Hi Laura, So I think I’ve done exactly what I lambasted RM for. My tone was so extreme it diluted my message. I did try everything in my vocabulary to not use the word “shrill” as that has long been a dog whistle for intelligent ambitious women who speak with any degree of conviction.

“The dignity of truth is lost with much protesting,” as Bradbury said in Fahrenheit 451. I think I over-protested her presentation, her “excessive pathos”, as another commenter said. And I perhaps overestimate her objective.

I do agree that she is uniquely and perfectly Rachel. That she occupies the space she created, as we all do. So perhaps I’m holding her to a higher standard than every other journalist who gets to lead with their personality — that she should be the one to step out of her own persona and speak to the larger whole since no one else is.

And I am grateful that a reader would dig deep enough to uncover a possible troll. We’ve lost that investigative rigor in a lot of ways so any exercise in journalistic exploration is good!

Thank you so much for reading and for sharing your insight. This article has been a great lesson for me in over-indulging my own pathos at the expense of what I want to convey. So thank you for being a part of the conversation!

My best to you!
heather