CountessCOCO

Tick tock

[Introvert Problems @IntrovertProbss]

Do you ever open a text and think “I’ll reply when I have the energy” and then BOOM it’s been two weeks and you’re a terrible person

[Adam Grant @AdamMGrant]

The smarter women are, the more hostility they face.

In the U.S. & China, the higher women’s IQs, the less they're liked—and the more they’re undermined by coworkers. Men pay no price for being bright.

It's long past time to recognize female intellect as an asset, not a threat.

[Elnathan John @elnathan_john]

I think a lot about money, how much of a wild, jealous animal it is. Once it enters a room, it consumes everything. Changes relationships, changes motivations, changes dynamics. There is not a single relationship I have had, professional or otherwise, that has not been adversely affected, once money became present.

[🍂 @Lovandfear]

“To be happy you must eliminate two things: The fear of a bad future and The memory of a bad past.”

- Seneca

[Neil Scott @MrNeilScott]

“Why not have the reader re-read a sentence now and then? It won't hurt him.”

Nabokov to his New Yorker editor.

[garçon @boymolish]

I’m convinced Cathy is every fashion girls dream fairy godmother because wow the pieces

[໊ @wynavira]

born to be a hater but forced to understand where you’re coming from

[Kpaxs @Kpaxs]

Conversation Debt

Like technical debt, but social. Every time you see someone's message and think "I'll reply to this properly later," you're taking out a loan. The interest compounds. A reply that would have taken 30 seconds now requires a paragraph explaining why you took so long. Eventually you're paying so much interest that bankruptcy (never replying at all) seems like the only option.

[Mr. Mallard @distraughtduck]

not an early bird, nor a late night owl, but a secret third thing (permanently exhausted duck)

[Mads @europemaxxed]

when you've calculated the amount of sleep you're gonna get but you can't fall asleep so it's getting lower

[Berry ⏾ @auraonx]

me imagining all these fake scenarios so i can fall asleep

[femiiiiii. @femiiiszn]

"?????" is such a top-tier response to a stupid text.

[Amanda Litman @amandalitman]

Claudia Goldin won the Nobel Prize in economics - as a treat, she took on volunteer role helping the WNBA players negotiate for the biggest pay increase a union has ever received - a nearly 400% raise. This is badass. https://t.co/aiJ02p5nO5

[Ashley says abolish countries. @littlegnome16]

This is the psycho shit I love about athletes.

[autist @litteralyme0]

Just accidentally closed a tab I meant to read 2 years ago

[A. @abbsoul]

Being a woman means having endless things on your to-do list and wishlist. So many things to do, so many things to buy.

[Mr PitBull Stories @MrPitbull07]

She kept finding women in laboratory photographs from the 1800s. Then she read the published papers—and every single woman had vanished. Someone had erased them from history.
Yale University, 1969.
Margaret Rossiter was a graduate student studying the history of science. She was one of very few women in her program.
Every Friday afternoon, students and faculty gathered for beers and informal conversation. One week, Margaret asked a simple question: "Were there ever any women scientists?"
The faculty answered firmly: No.
Someone mentioned Marie Curie. The group dismissed it—her husband Pierre really deserved the credit.
Margaret didn't argue. But she also didn't believe them.
So she started looking.
She found a reference book called "American Men of Science"—essentially a Who's Who of scientific achievement. Despite the title, she was shocked to discover it contained entries about women. Botanists trained at Wellesley. Geologists from Vermont.
There were names. There were credentials. There were careers.
The professors had been wrong.
But Margaret's discovery was just the beginning. Because as she dug deeper into archives across the country, she found something far more disturbing.
Photograph after photograph showed women standing at laboratory benches, working with equipment, listed on research teams.
But when she read the published papers, the award citations, the official histories—those same women had disappeared. Their names were missing. Their contributions erased.
It wasn't random. It was systematic.
Women who designed experiments watched male colleagues publish results without giving them credit. Women whose discoveries were assigned to supervisors. Women listed in acknowledgments instead of as authors. Women passed over for awards that went to male collaborators who contributed far less.
Margaret realized she was witnessing a pattern that stretched across centuries.
Women had always been present in science. The record had simply pushed them aside.
She needed a name for what she was documenting.
In the early 1990s, she found it in the work of Matilda Joslyn Gage—a 19th-century suffragist who had written about this exact phenomenon in 1870.
In 1993, Margaret published a paper formally naming it: The Matilda Effect.
The term captured something that had been hidden in plain sight for generations. Once you knew the term, you saw it everywhere.
Her dissertation became a lifelong mission.
For more than 30 years, Margaret researched and wrote her landmark three-volume series: Women Scientists in America. She examined letters, institutional policies, individual careers. She gathered undeniable evidence that women in science had been consistently under-credited and structurally excluded.
Her work faced resistance. Many dismissed women's history as political rather than academic. Others insisted she was exaggerating.
Margaret didn't argue emotionally. She presented data. Documented cases. Patterns repeated across decades and institutions.
Eventually, the evidence became undeniable.
Her research helped restore recognition to scientists who had been erased:
Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray work revealed DNA's structure—credit went to Watson and Crick.
Lise Meitner, who explained nuclear fission—omitted from the Nobel Prize.
Nettie Stevens, who discovered sex chromosomes—received little credit.
Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, who discovered stars are made of hydrogen—initially dismissed.
And countless others whose names had nearly vanished.
Margaret changed the narrative. Science was no longer just the story of solitary male geniuses. It became a story of collaboration that included women who had been written out.
The Matilda Effect became standard terminology. Scholars used it to examine how credit is assigned, how authors are listed, who receives awards, who gets left out.

[Champ✨ @Ib_ra_himm]

To be called inconsistent, you have to be consistently inconsistent...making you consistent