the woman earns more, it is seen as less important than the male’s earnings, even if they are less. This mirrors how justice is strong for the Jews but not for the Palestinians in Israeli territory. This ironically hegemonizes and makes politically valid the use of domestic violence to enforce inequality through dependence. The irony is this then goes and effects Jewish women, who think that the apparatus that keeps Palestinian women down is protecting them, when in fact in the dynamics of the courts and the private lives of Palestinian women, their own unjust treatment among men is being hegemonized, creating the very losses that Jewish women often complain about.
To date, masculinity continues to be associated with the breadwinning role, and the husband’s economic contribution to the household tends to be seen as having greater value than the wife’s, regardless of how much the woman actually earns (Deutsch et al., 2003). The wife’s salary is seen as supplementary income or pin money earmarked for specific purposes and treated as less important than the husband’s wages, even when it is essential for keeping the family out of poverty (Zelizer, 1994)
A complete inability to even see economic violence as real violence barely being transcended recently in the US makes it difficult for women to complain to the authorities who don’t even see the concept in many nations across the world. Indeed, it is seen as “healthy” and treating those undergoing domestic violence as given the same opportunities as someone not undergoing them and therefore the one not going them is more worthy has been normalized across the world as “more fit” simply due to being willing to inflict unsustainable use of force to win a short-term comparison.
In Israel, like in many other countries, the legal system has mainly recognized physical and emotional abuse but has not incorporated a definition of violence that includes economic abuse (Krigel & Benjamin, 2020; Peled & Krigel, 2016), making it difficult for women to complain to authorities. Indeed, the institutional context tends to silence economic abuse, viewing it as part of men’s traditional devotion to the “good provider role.” Thus, the husband’s control of the family finances is mainly perceived as natural and inappropriate for judicial intervention, and how economic resources are handled in the household is considered part of the private sphere of the intimate economic relationship within the family.
Where comprehension doesn’t exist, enforcement cannot exist. The complaints cannot be taken when they can’t be comprehended and then the women are exposed to even more abuse as a result of reporting to someone who didn’t understand how economic violence is in fact violence.
In the absence of formal recognition, complaints to authorities are disregarded and women are often exposed to even more abuse as a result (Krigel & Benjamin, 2020; Renan-Barzilay, 2017).
Gains in financial resources put women at greater risk of abuse as they exit poverty. They may feel they are being punished for doing well in particular, having necessary resources cut short before they have the savings to smoothly transition. Evidence from their abusers show this on purpose, showing how patriarchy in poverty is its own worst enemy.
Moreover, women may be vulnerable to abuse not only when their resources are low and their economic dependence high, but also while in the process of gaining resources, when adequate employment moves them to greater economic self-sufficiency. Indeed, sometimes gains in financial resources put women at greater risk of other forms of abuse at the hands of their intimate partner or ex-partner (Sanders, 2015).
Fear of loss can inform a possessiveness, but also a fear of not being needed. Isolation and literally being unable to do even stereotypically feminine things such as shopping and socializing can be seen in Palestinian mothers residing in Israel and their private lives.
Several interviewees said their husbands strongly restrict their entrance into the labor market regardless of the geographical location of the job. For example, Naram, a divorced mother of one, describes the power relations and control that framed the abuse she experienced: Before the divorce my husband would go out to work and I was forbidden [to work]. Because he prevented me. He kept making excuses and it seemed like it wasn’t right for me to work. It was more appropriate for me to stay home. He kept refusing to let me work. I would beg him to go to work. Not because of the money but … to enrich myself, to [do] something. But no, he always locked me in the house. The truth is, he shut me down and even … everything he would do, even going shopping was not … he would do everything. Both shopping and working and earning a living
Violation of women’s efforts to integrate into the labor market purposefully lowers their financial independence and overall limits the total financial wellbeing available to everyone, putting agencies at risk of being commodified and creating pockets of irrationality that result from that
. Some jobs require an advanced level of education, training, and social networking that the women lack. Certain jobs are prohibited by male relatives and gender norms. This form of economic abuse, involving violation of women’s efforts to integrate into the labor market, impedes their development and has implications for their ability to achieve financial independence (e.g., Alexander, 2011).
Gender penalties are normalized in this area whereas in the US things like “gender based firing” are theoretically completely illegal
The revealed patriarchal control of the Palestinian woman’s employment sphere, as a form of economic abuse, is in line with Abu-Rabia-Queder’s (2017) claim that binary and dichotomous gender division preserves the patriarchal structure through the compartmentalization of women in the domestic space. As a result, women are subject to gender penalties that prevent the imbalance of accepted gender divisions.
Money that isn’t used in certain gender patterns is attempted to be taken away. This has been seen, just like the Ukrainian issues of extreme police corruption including struggles with police as being literally an arm of human trafficking in post-USSR countries is seen to have begun testing and infiltration the United States. Nowhere is immune.
If Manar says the money is intended for her own expenses, she is subject to condemnation. Her economic abuse is manifested in the fact that money can be used in certain gender patterns. Daniya, a married mother of two, says her husband’s salary is deposited in a bank account from which they can take money when they need something. Nonetheless, she is unable to withdraw funds directly from that account, but only through her husband’s mediation, and her husband is not always willing to allow her access: Q: Do you also hear “no”? That he cannot give you money? It happens? A: Yes, a lot. Q: So? A: It’s hard, but what can I do? Asked for an example, she says: “I asked [for money] for my daughter’s private math tutor and he declined.”
It is normalized for men to deprive women out of money in these communities, however, they are deprived of legal power to push sufficiently back. This comes to affect everyone in moments of vanity where people think it is just isolated to one population.
Our participants’ narratives describe just such a situation, one which allows men to deprive them of money and to use patriarchal relations to gain more power over them.
Economic abuse often becomes harsher post divorce, showing revenge or punishment for divorcing someone. Especially in the misogynist community that is extremely high in narcissism, revenge behaviors are mostly seen on people with narcissism.
” Shirin’s description of the economic abuse she experiences from the father of her children supports Krigel and Benjamin’s (2020) claim that economic abuse often becomes harsher postdivorce when abusive partners seek revenge or punishment.
Moving away and reducing dependence is key
Laila’s statements point to the implications of the program for empowering women on their path to economic independence so that they can reduce dependence on abusive partners or move away from them.
Putting women on an allowance, forcing her to beg, excluding her from financial decision making, restricting, blocking or interfering with employment all follow the same pattern
Specifically, our findings uncover situations in which the male abuser maintains control of family finances, while the female has little say in how income is used, making her dependent on him for funds with which to meet their children’s needs, her personal needs, and run the household. According to the narratives, such control is manifested in various forms: putting the woman on a strict allowance, forcing her to beg for money, excluding her from financial decision making, depriving her of child support, and restricting or blocking her formal or informal employment.
Preventing the gain, use and maintenance of resources is meant to specifically target a woman’s ability to support herself even if she can without this active domestic violence meant to prevent her gaining, using and maintaining resource. It is an active disabling over another human for means of enforcing inequality, exactly what Palestinians complain about in the Jewish community in their treatment in the courts.
Others ignore their financial responsibilities, leaving the women (particularly ex-wives) without means to meet their family needs. These everyday practices of economic abuse affect the women’s ability to obtain, use, and maintain economic resources, which may threaten their financial security and their potential to support themselves and keep them dependent upon an abusive partner (see, e.g., Krigel & Benjamin, 2020).
The male partner serves as the gatekeeper of the patriarchy just as a Jewish judge serves as the gatekeeper of rights for Palestinian women in Israel. Similar to how men see more justice in the US areas that are slowly dilapidating, Jews see more justice in Israeli courts. The same dynamics are replicated in the assignment of money in privately abusive intra-Palestinian private lives for these mothers.
Through financial restrictions, the male partner or ex-partner serves as a gatekeeper of the patriarchy through gender power relations and family decision making processes, blocking the woman’s ability to achieve economic autonomy and integrate into the labor market.
Recognition has been helpful, but it has not extricated them from economic abuse. This is due to multiple marginalizations, especially when at least two (Palestinian/being a woman) have two separate “police” forces committing the same error of principle but not realizing it because they are enforced on separate categories.
The protection and assistance the women receive from social services, particularly their integration into the Woman of Valor program, has been helpful, but it has been insufficient to extricate them from the economic abuse. The women’s multiple marginalizations stem from structural relationships between gender, ethnonationality, religion, and status.
Without enough protection mechanisms which are often a product of accumulation of many types, these women are unprotected from men’s controlling practices that are not just to do with the police, but also to do with how the assignment of justice is replicated in private relationships with these women in the same ways Jewish judges treat Palestinians in the Israeli court system.
However, although the interviewees find the program supportive, without significant state protection mechanisms the women are ultimately left to their own fates, unprotected from men’s controlling practices (see also Krigel & Benjamin, 2020; Renan-Barzilay, 2017).

Prices FIRM - CashApp/Venmo/PayPal Friends & Family
Disney/Marvel titles are split codes. Only redeem what you pay for. Thank you.
10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) (Vudu/4K) (iTunes/4K) $5.50
21 Bridges (2019) (iTunes/4K) $3
355, The (2022) (MA/HD) $5.50
47 Ronin (2013) (MA/4K) $5.25 (iTunes/4K) $3.75 (MA/HD) $3.50
65 (2023) (MA/4K) $6.75 (MA/HD) $5
A Cure for Wellness (2017) (MA/HD) $4
A Dog's Purpose (2017) (MA/HD) $3.50 (iTunes/HD) $2.50
A Dog's Way Home (2019) (MA/HD) $4.25
A Man Called Otto (2022) (MA/HD) $5.75
A Quiet Place Part II (2020) (Vudu/4K) $6.25 (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $5
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012) (MA/HD) $3.75
Action Point (2018) (Vudu/HD) $3.25 (iTunes/4K) $1.50
Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949) (MA/HD) $5.50
After (2019) (MA/HD) $5.50
After Earth (2013) (MA/HD) $2.25
Aladdin (1992) (MA/4K) $6.75 (MA/HD) $3.25 (GP/HD) $2.25
Aladdin (2019) (MA/4K) $5.75 (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $4.25 (GP/HD) $1.50
Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) (MA/HD) $5 (GP/HD) $3.50
Alien (1979) (MA/4K) $7 (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $5
Alien 3 (1992) (MA/HD) $5.50
Alien Collection 1-6 (MA/HD) $19.50
Alita: Battle Angel (2019) (MA/4K) $5 (MA/HD) $3.25
All is Lost (2013) (Vudu/HD) $3.75
Allied (2016) (iTunes/4K) $4.50 (Vudu/HD) $3.50
Almost Christmas (2016) (MA/HD) (iTunes/HD) $5
Alpha (2018) (MA/HD) $3.50
Ambulance (2022) (MA/HD) $3.75
American Beauty (1999) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $6
Amsterdam (2022) (MA/HD) $4.75
Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013) (Vudu/HD) $2.75 (iTunes/HD) $2
Angel Heart (1987) (Vudu/4K) $5.75
Angry Birds Movie (2016) (MA/HD) $3.50
Annabelle (2014) (MA/4K) $6.50
Annie (1982) (MA/4K) $6.25 (MA/HD) $5.50
Annie (2014) (MA/HD) $2.50
Annihilation (2018) (Vudu/HD) $2.50
Antebellum (2020) (Vudu/4K) (iTunes/4K) $5
Antlers (2021) (MA/HD) $4.75 (GP/HD) $3.50
Apollo 13 (1995) (MA/4K) $5.75 (iTunes/4K) $5.50 (MA/HD) $4.50
Aristocats (1970) (MA/HD) $6.50
Arrival (2016) (Vudu/4K) $6.75 (Vudu/HD) $2 (iTunes/4K) $4
Art of Self-Defense (2019) (MA/HD) $5.75
Assassination Nation (2018) (MA/HD) $4.25
Assassin's Creed (2016) (MA/4K) $6 (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $2
Asteroid City (2023) (MA/HD) $6
Avengers (2012) (MA/HD) $6 (GP/HD) $3.50
Avengers Collection 1-4 (MA/HD) $20 (GP/HD) $7.75
Avengers: Infinity War (2018) (MA/4K) $5.25 (MA/HD) $3.75 (GP/HD) $1
Babylon (2022) (Vudu/4K) (iTunes/4K) $7.50
Bad Boys Collection 1-3 (MA/HD) $12
Barbie (2023) (MA/HD) $5.50
Batman, The (2022) (MA/4K) $4
Beast (2022) (MA/HD) $5.50
Beauty and the Beast (2017) (MA/4K) $6.75 (MA/HD) $3.25 (GP/HD) $2
Beirut (2018) (MA/HD) $4
Belly (1998) (Vudu/4K) $3.75
Better Off Dead (1985) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $6.50
BFG, The (2016) (MA/HD) $4.75 (GP/HD) $3
Big George Foreman (2023) (MA/HD) $5.50
Billy Elliot (2000) (iTunes/HD) Ports to MA $4.25
Birdman (2014) (MA/HD) $4.50
Birds of Prey (2020) (MA/4K) $3 (MA/HD) $1.50
Black Adam (2022) (MA/4K) $6.50
Black Adam (2022) (MA/HD) $2.50
Black Phone, The (2021) (MA/HD) $4.50
Blacklight (2022) (MA/HD) $3.50
Blue Beetle (2023) (MA/HD) $6.50
Bond: Skyfall (2012) (Vudu/HD) $1
Bonnie & Clyde: Mini-Series (2013) (Vudu/HD) $8
Book Club (2018) (iTunes/4K) $1
Book Club: The Next Chapter (2023) (MA/HD) $5.25
Booksmart (2019) (MA/HD) $5.25
Boss Baby (2017) & Family Business (2021) (MA/HD) $5.50
Bourne Collection 1-5 (MA/4K) $25 (iTunes/4K) $18 (MA/HD) $14
Bourne Identity (2002) (MA/4K) $5.25 (iTunes/4K) $4.50 (MA/HD) $3
Bourne Legacy (2012) (MA/4K) $5.25 (iTunes/4K) $4.50 (MA/HD) $3
Bourne Supremacy (2004) (MA/4K) $5 (iTunes/4K) $4.50 (MA/HD) $3
Bourne Ultimatum (2007) (iTunes/4K) $5.50 (MA/HD) $4
Boxtrolls, The (2014) (iTunes/HD) $4.50
Boy, The (2016) (iTunes/HD) Ports to MA $3.50
Brave (2012) (MA/4K) $8 (iTunes/4K) $6.25 (GP/HD) $4.50
Braveheart (1995) (Vudu/4K) (iTunes/4K) $6 (Vudu/HD) $4.50
Bridget Jones's Diary (2001) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $4
Bring It On: Worldwide #Cheersmack (2017) (MA/HD) $3.25 (iTunes/HD) $1.25
Bullet Train (2022) (MA/4K) $5 (MA/HD) $3.50
Bumblebee (2018) (Vudu/4K) $4.25 (Vudu/HD) $1.75 (iTunes/4K) $2
Bye Bye Man (Unrated) (2017) (iTunes/HD) Ports to MA $2.50
Calvary (2014) (MA/HD) $5
Captain Marvel (2019) (MA/4K) $4.75 (iTunes/4K) $4 (GP/HD) $1.75
Casino (1995) (MA/4K) $6.50
Casino Royale (2006) (Vudu/HD) $6.25
Casper (1995) (MA/HD) (iTunes/HD) $5.75
Cats (2019) (MA/HD) $4.25
Change-Up, The (2011) (Unrated) (2011) (iTunes/HD) Ports to MA $5.50
Chaplin (1992) (Vudu/HD) $5
Chappie (2015) (MA/HD) $3.75
Chasing Mavericks (2012) (MA/HD) $5
Chicago (2002) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $4.50
Choice, The (2016) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $3
Chronicle (2012) (MA/HD) $4
Chronicles of Riddick (Unrated Director's Cut) (2004) (iTunes/HD) Ports to MA $5
Cinderella (2015) (MA/4K) $7.50 (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $5.50 (GP/HD) $2.50
Citizenfour (2014) (Vudu/HD) $5.50
City of Lies (2018) (iTunes/HD) $5.50
Clerks III (2022) (Vudu/4K) (iTunes/4K) $5.50
Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs 2 (2013) (MA/HD) $3.50
Cloverfield (2008) (Vudu/4K) (iTunes/4K) $5
Coal Miner's Daughter (1980) (MA/HD) (iTunes/HD) $5.50
Cocaine Bear (2023) (MA/4K) $7 (MA/HD) $5.50
Coco (2017) (MA/4K) $6.50 (iTunes/4K) $5.25 (GP/HD) $2.25
Cold Pursuit (2019) (Vudu/4K) $6.50 (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $3
Coming to America (1988) (Vudu/4K) $4.25 (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $3.50
Conversation, The (1974) (Vudu/HD) $5
Courier, The (2021) (Vudu/4K) $4.75 (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $4.25
Cowboys and Aliens (2011) (iTunes/HD) Ports to MA $2.50
Crawl (2019) (Vudu/HD) $3 (iTunes/4K) $3.75
Creed III (2023) (Vudu/4K) $5.50 (Vudu/HD) $3
Croods (2013) & A New Age (2020) (MA/HD) $6.25
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2001) (MA/4K) $6.50
Darkest Hour (2017) (MA/HD) $3
DC League of Super-Pets (2022) (MA/4K) $6.50
Dear Evan Hansen (2021) (MA/HD) $3.75
Death on the Nile (2022) (MA/HD) $5 (GP/HD) $3.50
Deepwater Horizon (2016) (Vudu/4K) $4.75 (Vudu/HD) $2.50
Dentist Collection 1-2 (1996-1998) (Vudu/HD) $5
Despicable Me Collection 1-3 (MA/HD) $12.50
Detective Knight: Redemption (2022) (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $5.75
Devotion (2022) (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $5.75
Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days (2012) (MA/HD) $3.75
Die Hard 1-5 (MA/HD) $15
Do the Right Thing (1989) (MA/4K) $5.75
Doctor Strange (2016) (MA/4K) $6.50 (iTunes/4K) $4 (MA/HD) $3.50 (GP/HD) $1.75
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (MA/HD) $2.75 (GP/HD) $2
Downton Abbey: A New Era (2022) (MA/HD) $3.75
Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who (2008) (MA/HD) $5.50
Dr. Seuss' The Lorax (2012) (MA/HD) $3 (iTunes/HD) $2.25
Dragonheart Collection 1-5 (MA/HD) $14
Dumb Money (2023) (MA/HD) $5.50
Dumbo (2019) (MA/4K) $6 (iTunes/4K) $5.25 (GP/HD) $2.50
Dying of the Light (2014) (Vudu/HD) $2.25
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) (MA/4K) $5.75 (iTunes/4K) $5 (MA/HD) $3
Early Man (2018) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/4K) $4.75
Edward Scissorhands (1990) (MA/HD) $3
El Chicano (2019) (MA/HD) $4.75
Elemental (2023) (MA/HD) $5.75
Elvis (2022) (MA/4K) $5
Elysium (2013) (MA/4K) $7 (MA/HD) $3
Encanto (2021) (MA/4K) $6.50 (MA/HD) (GP/HD) $3.50
Ender's Game (2013) (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $3.25
Enough Said (2013) (MA/HD) $3
Equalizer (2014) (MA/4K) $7.50 (MA/HD) $4
Equalizer 2 (2018) (MA/4K) $6.50 (MA/HD) $4
Equalizer 3 (2023) (MA/HD) $5.75
Escape Plan: The Extractors (2019) (Vudu/HD) $3.25
Everest (2015) (MA/4K) $6 (MA/HD) $3 (iTunes/4K) $4
Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022) (Vudu/4K) $6.50
Evil Dead Rise (2023) (MA/4K) $7 (MA/HD) $4.50
Ex Machina (2015) (Vudu/4K) $6.25 (Vudu/HD) $3
Exorcist: Believer (2023) (MA/4K) $7.50 (MA/HD) $6.50
Expendables 1-3 (Vudu/4K) $15 (Vudu/HD) $4.50
Fabelmans (2022) (MA/HD) $5.50
Fall (2022) (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $6
Far from the Madding Crowd (2015) (MA/HD) $5.50
Fast & Furious Collection 1-10 (MA/4K) $28
Fast & Furious Collection 1-8 (MA/4K) $23 1-9 (MA/HD) $10
Fast X (2023) (MA/4K) $6.50 (MA/HD) $5.50
Father Stu (2022) (MA/HD) $5.25
Fatherhood (2021) (MA/HD) $3.50
Fifth Element (1997) (MA/HD) $5.50
Fifty Shades of Grey 3-Movie + Unrated (MA/HD) $9.75
Finding Dory (2016) (MA/4K) $5.75 (iTunes/4K) $3.50 (GP/HD) $1.25
Finding Nemo (2003) (MA/4K) $6.75 (iTunes/4K) $5.25 (GP/HD) $3
Finest Hours, The (2016) (MA/HD) $6.25 (GP/HD) $3.75
Five Nights at Freddy's (2023) (MA/HD) $6.50
Flash, The (2023) (MA/4K) $6.75 (MA/HD) $5
Flight (2012) (Vudu/HD) $3.25 (iTunes/HD) $3
Flushed Away (2006) (MA/HD) $6.50
Ford v Ferrari (2019) (MA/HD) $4.50
Fox and the Hound 2, The (2006) (MA/HD) $3.75 (GP/HD) $2.75
Free Guy (2021) (MA/4K) $7.25 (MA/HD) $4.50 (GP/HD) $3
Fright Night (1985) (MA/4K) $5.75
Frozen 2 (2019) (MA/4K) $4.50 (MA/HD) $4 (GP/HD) $1.75
Frozen Sing-Along Edition (2014) (MA/HD) $3.50 (GP/HD) $1.50
Gattaca (1997) (MA/4K) $6.25
Get on Up (2014) (iTunes/HD) Ports to MA $4.50
Get Out (2017) (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $3.50
Ghost In The Shell (2017) (Vudu/4K) $6.25 (Vudu/HD) $2.25 (iTunes/4K) $2.75
Ghostbusters II (1989) (MA/HD) $3.50
Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) (MA/HD) $3.50
Girl In The Spider's Web (2018) (MA/HD) $4
Girls Trip (2017) (MA/HD) $1.50 (iTunes/HD) $1
Godfather (1972) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/4K) $4.75
Godfather Trilogy (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $14
Gone Baby Gone (2007) (Vudu/HD) $6
Good Boys (2019) (MA/HD) $3.75
Good Dinosaur (2015) (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $5.25 (GP/HD) $2.75
Good Will Hunting (1997) (Vudu/HD) $5
Gotti (2018) (Vudu/HD) $3
Gran Turismo (2023) (MA/HD) $5
Grease (1978), 2 (1982), Live! (2016) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $14
Great Wall (2016) (MA/HD) $2.50
Greatest Showman (2017) (MA/HD) $2.25
Green Book (2018) (MA/HD) $4.75
Hacksaw Ridge (2016) (Vudu/4K) $4.25 (iTunes/4K) $3.50 (Vudu/HD) $2.25
Hail, Caesar! (2016) (MA/HD) $3.50 (iTunes/HD) $2
Halloween (2018) (MA/4K) $6 (MA/HD) $3.75
Halloween Kills (2021) (MA/4K) $6 (MA/HD) $4
Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $2.50
Happy Death Day (2017) (MA/4K) $6.50 (MA/HD) $5.50
Hate U Give (2018) (MA/4K) $7.50 (MA/HD) $4.50
Hellboy (2019) (Vudu/4K) (iTunes/4K) $4.25
Hercules (1997) (MA/HD) $6.50
Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard (2021) (Vudu/4K) (iTunes/4K) $5.50
Hocus Pocus (1993) (MA/4K) $6.50 (MA/HD) $4.75 (GP/HD) $2.25
Home (2015) (MA/HD) $2
Home Alone (1990) (MA/HD) $3.50
Home Alone Collection 1-2 (MA/HD) $6.50
Hotel Mumbai (2019) (MA/HD) $4.25
Hotel Transylvania Collection 1-3 (MA/HD) $16
House of 1,000 Corpses (2003), Devil's Rejects (2005), 3 From Hell (2019) (Vudu/HD) $6
House with a Clock in Its Walls (2018) (MA/4K) $5.50 (MA/HD) $3.50
How to Train Your Dragon 2 (2014) (MA/HD) $2
How to Train Your Dragon Collection 1-3 (MA/HD) $7.50
How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World (2019) (MA/4K) $6.25 (MA/HD) $3.75
Hugo (2011) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $3.50
Hunchback of Notre Dame II (2002) (MA/HD) $6.50 (GP/HD) $5
Hunger Games Collection 1-4 (Vudu/HD) $6
Hunter Killer (2018) (Vudu/4K) $5.25 (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $3
Huntsman: Winter's War - Extended Edition (2016) (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $2.75
Ice Age Collection 1-5 (MA/SD) $16
Ice Age: A Mammoth Christmas (2011) (MA/HD) $5.25
Ice Age: Collision Course (2016) (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $3.75
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2009) (MA/HD) $5.25
Imitation Game, The (2014) (Vudu/HD) $3.25
Immortal Life Of Henrietta Lacks (2017) (iTunes/HD) $3.50
Incredibles 2 (2018) (MA/4K) $6.25 (iTunes/4K) $4.50 (GP/HD) $2
Independence Day (1996) (MA/4K) $7 (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $5.25
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023) (MA/HD) $6
Indiana Jones Collection 1-4 (Vudu/4K) $24 (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $20
Inevitable Defeat of Mister and Pete (2013) (Vudu/HD) $4.25
Inside Llewyn Davis (2013) (MA/HD) $6
Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013) (MA/HD) $6.50
Insidious: The Red Door (2023) (MA/HD) $5.25
Instant Family (2018) (Vudu/HD) $2 (iTunes/4K) $1.50
Internship (2013) (MA/HD) $2.75
Intruder (2019) (MA/HD) $6
Invisible Man (2020) (MA/4K) $6.25 (MA/HD) $3.75
Iron Man 1-3 (iTunes/4K) $16 (GP/HD) $7.50
Iron Man 2 (2010) (MA/4K) $7.25 (iTunes/4K) $6.50 (GP/HD) $3
Irresistible (2020) (MA/HD) $5.25
It Comes at Night (2017) (Vudu/HD) $5.50
It Follows (2015) (Vudu/HD) $4.25
It's a Wonderful Life (1946) (Vudu/4K) $5 (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $4.50
Jack and Jill (2011) (MA/HD) $3.50
Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa (2013) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $2.75
Jackie (2016) (MA/HD) (iTunes/4K) $4
Jaws (1975) Jaws 2 (1978) Jaws 3 (1983) Jaws: The Revenge (1987) (MA/HD) $15.50
Jay & Silent Bob Reboot (2019) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $5
JOBS (2013) (MA/HD) (iTunes/HD) $3.75
John Wick Collection 1-3 (Vudu/4K) $16 (iTunes/4K) $14.50 (Vudu/HD) $8
John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum (2019) (Vudu/4K) (iTunes/4K) $4
Jumanji: Next Level (2019) & Welcome to the Jungle (2017) (MA/HD) $7
Jumanji: Welcome To The Jungle (2017) (MA/4K) $5 (MA/HD) $2 (MA/SD) $1
Jungle Book (1967) (MA/HD) $6 (GP/HD) $4
Jurassic Park (1993) (MA/4K) $4.75 (iTunes/4K) $3.50 (MA/HD) $2.75
Jurassic Park III (2001) (MA/HD) (iTunes/4K) $3.75
Jurassic World (2015) (MA/4K) $4.50 (iTunes/4K) $3.50 (MA/HD) $2.50
Jurassic World Collection 1-5 (iTunes/4K) $17.50 (MA/HD) $8.50
Jurassic World Collection 1-6 (MA/HD) $11
Jurassic World: Dominion + Extended Cut (2022) (MA/4K) $6.25 (MA/HD) $3.75
Justice League: War World (2023) (MA/HD) $5.50
Kandahar (2023) (MA/4K) $7
Katy Perry: Part of Me (2012) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $3.50
Keeping Up with the Joneses (2016) (MA/HD) $3.50
Kick-Ass 2 (2013) (MA/HD) $5.25 (iTunes/HD) $5
Kid Who Would Be King (2019) (MA/HD) $4.50
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003) (Vudu/HD) $6.75
Kimi (2022) (MA/4K) $6.75
King of Staten Island (2020) (MA/HD) $4.50
Last Night in Soho (2021) (MA/4K) $6.50 (MA/HD) $5
Last Voyage of the Demeter (2023) (MA/4K) $7.50 (MA/HD) $7
Lee Daniels' The Butler (2013) (Vudu/HD) $2.25
Les Miserables (1998) (MA/HD) $6.75
Let Him Go (2020) (MA/HD) $5
Let's Be Cops (2014) (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $2.50
Life of Pi (2012) (MA/HD) $2.50
Lightyear (2022) (MA/4K) $4.75 (MA/HD) $2.50 (GP/HD) $1.75
Lion (2016) (Vudu/HD) $4.25
Lion King (2019) (MA/4K) $6 (iTunes/4K) $4 (GP/HD) $1.25
Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea (2000) (MA/HD) $6.50 (GP/HD) $5
Logan (2017) (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $2.50
Long Shot (2019) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/4K) $4.25
Lost City, The (2022) (Vudu/4K) $5.50 (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $5
Luca (2021) (MA/4K) $6.50 (MA/HD) $3.75 (GP/HD) $3.25
Lucy (2014) (MA/HD) $2
Lyle, Lyle, Crocodile (2022) (MA/HD) $4.25
M3GAN + Unrated (2023) (MA/HD) $5.50
Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted (2012) (MA/HD) $2
Madagascar Collection 1-4 (MA/HD) $15
Magnificent Seven (2016) (Vudu/HD) $2
Maleficent (2014) (MA/4K) $5.50 (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $3 (GP/HD) $1.25
Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again (2018) (MA/4K) $6.50
Man Who Invented Christmas (2017) (MA/HD) $6
Marlowe (2023) (MA/HD) $6.50
Marshall (2017) (MA/HD) $4.50
Mary Poppins (1964) (MA/HD) $4.25 (GP/HD) $2.75
Mary Poppins Returns (2018) (MA/4K) $6.50 (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $4.50 (GP/HD) $2
Maze Runner Collection 1-3 (MA/HD) $14.50
Maze Runner: The Death Cure (2018) (MA/HD) $5.50
Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials (2015) (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $5.75
Mechanic: Resurrection (2016) (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $3
Meg 2: The Trench (2023) (MA/4K) $6.50 (MA/HD) $5
Meg Collection 1-2 (MA/HD) $8.50
Megan Leavey (2017) (MA/HD) (iTunes/HD) $1.75
Memory (2022) (MA/HD) $3.75
Men (2022) (Vudu/HD) $5
Men in Black Collection 1-3 (MA/HD) $14.50
Mickey & Friends 10 Classic Shorts - Volume 2 (2023) (MA/HD) $6.25 (GP/HD) $5
Mickey & Minnie 10 Classic Shorts - Volume 1 (2023) (MA/HD) $5.25 (GP/HD) $3.75
Mile 22 (2018) (iTunes/4K) $1.75
Mile 22 (2018) (Vudu/4K) $7
Minions: The Rise of Gru (2022) & Minions (2015) (MA/HD) $7.25
Minions: The Rise of Gru (2022) (MA/4K) $6.50 (MA/HD) $5
Miracles From Heaven (2016) (MA/HD) $4
Missing Link (2019) (MA/HD) $5
Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/4K) $7
Mission: Impossible Collection 1-6 (iTunes/4K) $20 (Vudu/HD) $18
Molly's Game (2017) (iTunes/HD) $2
Moneyball (2011) (MA/HD) $2.50
Monsters, Inc. (2001) (GP/HD) $5
Monuments Men (2014) (MA/HD) $2
Moonfall (2022) (Vudu/4K) (iTunes/4K) $4.75
Moonlight (2016) (Vudu/HD) $3.75
Morbius (2022) (MA/4K) $5 (MA/HD) $3
Mortal Kombat Legends: Cage Match (2023) (MA/4K) $6.75 (MA/HD) $5.50
Mother's Day (2016) (MA/HD) (iTunes/HD) $4.75
Mr. Peabody & Sherman (2014) (MA/HD) $3.50
Much Ado About Nothing (2013) (Vudu/HD) $4.25
Mulan (2020) (MA/4K) $6.25 (MA/HD) $4 (GP/HD) $2.25
Muppets Most Wanted (2014) (MA/HD) $5.75 (GP/HD) $4.25
Murder on The Orient Express (2017) (MA/HD) $2.50
My All American (2015) (MA/HD) $5 (iTunes/HD) $4
My Little Pony: The Movie (2017) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $3.50
Nebraska (2013) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $2.25
Night at the Museum 3-Movie (MA/HD) $11.50 (MA/SD) $8
Night House, The (2021) (MA/HD) $5 (GP/HD) $3
Night School (Extended Cut) (2018) (MA/HD) $4.25
Nightmare Alley (2021) (MA/HD) $4.50 (GP/HD) $3.50
No Hard Feelings (2023) (MA/HD) $5.50
Nobody (2021) (MA/HD) $5
Non-Stop (2014) (MA/HD) (iTunes/HD) $2.75
Nope (2022), Get Out (2017) & Us (2019) (MA/HD) $9
Norm of the North (2016) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $2.75
Northman (2022) (MA/4K) $6.75 (MA/HD) $3.75
Nun 2 (2023) (MA/HD) $6
Office Christmas Party (2016) (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $2.25
Olaf's Frozen Adventure Plus 6 Disney Tales (2017) (MA/HD) $4.50 (GP/HD) $3
One Direction: This is Us + Extended Fan Edition (2013) (MA/HD) $3.25
Onward (2020) (MA/4K) $5.25 (MA/HD) $3.75 (GP/HD) $2
Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre (2023) (Vudu/4K) $7
Oppenheimer (2023) (MA/HD) $7
Oranges, The (2011) (MA/HD) $4.50
Ouija (2014) & Origin of Evil (2016) (MA/HD) (iTunes/HD) $8
Outfit (2022) (MA/HD) $7
Overlord (2018) (Vudu/4K) $4.50 (Vudu/HD) $2.75 (iTunes/4K) $4
Paper Towns (2011) (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $4.25
Passengers (2016) (MA/HD) $2.25
Paterno (2018) (iTunes/HD) $4.25 (GP/HD) $2.75
PAW Patrol: The Mighty Movie (2023) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/4K) $6.50
Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank (2022) (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $5.25
Peanuts Movie (2015) (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $2.50
Penguins of Madagascar (2014) (MA/HD) $2.75
Perfect Guy (2015) (MA/HD) $3.50
Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) (Vudu/HD) $1.75
Pet Sematary (1989) (Vudu/4K) $5.50 (iTunes/4K) $4 (Vudu/HD) $3.75
Peter Pan: Return to Neverland (2002) (MA/HD) $6 (GP/HD) $4.50
Peter Rabbit (2018) & 2 (2021) (MA/HD) $7.50
Phantom Thread (2017) (MA/HD) $3.75
Philomena (2013) (Vudu/HD) $2
Pinocchio (1940) (MA/HD) $5.50 (GP/HD) $3.75
Pirate Fairy (2014) (MA/HD) $3.25
Pitch Perfect (2012) (MA/HD) $2.50 (iTunes/4K) $3.50
Pitch Perfect 2 (2015) (MA/HD) $2.50 (iTunes/4K) $3.50
Pitch Perfect Collection 1-3 (MA/HD) $11.50
Pixar Short Films Collection, Vol. 3 (2018) (MA/HD) $5.25 (GP/HD) $3.25
Plane (2023) (Vudu/4K) (iTunes/4K) $6.50
Planes: Fire & Rescue (2014) (MA/HD) $4 (GP/HD) $2
Planet of the Apes 1-3 (Newer) (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $9
Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World (1998) (MA/HD) $5.50 (GP/HD) $3.25
Poltergeist (Extended Cut) (2015) (MA/HD) $5
Pope's Exorcist (2023) (MA/HD) $5.75
Prey for the Devil (2022) (Vudu/4K) (iTunes/4K) $6.50
Priceless (2016) (iTunes/HD) Ports to MA $4.50
Prodigy (2019) (Vudu/HD) $5
Pulp Fiction (1994) (Vudu/4K) (iTunes/4K) $5.25 (Vudu/HD) $4
Purge: Anarchy (2014) (MA/4K) $5.50 (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $4.25
Purge: Election Year (2016) (MA/4K $5.25 (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $2.75
Puss in Boots (2011) & The Last Wish (2022) (MA/HD) $10.50
Queen & Slim (2019) (MA/HD) $4.25
Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018) (MA/4K) $5 (MA/HD) $4.25 (GP/HD) $1.50
Rambo Collection 1-5 (Vudu/HD) $12.50
Rambo Last Blood (Vudu/4K) (iTunes/4K) $2.75
Raya and the Last Dragon (2021) (MA/4K) $5.75 (MA/HD) $4.50 (GP/HD) $2.50
Red 2 (2013) (Vudu/4K) $5.75 (iTunes/4K) $3.25 (Vudu/HD) $1.50
Rescuers Down Under (1990) (MA/HD) $5.75 (GP/HD) $4
Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (2017) (MA/4K) $6.50 (MA/HD) $3
Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City (2021) (MA/HD) $4.25
Riddick - Unrated Director's Cut (2013) (MA/HD) (iTunes/HD) $3.75
Riddick Collection 1-3 (Unrated) (MA/HD) $13.50
Ride Along 1-2 (MA/HD) (iTunes/HD) $5 $2.75 Each
Robin Hood (2018) (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $3
Rock Dog (2016) (Vudu/HD) $4
Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2017) (MA/HD) $3.50
Ron's Gone Wrong (2021) (MA/4K) $6.75 (MA/HD) $5.25 (GP/HD) $3.50
Rough Night (2017) (MA/HD) $4
Rumble (2022) (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $5.50
Safe (2012) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $1.75
Safe House (2012) (MA/HD) $3.50 (iTunes/HD) $2.50
Samson (2018) (MA/HD) $3.75
Santa Clause (1994), 2 (2002), 3 (2006) (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $10.50 (GP/HD) $6.50
Saving Mr. Banks (2013) (MA/HD) $4.25 (GP/HD) $2.50
Saw Collection 1-7 (Vudu/HD) $9.75
Scary Movie 3 (2003) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $4
Scary Movie Collection 1-3 (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $13.50
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) (Vudu/4K) (iTunes/4K) $3
Scoob (2020) (MA/4K) $3.25
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (2010) (MA/4K) (iTunes/4K) $5.75 (MA/HD) $5
Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse (2015) (iTunes/HD) $2.75
Scream (1996) (Vudu/4K) $6
Scream 5 (2022) (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $5
Scream 6 (2023) (Vudu/4K) $7 (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $6.50
Scream Collection 1-3 (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $13.50
Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2015) (MA/HD) $3.75
Secret Headquarters (2022) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/4K) $5.50
Secret Life of Pets Collection 1-2 (MA/HD) $7.25
Secret Life of Pets, The (2016) (iTunes/4K) $3.50 (MA/HD) $2.75
Serenity (2005) (MA/HD) $3.50
Shallows, The (2016) (MA/4K) $6.50 (MA/HD $3.50
Shark Tale (2000) (MA/HD) $5.25
Sick (2023) (MA/4K) $6.75
Silent Night, Deadly Night: 3-Film Collection (1989-1991) (Vudu/HD) $5.50
Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (2007) (MA/HD) $6.50
Sing (2016) (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $2.50
Sing Collection 1-2 (MA/HD) $6
Sinister (2012) (Vudu/HD) $3 (iTunes/HD) $2.75
Smile (2022) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/4K) $6.25
Smurfs 2 (2013) (MA/HD) $3
Snake Eyes (2021) (Vudu/4K) $6.75 (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $4
Snowpiercer (2013) (Vudu/HD) $5.50
Some Kind of Wonderful (1987) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $3.50
Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (2022) (Vudu/4K) $6 (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $4.50
Sorry to Bother You (2018) (MA/HD) $4.75
Speed (1994) (MA/4K) $5.25
Spider-Man Collection 1-8 (MA/HD) $26
Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023) (MA/HD) $5.50
Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) (MA/4K) $6.50 (MA/HD) $3.50
Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse (2018) (MA/4K) $8 (MA/HD) $5.50
Split (2017) (MA/4K) $6.25 (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $2.75
SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water (2015) (Vudu/HD) $4.75 (iTunes/HD) $3.50
Star Trek Collection 1-3 (Vudu/HD) $9.50 (iTunes/4K) $13.50
Strange World (2022) (MA/HD) $5 (GP/HD) $4.25
Stronger (2017) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $4.50
Studio 666 (2022) (MA/4K) $7 (MA/HD) $6.25
Sum of All Fears, The (2002) (Vudu/4K) (iTunes/4K) $5.25
Super Mario Bros Movie (2023) (MA/4K) $7.25 (MA/HD) $5.50
Super Troopers 2 (2018) (MA/HD) $3
Superman: Red Son (2020) (MA/HD) $3.50
Survive the Night (2020) (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $2.75
SW: Force Awakens (2015) (MA/4K) $5.25 (iTunes/4K) $3.50 (GP/HD) $1
SW: Last Jedi (2017) (MA/4K) $5.75 (iTunes/4K) $3.75 (GP/HD) $1
SW: Phantom Menace (1999) (MA/4K) $7.50 (GP/HD) $3.50
SW: Return of the Jedi (1983) (MA/4K) $7.25 (GP/HD) $3.50
SW: Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) (iTunes/4K) $5 (GP/HD) $3.50
Taken Collection 1-3 (MA/HD) $9
Talk to Me (2023) (Vudu/4K) $6.50
Tangled (2010) (MA/HD) $4.75 (GP/HD) $3.50
Tar (2022) (MA/HD) $5.75
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014) (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $3
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem (2023) (Vudu/4K) $7.50 (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $6.50
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) (Vudu/4K) (iTunes/4K) $4.50
Terminator: Genisys (2015) (Vudu/HD) $1.75 (iTunes/4K) $3
Terms of Endearment (1983) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $4.25
Thanksgiving (2023) (MA/4K) $6.50 (MA/HD) $5.50
This Is The End (2013) (MA/HD) $4.50
Thor: Love and Thunder (2022) (MA/4K) $6.75 (MA/HD) $3.25 (GP/HD) $2
Thor: The Dark World (2013) (MA/4K) $7 (iTunes/4K) $4.50 (GP/HD) $2.25
Ticket to Paradise (2022) (MA/HD) $5.75
Till (2022) (iTunes/4K) $6.50
Tinker Bell and the Legend of the NeverBeast (2014) (MA/HD) $5.50 (GP/HD) $3.75
To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) (MA/4K) $5.75 (iTunes/HD) $4.50
Top Five (2014) (iTunes/HD) $3.50
Tower Heist (2011) (iTunes/HD) Ports to MA $3.75
Trainwreck (2015) (iTunes/HD) Ports to MA $1.50
Transformers 1-5 (Vudu/4K) $25 (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $23
Transformers: Last Knight (2017) (Vudu/4K) $4.25 (iTunes/4K) $2 (Vudu/HD) $1.75
Transformers: Rise of the Beasts (2023) (Vudu/4K) $7 (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $6
Trolls Band Together (2023) (MA/HD) $6.50
Trolls Collection 1-2 (MA/HD) $5.75
Trolls World Tour (2020) (MA/HD) $5.25
Truth Or Dare (Unrated) (2018) (MA/HD) $5
Turning Red (2022) (MA/HD) $3.75 (GP/HD) $2.50
Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (Vudu/4K) (iTunes/4K) $6.75
Unbroken (2014) (MA/HD) (iTunes/HD) $2.75
Uncharted (2022) (MA/4K) $5.25 (MA/HD) $3.25
Unholy, The (2021) (MA/HD) $7
Untouchables, The (1987) (Vudu/4K) (iTunes/4K) $5.50
Up in Smoke ‘Cheech and Chong’ (1978) (iTunes/HD) $2.75
Upgrade (2018) (MA/HD) $7
Upside, The (2017) (iTunes/HD) $2
Us (2019) (MA/HD) $4.75
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017) (Vudu/HD) $3.75
Venom (2005) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $4
Venom (2018) (MA/4K) $6.50 (MA/HD) $3
Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (MA/4K) $6.50 (MA/HD) $4
Vice (2015) 'Bruce Willis' (Vudu/HD) $2.50
Victoria & Abdul (2017) (MA/HD) $5.25
Violent Night (2022) (MA/HD) $5.75
Walk, The (2015) (MA/HD) $4.25
Warcraft (2016) (MA/4K) $4.75 (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $2.25
Warm Bodies (2013) (iTunes/4K) $2.50 (Vudu/HD) $2
Waterworld (1995) (MA/HD) $5.50
Way, Way Back, The (2013) (MA/HD) $4.75
West Side Story (2021) (MA/4K) $5.50 (MA/HD) (GP/HD) $2.50
Whale, The (2022) (Vudu/HD) $6
What Men Want (2019) (Vudu/HD) $1.75 (iTunes/4K) $1.25
What to Expect When You're Expecting (2012) (Vudu/HD) $2
When the Game Stands Tall (2014) (MA/HD) $4.25
Where the Crawdads Sing (2022) (MA/HD) $3.75
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (2016) (iTunes/HD) $2
Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) (MA/4K) $6.50 (GP/HD) $4
Why Him? (2016) (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $2
Wild Card (2015) (Vudu/HD) $3.75
Wind River (2017) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $4.75
Wings (1927) (Vudu/HD) (iTunes/HD) $4
Winnie the Pooh: A Very Merry Pooh Year (2002) (MA/HD) $6.25
Wizard of Lies (2017) (iTunes/HD) $4.25 (GP/HD) $3
Wolf of Wall Street (2013) (Vudu/4K) $6 (iTunes/4K) $4 (Vudu/HD) $3.50
Woman in Black (MA/HD) (2012) $4.75
Woman in Gold (2015) (Vudu/HD) $2.75
Woman King (2022) (MA/4K) $5.75 (MA/HD) $4
Wonder (2017) (iTunes/4K) (Vudu/HD) $2.75
Wonder Woman: Bloodlines (2019) (MA/HD) $3
Won't Back Down (2012) (MA/HD) $4
X (2022), Hereditary (2018), Witch, The (2016), Green Room (2015), It Comes at Night (2017) (Vudu/HD) $14
X-Men (2000) (MA/HD) $6
X-Men (2000), X2 (2003), X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) (MA/HD) $14
X-Men: Days of Future Past (2004) (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $2.50 Rogue Cut (iTunes/4K) (MA/HD) $5
X-Men: First Class (2010), Days of Future Past (2004), Apocalypse (2014) (MA/HD) $10.50
Young Adult (2011) (Vudu/HD) $6
Zero Dark Thirty (2012) (MA/HD) $2.75

This is the second half of my list for Florida's execution roster. As stated in the first part, I split it into two halves in order to follow reddit's character count limitations. Link to part 1.
The currently 105 executed offenders, cases 53 to 105:
53. Aileen Wuornos (~1974-2002, lethal injection): Wuornos murdered 7 men between the ages of 47-65. She was a street prostitute that enticed her victims with promises of sexual favors. After a victim was entrapped, Wuornos shot them dead, and robbed them of their money and their vehicles. Although Wuornos initially claimed that she killed the victims in self defense, she later admitted that they were murdered for their valuables. Her criminal history was extensive, and she had several convictions for armed robbery, assault, DUIs, reckless discharge of firearms, and disorderly conduct. She was also accused of domestic violence by an ex husband, and he placed a restraining order on her within weeks of their marriage.
54. Linroy Bottoson (~1971-2002, lethal injection): In a robbery of a post office, Bottoson stole $14,000 in money orders and $100 in cash, and abducted the post mistress, 74 year old Catherine Alexander. After holding her captive for 3 days, Bottoson stabbed Alexander 16 times, and ran her over with his car. He had several robberies on his criminal record.
55. Amos King Jr. (~1972-2002, lethal injection): After he escaped from a minimum security prison, King broke into the home of 68 year old Natalie Brady and assaulted her. She was raped, stabbed, and savagely beaten in the attack. King then set her house on fire, and returned back to the prison. At his arrival, the prison counselor confronted him about his absence and bloodied clothing. He was stabbed 25 times by King, but managed to survive his injuries. Despite her injuries, Brady managed to crawl out of her burning home, but succumbed to blood loss shortly before help could arrive. King had a previous conviction for robbery.
56. Newton Slawson (1989-2003, lethal injection): Slawson went over to the home of the Wood family (consisting of parents, 23 year old Gerald and 21 year old Peggy, and their children, 4 year old Jennifer and 3 year old Glendon) to buy some cocaine. During an argument over the transaction, Slawson shot and killed Gerald, Jennifer, and Glendon, and wounded Peggy. Slawson then stabbed Peggy (who was 8 months pregnant) with such force that he tore her unborn child out of her womb.
57. Paul Hill (1994-2003, lethal injection): During an attack on an abortion clinic, Hill shot and killed John Britton, a 69 year old abortionist, and his bodyguard, 74 year old James Barrett. Britton’s wife, 68 year old June, was also wounded in the shooting. Hill was a hardline pro life activist and Christian fundamentalist, and saw ending abortion by any means necessary as his personal divine mission.
58. Johnny Robinson (~1980s-2004, lethal injection): Robinson and his teenage accomplice picked up 31 year old Beverly St. George when they found her broken down on the side of the road. They then raped St. George and shot her to death. He tried to claim that they had consensual relations and St. George was hit by an accidental discharge during intercourse. If Robinson's "recollection" was to be believed, he then shot her again to cover up an "accidental" shooting of a white woman. The courts weren't convinced by the defense, and the accomplice admitted that the murder was entirely deliberate and calculated from the beginning. Robinson had several rape convictions and accusations before St. George's murder.
59. John Blackwelder (~1970s-2004, lethal injection): While incarcerated for molesting a 10 year old boy, Blackwelder tied up his cellmate, 39 year old Raymond Wigley, under the alleged pretenses of a bondage session and strangled him to death with makeshift rope. According to Blackwelder, Wigley had been sexually harassing him, and he wanted to put a permeant end to the unwanted advances. Blackwelder had several sexual assault convictions dating back to the 1970s, and was also previously convicted for threatening former vice president Dan Quayle. His victim was the accomplice of another executed offender, John Marek, and was serving a life sentence for assisting him in the torture murder of a woman [for more details on Marek and Wigley's crimes, please see section 68] at the time of his own death.
60. Glen Ocha (1999-2005, lethal injection): Ocha picked up 28 year old Carol Skjerva from a bar and they had sex in his home. However, Skjerva allegedly made mocking remarks towards his genitals and threatened to tell her fiance of their encounter. In a drunken rage and under the influence of ecstasy, Ocha hung her with rope from his kitchen door.
61. Clarence Hill (1982-2006, lethal injection): During an attempted bank robbery with an accomplice, Hill engaged in a shootout with the responding policemen. One of the officers, 26 year old Stephen Taylor, was killed and another was wounded.
62. Arthur Rutherford (1985-2006, lethal injection): Rutherford was hired by a widow, 63 year old Stella Salamon, to do odd jobs around her home. He then drowned Salamon in her bathtub and tried to cash in a check of $2,000 from her account. Salamon's nude body was found with a broken arm, bruising all across her face, and three head wounds.
63. Danny Rolling (~1960s-2006, lethal injection): Rolling murdered a total of 8 people between the ages of 8-55. In 1989, Rolling stabbed 55 year old William Grissom, William’s 24 year old daughter Julie, and his 8 year old grandson Sean to death in their home. Julie’s body was ritualistically mutilated and posed during the attack. A year later, he shot his estranged father, 59 year old James. Although James survived, he was left permanently blind. Rolling then burglarized several student dorms in a week long rampage. Five students, 23 year old Tracy Paules, 23 year old Manuel Taboda, 18 year old Sonja Larson, 17 year old Christa Hoyt, and 17 year old Christina Powell, were bound, raped, and stabbed to death. Only Taboada was spared from any sexual abuse. As with Julia Grissom, Rolling posed the female victims into provocative positions and mutilated their bodies. Roiling decapitated Hoyt and placed her head on a cabinet shelf for the sole purpose of shocking witnesses stumbling across the scene. He had a long history of robberies, assaults, and voyeurism, and some of his earliest convictions occurred when he was a teenager.
64. Ángel Díaz (~1960s-2006, lethal injection): In his native Puerto Rico, Díaz stabbed an unidentified man, who was a director of a local drug rehabilitation center, 19 times while the victim was asleep. Díaz was sentenced for second degree murder, but he escaped after beating a guard near death, and fled to Florida. During his stay in Florida, Díaz and his accomplices robbed a strip club at gunpoint, and shot and killed the manager, 49 year old Joseph Nagy. After Nagy’s murder, he and his accomplices relocated themselves to Connecticut. However, they were arrested for a possession of illegal firearms charge. Díaz and 3 other inmates briefly managed to escape by beating up a guard and threatening another at knifepoint, but were quickly recaptured. After a cellmate testified that Díaz confessed to Nagy’s murder, he was deported back to Florida and sentenced to death. His execution sparked controversy, as it took him 34 minutes to succumb to the lethal drugs. Díaz’s other criminal convictions include shooting and injuring an officer during an armed robbery and several drug possession charges. Authorities also suspected him of being involved with several Puerto Rican nationalist insurgent groups.
65. Mark Schwab (1987-2008, lethal injection): Schwab lured 11 year old Junny Rios-Martinez into a motel room by posing as a photographer for a surfing magazine. He bound Rios-Martinez, anally penetrated him, and smothered the boy to death with a pillow. Schwab also had a conviction for the sexual battery of a 13 year old boy, and he was released after serving 3 out of an 8 year prison sentence months before Rios-Martinez's murder.
66. Richard Henyard (1993-2008, lethal injection): Henyard and his teenage accomplice carjacked 35 year old Dorothy Lewis, and her two daughters, 7 year old Jamilya and 3 year old Jasmine. The pair raped Dorothy, and shot and killed both of her daughters. Dorothy was also shot in the head, but was able to survive. Dorothy recounted that she tried praying for her and her children's safety, and Henyard taunted her by mockingly claiming to be Satan himself.
67. Wayne Tompkins (~1980s-2008, lethal injection): While helping his girlfriend move from their home, Tompkins made sexual advances on her 15 year old daughter, Lisa DeCarr. When she rejected him, Tompkins raped and strangeld her to death with a bathrobe, and tried to report DeCarr as a runaway. Tompkins also had several sexual assault convictions and accusations prior to the murder. One incident involved him abducting and abusing a gas station clerk.
68. John Marek (~1980s-2008, lethal injection): Marek and his accomplice, Raymond Wigley, picked up 47 year old Adela Simmons. They forced Simmons to perform oral sex on them, burned her fingers and pubic hairs, and strangled her to death with a bandana. The pair then dumped her body near a beach. Marek was sentenced to death for Simmons' murder, while Wigley was given a life sentence. While in prison, Wigley himself was strangled to death by the above mentioned John Blackwelder.
69. Martin Grossman (1984-2010, lethal injection): Grossman was given probation after a spree involving the burglary of an ex girlfriend's home and stealing cars. While out shooting a stolen handgun with a friend, they were confronted by Margaret Park, a 26 year old wildlife ranger. Wanting to avoid being arrested and put back into prison for violating his parole, Grossman and his friend attacked Park with a flashlight. They wrestled her service pistol away from her and shot and killed Park with it. Due to Grossman being Jewish, his death sentence outraged several Jewish organizations across the globe, and they petitioned ceaselessly for his clemency.
70. Manuel Valle (1978-2011, lethal injection): While driving a stolen car, Valle was pulled over by Louis Pena, a 41 year old police officer, for a traffic violation. In the confrontation, Valle shot Pena and his partner. Although Pena was killed in the shooting, his partner's life was saved by a bullet proof vest.
71. Oba Chandler (~1960s-2011, lethal injection): Chandler enticed a woman, 36 year old Joan Rogers, and her two daughters, 17 year old Michelle and 14 year old Christe, with the promise of a boat ride. On board, he bound the family with rope and raped all three of them. Chandler then tied concrete blocks around Joan and her daughters' necks and tossed them into the ocean to drown. He also raped and strangled 20 year old Ivelisse Berrios–Beguerisse after abducting her from a mall, and was linked to the murder by a 2014 DNA test 3 years after his execution. Chandler was an inveterate sexual predator with a very long criminal history, and was first arrested for car theft in his early teens. Many of his other crimes include several convictions of armed robbery, burglary, rape, counterfeiting, and kidnapping. In one incident, he broke into a couple’s house, and sexually assaulted the wife in front of her husband. One surviving victim, a 24 year old Canadian tourist, helped investigators tie Chandler to the Rogers’ murders with her reports.
72. Robert Waterhouse (~1966-2012, lethal injection): In 1966, Waterhouse snuck into the home of 77 year old Ella Carter, and raped and strangled her to death. He was paroled after serving 8 years of a life sentence. A few years later, Waterhouse picked up 29 year old Deborah Kammerer from a bar and assaulted her on a nearby beach. He stabbed and violated Kammerer with a broken bottle, shoved a tampon down her throat, and drowned her in the ocean waters.
73. David Gore (1981-2012, lethal injection): Gore and his cousin abducted and murdered 4 teenage girls (17 year old Ying Hua Ling, 17 year old Lynn Eilliot, 14 year old Angelica LaVallee, 14 year old Barbara Byer) and 2 grown women (48 year old Hsiang Huang Ling and 35 year old Judith Daley). The victims were kidnapped through force, picked up while hitchhiking, or tricked into thinking that Gore was a police officer detaining them. They were then tied up, raped, and shot or strangled to death. The cousins dismembered the bodies in their attempts to destroy them and buried the scattered remains in shallow graves. Two of their victims, Ying Hua Ling and Hsiang Huang Ling, were a mother and daughter pair of Taiwanese immigrants, and the cousins murdered them together. A 7th victim, 14 year old friend of Eilliot, was also abducted and sodomized, but she managed to escape with Eilliot's help.
74. Manuel Pardo Jr. (1986-2012, lethal injection): Pardo was a corrupt cop heavily involved in the drug trade. After his department fired him for his abuse of power and suspected tampering of investigations, Pardo went on a crime spree. He shot and killed at least 9 men and women in robberies and interpersonal disputes. The victims he murdered in robberies were 39 year old Ulpiano Ledo, 37 year old Luis Robledo, 33 year old Mario Amador, and 28 year old Roberto Alons. In every robbery incident, he stole the victims’ credit cards. Pardo killed 28 year old Fara Quintero in an argument over a ring he pawned to her and 30 year old Sara Musa for refusing his demands of buying him a VCR set with a credit card stolen from one of his previous robberies. Another victim, Michael Millot, a 38 year old Haitian refugee that took up work as a gunsmith, was slain out of Pardo’s fears of him being a police informant. His last murders were 40 year old Ramon Alvero, a drug dealer that he work for, and Alvaro’s girlfriend, 38 year old Daisy Ricard. Pardo turned on the couple after Alvaro stiffed him of a meeting. He shot Alvaro dead, but Padro’s gun jammed when he tried to shoot Ricard as well. As he was beating Ricard to death with his gun, it discharged and hit Pardo’s foot. On death row, Pardo tried to fashion himself as a vigilante trying to rid Florida of all drug related crimes.
75. Larry Mann (~1970s-2012, lethal injection): Mann ambushed 10 year old Elisa Nelson while she was biking from school to a dentist appointment. He raped Nelson and beat her to death with a pipe. Authorities also initially suspected Mann in the murders of several girls in the area, such as 16 year old Janie Sanders and 13 year old Rose Levandoski, but the current thinking is that another (still unknown) predator was likely responsible. Although he had convictions against adult women, Mann was a pedophile with a history of mostly preying on young girls.
76. Elmer Carroll (~1972-2012, lethal injection): Carroll broke into the room of 10 year old Christine McGowan. He raped and strangled the girl to death, tucked the body underneath the bedsheets, and stole her stepfather's construction truck. McGowan's body discovered was by her stepfather when he came to check on her. At the time of the murder, Carroll had two separate convictions (including one against his then 5 year old niece) for child molestation and was first accused of rape at the age of 16.
77. William Van (~1971-2013, lethal injection): Poyck Van Poyck and another man, Frank Valdez, ambushed a prison van that their incarcerated friend was being transported in with the intent of freeing him. The pair shot and killed a guard, 40 year old Fred Griffis and wounded another. Despite overtaking the van, they were forced to retreat without their friend with the arrival of police reinforcements. Both were captured after a brief shootout with the police and were given death sentences for Griffis’ murder. The case sparked controversy when Valdez was beaten to death by other prison guards in his cell. The officers involved were all fired but acquitted for murder in their trials. Van Poyck had several convictions of armed robbery on his record.
78. John Ferguson (~1960s-2013, lethal injection): Ferguson was the mastermind of the Carol City massacre that his above mentioned accomplices, Marvin Francois and Beauford White, participated in. He also committed a series of murders on his own. Two of his other victims, 17 year old Brian Glenfeldt and 17 year old Belinda Worley, were a couple that were ambushed in the parking lot of an ice cream shop. Ferguson raped Worley, shot her and Glenfeldt dead, and ran off with her jewelry and Glenfeldt’s wallet. Another couple, 82 year old Katherine and 75 year old Raymond Perry, were assaulted by Ferguson in their motel room, robbed, and shot dead execution style. Authorities also believe that Ferguson was responsible for the murders of James Ward, a 40 year old runaway from a mental institution, and Joseph Walters (age unknown), but was never convicted of them in court. Ferguson had a troubled upbringing, was stealing cars at the age of 13, and convicted for the attempted murder of an officer. Due to allegations of him being a schizophrenic, his execution was delayed numerous times, which is why he was put to death decades after his accomplices.
79. Marshall Gore (1988-2013, lethal injection): Gore abducted and murdered two women, 30 year old Robyn Novick and 19 year old Susan Roark. Both women were last seen in his company, and they were raped, beaten, and stabbed to death. He also carjacked 32 year old Tina Coralis while she was driving with her 2 year old son Jimmy. Gore raped Tina, beat her with a rock, slit her throat, dumped her on the side of the road, and drove off with her car while Jimmy was still in it. Tina survived the attack and notified the police about her kidnapped son and stolen car. The police were able to rescue Jimmy unharmed and capture Gore without incident.
80. William Happ (~1980s-2013, lethal injection): Happ dragged 21 year old Angela Crowley out of her own car window in a convenience store parking lot. He anally raped and strangled Crowley to death with her pants. A corner's report mentioned that Crowley received over 20 blows to her head during the assault. Happ had several convictions of armed robbery, one of which pertained to an abduction incident.
81. Darius Kimbrough (1991-2013, lethal injection): Kimbrough climbed into the apartment window of 28 year old Denise Collin with the help of a ladder. He raped and repeatedly slammed her head against the wall. She was found bloodied and nude by the paramedics called to the scene. Collin died of her injuries in the hospital a day after the attack. Her murder went unsolved until samples of Kimbrough’s DNA were collected from another one of his rapes. With the presence of additional pubic hairs found in Collin’s room, at least two other men were also certainly involved, but they remain at large to this day.
82. Thomas Knight (~1960s-2013, lethal injection): Knight began his string of murders by abducting his former employer, 64 year old Sydney Gans, and Sydney's wife, 60 year old Lillian. After her forced them to withdraw $50,000 from their bank accounts, Knight shot the Gans' dead. He was apprehended and, but he managed to escape from jail while awaiting trial. While on the run, Knight gunned down a clerk, 54 year old William Culpepper, while holding up a liquor store, and $640 from the cash register. A month later, Knight was recaptured following an armed standoff with police, and sentenced to death for the Gan killings. On death row, he stabbed a correctional officer, 48 year old Richard Burke, to death with a sharpened spoon over the prison allegedly barring him from seeing his mother. Knight had numerous theft and burglary convictions that date back to when he was 9 years old.
83. Juan Chavez (1995-2014, lethal injection): Chavez accosted 9 year old Jimmy Ryce when the boy was dropped off at a stop by a school bus, and abducted him at gunpoint. He took Ryce to a trailer on his employers' property and raped him. When Ryce tried to signal a passing helicopter for help, Chavez shot him in the back of the head, and muffled his cries as he died. The body was then decapitated and dismembered, and Chavez buried the remains near his trailer.
84. Paul Howell (~1990s-2014, lethal injection): Howell was part of a drug smuggling gang. One of the members had a falling out with the ring and made an agreement with law enforcement to testify against them. Howell constructed a microwave bomb to assassinate the witness in her home, and he assigned an associate to carry out the hit. As he was transporting the bomb to its intended destination, the associate was pulled over and detained by deputies. While being processed, the bomb detonated prematurely, and killed a deputy, 35 year old James Fulford, Jr.
85. Robert Henry (1987-2014, lethal injection): As part of his plan to assault the gas station that he worked at, Henry tricked his co workers, 53 year old Phyllis Harris and 35 year old Janet Thermidor, into thinking that a robber was holding him hostage. He duped the women into allowing themselves to be tied up and gagged, as Henry claimed to them that the fictitious "robber" was forcing him to do it. Both women were beaten with hammers as Henry ransacked the station’s store. After he stole a total of $1,269 from the register, he poured gasoline all over the building, and set it on fire. Thermidor and Harris were burned alive in the blaze and died of their injures, but Thermidor survived long enough to identify Henry as the assailant.
86. Robert Hendrix (1990-2014, lethal injection): To prevent his cousin, 25 year old Elmer Scott Jr., from testifying against him in a then upcoming burglary trail, Hendrix broke into the home that he shared with his wife, 18 year old Susan, with an accomplice. He shot Susan and Elmer, beat them with the butt of his rifle, and slashed their throats. In the case that he was about to be tried for, Elmer and Hendrix burglarized a home together, and Elmer agreed to testify against him in exchange for a reduced sentence.
87. John Henry (~1975-2014, lethal injection): In 1975, Henry got into an argument with his first wife, 28 year old Patricia Roddy, while they were driving with her daughters. Henry pulled over and stabbed Patricia to death in front of her children. After he plead guilty, Henry was given a 15 year sentence for second degree murder, and was released in 1983 after serving 8. Shortly after his release, he married 28 year old Suzanne Overstreet. As what happened with his first wife, he fatally stabbed Suzanne during an argument in 1985. He then took his stepson, 4 year old Eugene Christian, to a chicken farm and stabbed him to death as well. Henry also had several convictions for the possession of drugs and illegal firearms.
88. Eddie Davis (~1980s-2014, lethal injection): Davis kidnapped his ex girlfriend's daughter, 11 year Kimberly Waters, from her home and gagged her with a rag. He took the girl to a trailer that he used to live in, and raped and strangled her to death. His criminal activity before the murder included several arrests for burglary and autotheft.
89. Chadwick Banks (1992-2014, lethal injection): Banks shot his wife, 30 year old Cassandra, in the head while she was sleeping on their couch. He then crept into the room of his stepdaughter, 10 year old Melody Cooper, and sexually assaulted her. Melody was also shot dead during the abuse.
90. Johnny Kormondy (~1989-2014, lethal injection): Kormondy and his two accomplices invaded a house that Gary McAdams, a 38 year old banker, shared with his wife, 38 year old Cecilia. The couple were ambushed after they returned home from a high school reunion. Gary was shot and killed by Kormondy, while Cecilia was forced to orally copulate the other intruders. Several items were stolen in the robbery, but my sources didn’t disclose any specifics. Kormondy had several previous convictions of robberies and auto thefts, and the earliest occurred when he was 14.
91. Jerry Correll (1985-2015, lethal injection): Correll shot and killed his ex wife, 25 year old Susan, their daughter, 5 year old Tuesday, Susan's sister, 29 year old Marybeth Jones, and their mother, 58 year old Mary Lou Hines. All four victims were murdered in a home they shared together.
92. Oscar Bolin (~1977-2015, lethal injection): Bolin was sentenced to death for the abductions and murders of 26 year old Teri Matthews, 25 year old Natalie Holley, and 17 year old Stephanie Collins. All 3 victims were kidnapped while they were getting off from work, raped, and killed in beating and stabbing attacks. He raped and strangled a fourth victim, 30 year old Deborah Stowe, to death in Texas, but wasn't charged due to already facing the death penalty in Florida. Bolin also took part in the non fatal abduction and gang rape of a waitress in Ohio, was charged for kidnapping his girlfriend (which were later dropped by the courts), and had several theft convictions that started when he was 15.
93. Mark Asay (1987-2017, lethal injection): Asay shot and killed a black man, 34 year old Robert Booker, during a racially charged fight that he picked at a bar. After Booker's murder, Asay, his brother, and their friend went cruising for prostitutes. They encountered a cross dressing sex worker, 26 year old Robert McDowell, they were acquainted with and picked him up. McDowell was also shot dead by Asay when they got into an argument over payment for an oral sex act.
94. Michael Lambrix (1983-2017, lethal injection): While intoxicated, Lambrix beat one of his friends, 35 year old Clarence Moore, to death with a tire iron, and fatally strangled another friend, 19 year old Aleisha Bryant, with a t-shirt in their trailer. He was previously arrested for welfare fraud and was detained for an unspecified "unrelated charge" during the murder investigation.
95. Patrick Hannon (1991-2017, lethal injection): 27 year old Brandon Snider vandalized the bedroom of his ex girlfriend while she was away on vacation. The ex girlfriend's brother was friends with Hannon, and he convinced him to launch a revenge attack on Snider with the help of another friend. They broke into Snider's apartment, stabbed him, and slit his throat. Snider's roommate, 28 year old Robert Carter, witnessed the murder, and tried hiding underneath his bed. Hannon dragged Carter out and shot him to death.
96. Eric Branch (1991-2018, lethal injection): In 1993, Branch abducted and carjacked 21 year old Susan Morris. He raped, beat, and strangled her to death, and then buried Morris' body in a shallow grave near a nature trail. Branch used Morris' car to flee back to his native Indiana, but was captured for a traffic violation. A registered sex offender, Branch had previous convictions for sexually abusing a 14 year old girl, and raped an unidentified woman 10 days before Morris' murder.
97. José Jiménez (~1990-2018, lethal injection): Jiménez fatally strangled Marie Debas, a 32 year old French woman who was allegedly in a relationship with a Medellin cartel drug runner, during a burglary of her apartment. Two years later, he burglarized the home of 63 year old Phyllis Minas, and stabbed her to death.
98. Bobby Long (~1990-2018, lethal injection): As the “Classified Ad Rapist”, Long raped over 50 women. He was given that epithet due to contacting and luring his victims through classified ads. After one of his victims sought charges that initially convicted him (though were later dropped on appeals), Long’s pattern of sexual violence escalated to murder. Long murdered at least 10 women and teenage girls between the ages of 18-28 and non fatally assaulted a 33 year old woman, Linda Nuttall, and a 17 year old girl, Lisa McVey. The victims were picked up through hitchhiking, forcibly grabbed while walking alone on streets, or were prostitutes lured with promises of payment for sexual favors. Long’s sparing of his last victim, McVey, provided to be his downfall, as it was her meticulously detailed reports that led law enforcement to him.
99. Gary Bowles (~1970s-2019, lethal injection): Bowles lured 6 men, 72 year old Milton Bradley, 59 year old John Roberts, 47 year old Walter Hinton, 47 year old Alverson, 39 year old David Jarman, and 38 year old Albert Morris by prostituting himself to them. Once a victim was enticed, Bowles strangled them, and stole their credit cards. He also had several convictions for armed robbery, hospitalized his stepfather in his early teens, and served a 6 year prison sentence for sexually assaulting his girlfriend.
100. Donald Dillbeck (~1979-2023, lethal injection): In 1979, Dillbeck stole a car, and was pulled over by a deputy, 31 year old Dwight Hall. After a prolonged chase and scuffle, Dillbeck shot and killed Hall with his own gun. He was then given a life sentence for Hall's murder. Dillbeck escaped from prison in 1990, and stabbed 44 year old Robbie Vann to death while trying to seize her car. The pursuing officers recaptured him shortly after the killing, and he was sentenced to death for Vann's murder.
101. Louis Gaskin (~1986-2023, lethal injection): Gaskin started his burglary spree by breaking into the home of couple, 56 year old Robert and 55 year old Georgette Sturmfels. He shot them both dead, and stole their lamp, VCR set, and some jewelry and money. His second target was a house owned by 38 year old Joseph Rector and his wife Mary (age unknown). Although Gaskin shot Joseph, the couple both managed to escape him with their lives. Due to him wearing a ninja costume as a disguise during the robberies, he was dubbed as the "Ninja Killer" by media outlets. Gaskin also had a few robbery convictions at the time of the murders.
102. Darryl Barwick (1983-2023, lethal injection): Barwick stalked 24 year old Rebecca Wendt as she was sunbathing in a pool, followed her to her apartment, and forced himself inside to rob it. He stabbed Wendt 37 times and raped her. At the age of 16, Barwick had committed a similar act of rape and burglary against an unidentified woman, and was released from prison 3 months before Wendt's murder.
103. Duane Owen (1984-2023, lethal injection): Owen raped 14 year old Karen Slattery while burglarizing a home she was babysitting at, and stabbed her to death. A few months later, Owen burglarized another home owned by 38 year old Georgianna Worden. She was sexually assaulted and fatally beaten with a hammer. He was captured while breaking into another house on the same day, and confessed to Worden and Slattery's murders
104. James Barnes (~1988-2023, lethal injection): In 1988, Barnes invaded the home of 41 year old Patricia Miller, and tied her up with her own shoelaces. She was sexually assaulted, beaten to death with a hammer, and Barnes set her bed on fire to destroy any evidence of the crime. 9 years later, Barnes strangled his estranged wife, 44 year old Linda, to death in her home, and stuffed the body into a closet. He stayed in the house until he was arrested by police officers. Barnes also admitted to the shooting deaths of Chester Wetmore, a 14 year old runaway, and Brenda Fletcher, a 50 year old prostitute, but was never charged for their killings. According to Barnes, he killed both victims for stealing from him.
105. Michael Zack III (1996-2023, lethal injection): Zack befriended two women, 40 year old Laura Rosillo and 31 year old Ravonne Smith, while hanging out at bars. He lured Rosillo to the beach with the promise of drugs, and assaulted her with a tire iron. Rosillo was raped, strangled to death, and he buried her body in a sand dune. A day later, he tricked Smith into letting him inside her house. She was smashed in the head with a glass bottle, raped, and stabbed to death. Zack then fled with her car, television set, VCR, and her purse. On a different note, when he was a child, Zack’s older sister dismembered their mother with an ax over an argument regarding the sister’s boyfriend. He used that story to gain the sympathy of his victims. His sister (who was simply institutionalized rather then incarcerated for the murder) also testified about their stepfather’s alleged abuse of them at his trial, though the prosecutors debunked most of her stories.

No, not THAT "baton"!! Here's the definition of "Sticky Baton" syndrome:

All the more significant in our survey of some 154 owners, leaders and top executives of mid to large U.S. family businesses from across industries, is that merely 27 percent of respondents possess a robust succession plan for transitioning senior roles at their companies. This leads to what I call the “sticky baton syndrome,” where the older generation hands off management of the firm in theory, while in practice they remain in control of what really matters. from here
March 16, 1958—The Passing of the Baton World Tribune
On March 16, 1958, second Soka Gakkai President Josei Toda entrusted the mission of kosen-rufu to the youth. World Tribune

Nothing got "passed", though, we can all see that - if Toda had, indeed, passed any "baton" to Icky, he wouldn't have had to wait over 2 YEARS to take the office of President of the Soka Gakkai, would he? But now Dickeda has embellished the account to make it all about HIMSELF (per usual):

And President Toda had in turn passed the baton to his disciple, a young Daisaku Ikeda, who later became the third president, “If I cannot do this during my lifetime, I ask you to do it in yours.” Source

Ikeda DIDN'T. Ikeda FAILED. Toda was obviously shit for picking "disciples".
Ikeda kept repeating that this whole "passing the baton" was GOING to happen - and it never did!
HOW many times did Icky tell everyone he was "turning the reins over to the youth"? Let's look at a few!
From 1966, Ikeda's self-glorifying fanfic of his own GREATNESS:

“I am determined to continue striving and opening the way for you. I will chant to the Gohonzon that I live long enough to see all of you develop into outstanding adults and take your places in society, at which time I will pass the baton of our movement to you. Everything I do is for you and for no one else. I will fight courageously for you. I will open the way for you. I will give my life for you! Source

Barf. Dickeata clung to that "baton" with every ounce of energy he could channel into those doughy plump hands of his. Are his "disciples" really so disappointing and incompetent? Then doesn't that mean he's a ROTTEN "Sensei"??
Here's some more:

"We must entrust everything to the youth." - Ikeda, 2007
This was slightly modified for 2009: "The future must be entrusted to the youth." Ikeda
...and recycled entirely for March 16, 2010, March 16, 2011, March 16, 2012, March 16, 2013, and March 16, 2014
Expect to see it repeated on March 16, 2015! (from here - it was written before March 16, 2015)
And for March 16, 2016; and for March 16, 2017; and for March 16, 2018... Source

Did anything get "turned over to the youth"? NO!

But you can't have "creative mimesis" where there is a narcissistic egomaniacal dictator like Ikeda making all the decisions. For all the decades of Ikedaspeak about "turning the reins over to the youth division", the SGI youth still have no power, no control, and no authority. It's been at least 50 years that Ikeda's been saying that, BTW. It's just noise. Source
Besides, if Scamsei REALLY wants "the youth" to "lead", WHY O WHY has he NEVER turned any power or control or money over to "the youth", despite saying for decades that he's "turning the reins over to the youth"?? Source
But even as we are all told by Ikeda that he is "turning the reins over to the youth", the youth NEVER have any decision-making power within SGI. Source

How many times could you hear that before you realized it was just manipulative LIES??

For over four decades I've been hearing the tired old yarn about how youth will be the successors of Soka, and about how youth will be leading the organization, blah blah blah. Well then, where are they? All those youth pioneers I practiced with would be somewhere between 60 and 75 now. Not only did they not lead as youth, but they never led period - not the cult.org or kosen rufu. Besides, the vast majority left das org long ago. Did anyone young or old ever succeed Ikeda? No! And they're still stuck with Ikeda, despite the fact that Ikeda repeatedly stated that he intended to hand the reigns of leadership over to the entire youth division. Riiight... when was that supposed to happen, just after he moved to the USA (as promised)? What a pack of lies! Source
Ikeda will never "turn the reins over to the youth division", despite promising to do exactly that for over 40 years. And if anyone ever tries to call SGI on it, they'll be told, "Oh, that's because we aren't ready! Sensei is protecting us by keeping all the power and control unto himself! We need to prove ourselves worthy to Sensei!!"

Barf.

And then they change the meaning of "successors" so it no longer means "running things"! Source

And HERE's how Die-suckin'a Dick-eata clarified - he never really meant actual YOUTH!

The real meaning of youth has nothing to do with physical age. In Buddhist terms, youth means to consistently maintain an open, flexible and tolerant mind. Ikeda

Discussing the theme for this year, the Year of Developing Youth in the New Era of Worldwide Kosen-rufu, SGI President Ikeda says: “‘Developing youth’ is nothing other than revitalizing and developing our own youthful life state and limitlessly expanding the number of fellow Bodhisattvas of the Earth into the future” (November 18, 2016, World Tribune, p. 7).

Oh 😶

It really is. I didn't realize that "the youth" didn't actually mean the Youth Division until I ran across that source.
And then it all clicked. THAT's why Ikeda has been saying he's preparing to "turn the reins over to the youth" for 50 or 60 years now - he has no intention to EVER cede any control to any young person or group of young people. He and his fellow oldsters will tightly hold all the power, all the while patting themselves on the back for how "youthful" they are.
Just think how often SGI members or SGI articles describe Ikeda as "youthful"... Source
So when Ikeda says he's going to "turn the reins over to the youth" - like he's been saying for the past FIFTY YEARS AT LEAST - he simply means "We old Japanese men are going to stay in control until we die." Source

And isn't Crypt Keeper Harada youthful???

Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have found that atomoxetine and methylphenidate have comparable efficacy in general symptomatic reduction (Bushe et al., 2016; Hazell et al., 2010; Hanwella et al., 2011; Rezaei et al., 2016; Stuhec et al., 2015). However, they did not factor more specific effects of these drugs such as on EF measures, and are thus limited in their clinical insights.
To fill this gap, a team of scientists performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of longer-term controlled trials of measures of executive functioning in ADHD across the lifespan (Isfandia et al., 2024) including sustained attentional control (e.g., self-motivation and persistence), inhibition, reaction time, non-verbal and verbal working memory.
They found small-to-moderate improvements on all cognitive domains with methylphenidate, atomoxetine showed insignificant improvements on working memory but moderate-to-large effect sizes on all other domains, and that generally, methylphenidate and atomoxetine produce comparable effects on improving EF in ADHD.

bonjour ! c'est mon premier post reddit et je pense que mon problème est probablement moins grave que d'autres, il est même vraiment courant mais il pèse tout de même sur ma personne
il faut savoir que ma mère a eu un ordinateur très tôt, dès les années 2000 et même avant. Je (F20) n'étais pas encore née mais c'était quelque chose d'acté dans ma famille, son ordinateur était dans le salon et elle y consacrait pas mal de temps, mais l'avantage était qu'une fois éteint elle peignait, s'occupait des enfants etc.
je suis donc née en 2003, et ça ne s'est pas arrangé avec le temps car beaucoup de mes souvenirs c'est de voir ma mère sur l'ordinateur pendant que je dessine à côté, ou je lui dis "j'ai faim" sans qu'elle réagisse, ou je regarde des dessins animés grâce à son ordinateur et compagnie. Pendant ce temps, mon frère en avait un aussi, ainsi que des consoles
et un jour j'ai demandé un ordinateur, alors que je n'avais que 6-7 ans, elle a accepté
voilà alors que l'un de mes premiers comptes attesté de jeu date de 2010 et je me dis que c'est quand même fou, j'étais si jeune et je ne vivais déjà plus que pour la dopamine procurée par les jeux en ligne avec une mince surveillance (et j'avais déjà appris à anticiper tout ce qu'on pourrait me reprocher donc je ne disais pas que j'étais sur des gens en ligne avec des inconnus ou autres et franchement ça inquiétait pas grand monde dans mon cercle proche)
donc ça fait depuis "toujours" que ma vie tient essentiellement en ligne, les formes ont évolué et j'ai l'impression qu'il y aura toujours un vide à combler sans les écrans
franchement j'ai essayé beaucoup de choses, le téléphone à touches (vite inefficace car pour la banque, les billets de train et compagnie bah faut un accès à internet), la suppression de réseaux (vite remplacée par d'autres formes de scrollage)... Souvent je regarde des vidéos de gens ayant tout arrêté et ça a l'air beau, mais j'ai pas suffisemment de self control...
j'ai l'impression que ma perception de la réalité est biaisée depuis bien trop longtemps pour supporter de vivre sans, peut-on y remédier?

Hello, lovelies. Let me start by saying: this is my first (and last hihi) reddit post ever. A friend of mine approached me today with a film description, and me being a self-proclaimed film lover; i decided to try and find said film. I failed, of course. So here I am, asking you to succeed where I could not. From what I gathered, it's a thriller or horror film. Released sometime before 2010, around 2000. The characters she remembered were: Mother, Father and daughter. Daughter goes out late at night because the dog is barking. She gets kidnapped. Mom starts mentally breaking down, they find the daughter's corpse/remains/dead body. She completely goes mental, starts having hallucinations etc. The girl is around 4-6, blonde hair and blue/green eyes. The only other notable thing she remembered was that the killer is never found; only the audience knows who it was. Blez helb brothers. ♥

Moving and Storage services
When it comes to movers and storage in UAE, go with the professionals who are trusted by its residents for local, long distance, and short distance relocations. Ideal storage is the unbeatable provider of commercial and residential moving services. We are your local movers providing a set of relocation services at competitive prices.
Over the years, our client base has increased significantly that we have now inflate to interstate moving services. We provide reliable and safe move for families as well as companies in Dubai.
SELF STORAGE & REMOVALS SOLUTION
Modern Facility Easily Accessible Fully Secured
The Home Storage Dubai offers provides you the best solutions for all your jobs and makes you hassle free
Storage Lockers & Units
Small (12 sqft To 50 sqft)
Medium (70 sqft To 140 sqft)
Large (150 sqft To 450 sqft)
XLarge (500 sqft To 1000 sqft)
Custom Space also Available
Business Name: The Home Storage
Google Business Profile (MAP): https://g.page/CduwXoyIFXWMEB0/
Address: Al Mullah Compound - 12, 23rd St - Al Quoz - Al Quoz Industrial Area 3 - Dubai
Postal Code: DXB
Phone: 04 347 8144
Official Email: info@thehomestoragedubai.com
Website: www.thehomestoragedubai.com
Contact Person: Asif Khan
Office Hours: Monday - Saturday (8:00am - 6:00pm)
Business Start Date: 31-10-2010
Description:
The Home Storage in Dubai is a reputable self-storage facility centrally located in Al Quoz Industrial Area 3, Dubai, UAE. They offer storage units in various sizes, making it convenient for individuals and businesses to store their belongings. For secure and effective self-storage services in Dubai contact The Home Storage Dubai by visiting their website: www.thehomestoragedubai.com
Services Offered:
Storage Unit Rental
Storage Room Rental
Furniture Storage
Business Storage
Personal storage
Long Term Storage
Short Term Storage

Search Engine Optimization is referred to as SEO. Optimizing a website is the process of making it more visible and highly ranked on search engine results pages. Both offline and online Indore institutes will be shown in this.
Online institute IIDE: A renowned university in India with a focus on training and education in digital marketing is IIDE. According to the World Education Congress, it has been ranked first in the Digital Marketing Institute. In order to create a curriculum that will enable students to become competent digital marketers, IIDE mentors and professionals contribute their experience.
SimpliLearn: An extensive selection of courses in multiple subjects is available on the internet platform Simplilearn. Brand management, web analytics, PCC, SEO, and SMM are its primary foci. It provides courses on search engine optimization to help students grasp the fundamentals.
Offline Institute CrazyonWeb:- Known for offering SEO and other training, Crazyonweb is a well-known business in Indore. It has been a top digital marketing institute in Indore since 2010. The knowledgeable and experienced faculty members facilitate easy learning for students enrolled in digital marketing courses. With 24 modules, it also offers an advanced certification program in digital marketing.
Thinking Thrive:- In Indore, it is the top institute for digital marketing. It provides a fantastic course that is intended for hands-on learning. Their main goal is to equip students with the skills and self-assurance needed to succeed in digital marketing. The unique courses that ThinkingThrive offers cover digital marketing, SEO, Instagram growth, and YouTube growth.

Envy and Help Giving, Part 1
https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2020-62974-001.pdf
One of envy’s instantiations is to increase, not decrease, dependence to keep someone down as a manifestation of malicious envy. They are actively disabled and kept dependent on purpose if their independence is especially aggravating to the envier’s self-esteem.
In this research, we explored and demonstrated a relatively implicit and covert means of undermining envied targets—namely, helping them in a way that retains their future dependence, rather than in a way that increases their autonomy.
Unfavorable social comparisons trigger envy in those who make the person about themselves (social comparison) instead of admire (just seeing them, for the period of admiration).
In the current research, we focused on unfavorable, upward social comparisons, which are comparisons individuals make with others whom they perceive as superior to themselves. These upward social comparisons often trigger envy. Envy is among the most powerful emotional forces of human nature.
Envy is based in lack circuitry, namely not having something. This is slightly different than fear of loss circuitry, so it is less about pathways of addiction which implies possession of the addicting substance and another about unmet desire.
In addition to being conceptualized as a dispositional trait, envy also is defined as a situationally driven emotion—namely, as a state that occurs “when a person lacks another’s superior quality, achievement, or possession, and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it” (Parrott & Smith, 1993, p. 906)
Malicious envy entails hostile feelings, thoughts and actions aimed at harming the envied other
According to the first account, malicious and benign envy vary not only in consequences but also in feelings and thoughts, with malicious envy entailing hostile feelings, thoughts, and action tendencies aimed at harming the envied other and benign envy entailing feelings, thoughts, and action tendencies aimed at improving the outcome of the envious person (van de Ven, Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2009)
Painful feeling of envy instigates malicious motivations
We primarily focused on help-giving behaviors, and we examined and demonstrated the notion that to the extent that the painful feeling of envy toward an upward social comparison target instigates malicious motivations, it impedes helping behaviors and particularly affects the type of help that is provided to the envied target.
Envious people belittle, deceive, victimize, sabotage and undermine those they envy. All around, it shows dehumanization of the envied.
For example, envious people have been found to belittle those they envy (Salovey & Rodin, 1984; Vecchio, 1995); experience schadenfreude, that is, take pleasure in their suffering (Lange et al., 2018; R. H. Smith et al., 1996; van de Ven et al., 2015); deceive them; victimize them; sabotage their outcomes; and socially undermine them (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; Duffy et al., 2012; Gino & Pierce, 2009; Jensen, Patel, & Raver, 2014; E. Kim & Glomb, 2014; Moran & Schweitzer, 2008; Salovey & Rodin, 1984; Silver & Sabini, 1978; R. H. Smith & Kim, 2007; Vecchio, 1995).
Increasing future dependence is seen as a way of covertly undermining envied target from engaging in behaviors that aggravate envy.
We add to this literature by exploring and demonstrating a relatively implicit and covert means of undermining maliciously envied targets— namely, helping them in a way that retains their future dependence, rather than in a way that increases their autonomy.
When family or friends do not feel that their envy is acceptable, they will engage in covert rather than overt actions that they think will not allow them to go detected as participating in behind the scenes antisocial behavior against the envied
Consequently, we postulated that following upward envy-evoking social comparisons, people who encounter malicious motivations may opt to vent these motivations by using subtle and implicit means to undermine their envied targets (Jensen et al., 2014), especially in contexts in which individuals are generally expected to help and cooperate with each other (e.g., among friends, family, colleagues in the workplace, or members of the same team). In the present research, we used the context of teams to explore such potential subtle undermining and malicious consequences of envy.
Envy is strongly associated with a threat to one’s self-esteem (Tesser, 1988) and is predominantly evoked when the comparison target is otherwise similar and when the comparison domain is self-relevant (Feather, 1989, 1991; Parrott & Smith, 1993; Salovey & Rodin, 1984; R. H. Smith, 1991; Tesser & Collins, 1988; Vecchio, 1995, 2000)
In teams that are expected to work together, teammates in envy of other team members will maximize covert means of undermining
Moreover, given that teammates are typically expected to cooperate and coordinate with each other (Holland, Gaston, & Gomes, 2000), we postulated that when working in teams, envious people may be particularly prone to vent their malicious motivations by using covert means to undermine their envied peers
The fear of being envied leads to people increasing a prosocial interaction style. This can look like “And we couldn’t have done it without you” in donations style language or the trick some have been told of when someone is jealous ask them to help you to get them accustomed to feeling on your side. Seeking dependency implies incompetence to the envier, which lessens their feelings of inferiority. This study discounted gender, but interestingly this behavior is exactly what women are told to do when men are being aggressive towards them, implying that what the men may be feeling may indeed be envy for these women
First, the fear of being envied often increases envied targets’ attempts to ward off the potentially destructive effects of malicious envy—for example, by increased engagement in prosocial behaviors (van de Ven, Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2010). To that end, envied targets may opt to request help from an envious peer as a means to flatter and praise them. Additionally, by seeking help, the envied target admits to at least some degree of dependency and incompetence, which in turn may lessen the threat they induce. Indeed, recent research found that revealing failures encountered on the path to success may be an effective means to reduce malicious envy (Brooks et al., 2019).
Less friendly and less generosity is a sign of increasing envy
Indeed, the fact that Rodriguez Mosquera et al. (2010) found that one of the key markers of being envied is the envied targets realizing that the envious individuals are becoming less friendly and generous toward them implies that encounters in which the envied target needs yet doesn’t receive sufficient support or assistance from envious others do in fact occur.
By opting to provide their peers with dependent rather than autonomous help, individuals can overtly conform (at least partially) to norms of cooperation and helping yet, at the same time, subtly maintain the help seekers’ incapability and dependency
In our work, we studied effects of malicious motivations toward envied outperforming others on help giving. We predominantly explored the type of help provided, distinguishing between two types of help: dependent help, which consists of providing the solution to the immediate problem only and thus reinforces recipients’ future reliance on others’ assistance, and autonomous help, where the helper also provides tools that develop the recipients’ capacities and enables them to later solve problems independently (Bamberger & Levi, 2009; Nadler, Harpaz-Gorodeisky, & BenDavid, 2009). By opting to provide their peers with dependent rather than autonomous help, individuals can overtly conform (at least partially) to norms of cooperation and helping yet, at the same time, subtly maintain the help seekers’ incapability and dependency
Envious people can be confused as non-envious people when understood in this way. One simply has to look if those they help become more or less dependent to see if they are envious or non-envious
. In organizational contexts, it also can serve as a source of power because of the reciprocal obligation incurred by the help recipient (Flynn, 2003b; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), make people look cooperative, and enhance their perceived expertise and consequent performance evaluations, thereby boosting their self-esteem (Flynn, 2003a, 2006; Grant & Mayer, 2009; Hui, Lam, & Law, 2000; Warburton & Terry, 2000). On the one hand, envious people’s self-esteem threat (Tesser, 1988) may lead them to be excessively motivated to help others in order to gain the above-mentioned benefits. On the other hand, when contemplating whether to help an envied outperformer who triggers malicious motivations, additional factors may come into play and outdo these potential benefits. As noted above, these malicious motivations consist of the desire to level the gap by pulling down the envied target—that is, to belittle and otherwise harm them. Relatedly, numerous studies document a link between malicious motivations toward envied targets and schadenfreude, that is, taking pleasure in the maliciously envied target’s suffering (e.g., Cikara & Fiske, 2012; Hareli & Weiner, 2002; Krizan & Johar, 2012; Lange et al., 2018; Leach & Spears, 2008; R. H.
People are less willing to help a superior envied peer than a neutral peer. People show clearly marked lower willingness to help a superior peer.Hypothesis 1a: People will be less willing to help superior envied peers compared to neutral peers. Hypothesis 1b: The link between the type of peer (superior or neutral) and helping will be driven by feelings of envy and the consequent malicious motivations toward the peer. Specifically, increased feelings of envy toward a superior peer compared to a neutral peer will lead to relatively greater malicious motivations toward the superior peer, which in turn will lead to relatively lower willingness to help the superior peer.
Autonomous help is better for the receivers and more expensive for the givers, showing that those who provide true independence for others have stronger altruism drives.
When deciding whether to provide help, people also may contemplate about the type of help they provide: autonomous help or dependent help (Bamberger & Levi, 2009; Nadler et al., 2009). Autonomous help encourages recipients’ independence by providing tools that enable them to solve problems independently, while dependent help, which solely provides the solution to the specific problem, increases recipients’ dependency and need for future reliance on others’ assistance. Although autonomous help is often more beneficial for recipients (Geller & Bamberger, 2012), it obviously entails higher costs for its providers (e.g., investing more time and effort). From the helper’s perspective, recent work by Nadler and Chernyak-Hai (2014) found guiders were more likely to provide autonomous help to high- (vs. low-) status help seekers whom they viewed as more motivated and as sufficiently competent to make use of such help. We, however, offer that this may not be the case when the help seeker is a maliciously envied peer.
Moreover, given that envy-driven malicious motivations are typically socially unacceptable, and thus often not explicitly voiced (R. H. Smith, 1991; Vecchio, 2000), these hostile motivations are most likely to be manifested in covert, rather than overt, behaviors.
Extending this notion, we proposed that to the extent that the superior envied peer instigates malicious motivations, envious individuals are likely to prefer providing the superior peer with dependent rather than autonomous help. For maliciously motivated envious individuals, creating a situation in which the envied peer is dependent on them entails benefits associated with preserving a particular advantage, thereby restricting the disadvantageous gap and increasing their impaired self-esteem, sense of competence, and schadenfreude (enjoyment of others’ dependency and inability). Moreover, given that envy-driven malicious motivations are typically socially unacceptable, and thus often not explicitly voiced (R. H. Smith, 1991; Vecchio, 2000), these hostile motivations are most likely to be manifested in covert, rather than overt, behaviors.
When possible people will not help a superior other. But when it makes them look like they’re not team players, they will opt to make the person as dependent as possible to increase control to lower feelings of envy. They do not show that they care about the lowered opportunities this creates for other people that might have needed that person’s success. All they care about is relief from their envy.
Correspondingly, we expected the malicious motivations to be more observable in implicit behaviors, such as the type of help provided, than in the explicit decision of whether or not to help.
By keeping those they envy dependent, the envier is able to highlight their inability and dependence to attempt to get relief from aggressive feelings of hate and envy.
By opting to provide their envied peers with dependent rather than autonomous help, individuals can overtly be cooperative and help while at the same time subtly maintaining the envied help seekers’ inability and dependence.
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 2a: People will be less willing to provide autonomous help to superior envied peers compared to neutral peers. Hypothesis 2b: The link between the type of peer (superior or neutral) and type of help (autonomous vs. dependent) will be driven by feelings of envy and the consequent malicious motivations toward the peer. Specifically, increased feelings of envy toward a superior peer compared to a neutral peer will lead to relatively greater malicious motivations toward the superior peer, which in turn will lead to relatively lower willingness to provide the superior peer with autonomous help.
People who are prone to envy persist unnecessarily in comparing their own state with that of others
People who are prone to envy persist unnecessarily in comparing their own state with that of others (R. H. Smith et al., 1999). Recently, Lange and Crusius (2015) suggested that people also differ in their propensity to experience the different types of envy, that is, in their dispositional benign and malicious envy propensities.
Hypothesis 3: People with more envy will want to provide less help, particularly when the help-seeking peer is someone they perceive outperforms them.
Hypothesis 3: Individual’s dispositional malicious envy will be negatively related to their willingness to provide help, especially autonomous help to their peers, particularly when the help-seeking peer is an outperformer.
Doing things for someone without showing them how it’s done is a way to keep people dependent and resolve painful feelings of envy
, and three items measured their willingness to provide dependent help ( .92; e.g., “When helping Terry with a work-related problem, that I am more knowledgeable about than him, I would solve it for him, without showing him how I solved it”).4
People were much more willing to help someone they didn’t envy than someone they did.
In these analyses, we controlled for benign motivations in order to account for the possibility that participants may have been more willing to help the nonenvied (vs. envied) peer due to increased benign motivations,7 rather than increased malicious motivations toward the latter.8