Rachel & Bryan Abasolo - Bachelorette 13 - Discussion - #3

Rachel has always spoken her mind but, in my opinion, her voice has an added edge. I don't know if she's frustrated, if this is how she really feels and is tired of 'being nice' or if something has recently transpired (maybe BLM? or tired of being screwed over by Hollywood). She is very smart and articulate. She'll certainly get attention but I always felt she was a build bridges type of person, rather than burn it all down and the hell with it.

Norcalgal wrote:Rachel has always spoken her mind but, in my opinion, her voice has an added edge. I don't know if she's frustrated, if this is how she really feels and is tired of 'being nice' or if something has recently transpired (maybe BLM? or tired of being screwed over by Hollywood). She is very smart and articulate. She'll certainly get attention but I always felt she was a build bridges type of person, rather than burn it all down and the hell with it.

Maybe the interview with Chris Harrison was the final straw for her, I don't know, didn't listen to it, only viewed the comments on here about it.

Adding, I saw she was complaining about the title of the article that appeared in the Fan Forum, as it was in the fan forum I deleted my comment which was a little caustic. However, I'll put it here. She's an attorney, she signed on the dotted line for the article, you sell your soul to the devil.

gurlbrit wrote:

Norcalgal wrote:Rachel has always spoken her mind but, in my opinion, her voice has an added edge. I don't know if she's frustrated, if this is how she really feels and is tired of 'being nice' or if something has recently transpired (maybe BLM? or tired of being screwed over by Hollywood). She is very smart and articulate. She'll certainly get attention but I always felt she was a build bridges type of person, rather than burn it all down and the hell with it.

Maybe the interview with Chris Harrison was the final straw for her, I don't know, didn't listen to it, only viewed the comments on here about it.  

Adding, I saw she was complaining about the title of the article that appeared in the Fan Forum, as it was in the fan forum I deleted my comment which was a little caustic.  However, I'll put it here.  She's an attorney, she signed on the dotted line for the article, you sell your soul to the devil.

I read in the Reddit, the title she’s unhappy with, appears in the print, not the online version. It’s something like Oops, I blew up the Bachelor.

According to Rachel’s IG, she feels “disappointing and disrespectful “ because “those are not my words nor are they a reflection of how I feel. In fact, it’s a stark contrast to the context of the piece”.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CQYgNjDnagQ/?utm_medium=copy_link

Just want to make sure what and why she feels the way she does.

gurlbrit wrote:

Norcalgal wrote:Rachel has always spoken her mind but, in my opinion, her voice has an added edge. I don't know if she's frustrated, if this is how she really feels and is tired of 'being nice' or if something has recently transpired (maybe BLM? or tired of being screwed over by Hollywood). She is very smart and articulate. She'll certainly get attention but I always felt she was a build bridges type of person, rather than burn it all down and the hell with it.

Maybe the interview with Chris Harrison was the final straw for her, I don't know, didn't listen to it, only viewed the comments on here about it.  

Adding, I saw she was complaining about the title of the article that appeared in the Fan Forum, as it was in the fan forum I deleted my comment which was a little caustic.  However, I'll put it here.  She's an attorney, she signed on the dotted line for the article, you sell your soul to the devil.

Exactly. If you're going to throw stones, be prepared to take it, the positive and the negative

That imo is an excellent article.

She tells it like it is and that's what I like about her. If the words in the title of the article are not her words, she's going to set them straight and why not. They used it for click bait and she wasn't going to let them get away with it. This is one tiny example of what she and many other's have to deal with imo.

Everything that happened on Nick's season and her own season I totally believe, it was sleuthed and speculated right here on this forum.

I will never forget her ATFR and how they spinned the narrative just like they did throughout her whole season. If it wasn't for sleuthing, and my gut feelings, I wouldn't have enjoyed the love story.

Rachel makes some good points, such as when she decries that the producers cast black men for her season who were not into black women. And if she wants to point out that the producers can often be clueless and inept in how they handle certain situations, I think she would get plenty of nods of agreement.

But I've never agreed with her that her love story with Bryan was hidden. It was there. It's just that the fans took more to Peter as opposed to Bryan. I watched the season unspoiled, and right from the beginning, I was not a Bryan fan (I didn't think he was a bad guy, he just didn't appeal to me.) Rachel said that the fans often found him cheesy, and I think that's a good description of what I thought -- cheesy and smarmy. But I'll always support a lead's right to pick whomever they think is right for them.

She still comes off as being angry at Peter ("because Bachelor Nation applauds mediocrity," and "he didn’t offer anything other than being a fine physical specimen.") Umm, Rachel, YOU are the one who brought Peter to the F2 position, so I'm guessing YOU saw something more in him than your basic, "mediocre" hunk. The fact that you are still badmouthing him says more about you than about him.

She decries how "fan favorite" Mike Johnson was passed over in favor of Peter Weber. Well, Mike was a fan favorite on the boards, but not necessarily with the wider audience. The same thing happened with Jason Tartick and Blake Horstmann, both of whom were highly popular on the boards, but passed over in favor of Colton Underwood. I would also make the argument that if she is going to praise her husband's Latino "flavor," but then imply that Peter's half-Latino heritage is somehow not enough, it's not a good look for her.

It's also not a good look to talk about the Bachelor's "toxic audience" and "Bachelor Klan."

I have a hard time tolerating whining and anger from people who have gotten the lion's share of what they have wanted. She got her husband, whom she describes as the love of her life. She got the enormous engagement ring. She got paid, and she got the platform, which she has leveraged nicely. We should all have it so tough.

Just my opinion. Rachel has a lot of admirable qualities, but I also find some of her qualities less than admirable.

Amethyst wrote:Rachel makes some good points, such as when she decries that the producers cast black men for her season who were not into black women. And if she wants to point out that the producers can often be clueless and inept in how they handle certain situations, I think she would get plenty of nods of agreement.

But I've never agreed with her that her love story with Bryan was hidden. It was there. It's just that the fans took more to Peter as opposed to Bryan. I watched the season unspoiled, and right from the beginning, I was not a Bryan fan (I didn't think he was a bad guy, he just didn't appeal to me.) Rachel said that the fans often found him cheesy, and I think that's a good description of what I thought -- cheesy and smarmy. But I'll always support a lead's right to pick whomever they think is right for them.

She still comes off as being angry at Peter ("because Bachelor Nation applauds mediocrity," and "he didn’t offer anything other than being a fine physical specimen.") Umm, Rachel, YOU are the one who brought Peter to the F2 position, so I'm guessing YOU saw something more in him than your basic, "mediocre" hunk. The fact that you are still badmouthing him says more about you than about him.

She decries how "fan favorite" Mike Johnson was passed over in favor of Peter Weber. Well, Mike was a fan favorite on the boards, but not necessarily with the wider audience. The same thing happened with Jason Tartick and Blake Horstmann, both of whom were highly popular on the boards, but passed over in favor of Colton Underwood. I would also make the argument that if she is going to praise her husband's Latino "flavor," but then imply that Peter's half-Latino heritage is somehow not enough, it's not a good look for her.

It's also not a good look to talk about the Bachelor's "toxic audience" and "Bachelor Klan."

I have a hard time tolerating whining and anger from people who have gotten the lion's share of what they have wanted. She got her husband, whom she describes as the love of her life. She got the enormous engagement ring. She got paid, and she got the platform, which she has leveraged nicely. We should all have it so tough.

Just my opinion. Rachel has a lot of admirable qualities, but I also find some of her qualities less than admirable.

@Amethyst Thank you. You put what I was thinking perfectly into words. Particularly the parts about Brian and Peter. She reminds me very much of Katlyn when she was bad mouthing Nick. If you are so happy, no need to be so bitter.

Rachel is such a smart, articulate woman and I wish they had more accomplished women like her, but just like the franchise, she doesn't know when to stop. One of the things that I tell people when they are trying to handle conflict is pick 3 points tops. Explain why they are a problem, try giving solutions and then stop talking. If you just spew negativity all the time, people stop listening to you and that is what is happening to her.

Amethyst wrote:Rachel makes some good points, such as when she decries that the producers cast black men for her season who were not into black women. And if she wants to point out that the producers can often be clueless and inept in how they handle certain situations, I think she would get plenty of nods of agreement.

But I've never agreed with her that her love story with Bryan was hidden. It was there. It's just that the fans took more to Peter as opposed to Bryan. I watched the season unspoiled, and right from the beginning, I was not a Bryan fan (I didn't think he was a bad guy, he just didn't appeal to me.) Rachel said that the fans often found him cheesy, and I think that's a good description of what I thought -- cheesy and smarmy. But I'll always support a lead's right to pick whomever they think is right for them.

She still comes off as being angry at Peter ("because Bachelor Nation applauds mediocrity," and "he didn’t offer anything other than being a fine physical specimen.") Umm, Rachel, YOU are the one who brought Peter to the F2 position, so I'm guessing YOU saw something more in him than your basic, "mediocre" hunk. The fact that you are still badmouthing him says more about you than about him.

She decries how "fan favorite" Mike Johnson was passed over in favor of Peter Weber. Well, Mike was a fan favorite on the boards, but not necessarily with the wider audience. The same thing happened with Jason Tartick and Blake Horstmann, both of whom were highly popular on the boards, but passed over in favor of Colton Underwood. I would also make the argument that if she is going to praise her husband's Latino "flavor," but then imply that Peter's half-Latino heritage is somehow not enough, it's not a good look for her.

It's also not a good look to talk about the Bachelor's "toxic audience" and "Bachelor Klan."

I have a hard time tolerating whining and anger from people who have gotten the lion's share of what they have wanted. She got her husband, whom she describes as the love of her life. She got the enormous engagement ring. She got paid, and she got the platform, which she has leveraged nicely. We should all have it so tough.

Just my opinion. Rachel has a lot of admirable qualities, but I also find some of her qualities less than admirable.

Well stated. I've been trying to organize my thoughts so I could articulate them in a response, but you said it best.

@Amethyst You said what I feel but couldn't express.
@Sprite Your conflict resolution idea is great! Lots of us tend to get oral diarrhea when we begin to confront what is making us angry!

@Amethyst

I was unspoiled that season and I saw Bryan F1 right from the start. It was painful to see Peter not wanting any intimacy with her. And like each season, it seems that fans are rooting for a favorite regardless of the other clues with another contestant. That's fine. We all watch this show for our own personal reasons. We are just addicts eh? we complain about producers, yet we are watching each season eh?

I support 100% what you are saying. For the last year or so, Rachel became kinda bitter, and aggressive if people disagree with her. The more I saw her, the more she let go nasty about the production. Maybe she has a beef against Fleiss? Maybe she learned how Peter never liked her and was dragged to F2 when he wanted out way sooner and she feels like a fool? Maybe it was a contract restriction and no longer exists? Because of this show, she got a lot of gigs, TV and radio and magazines... and sure enough, THE book that a lot of lead seems to want to write to spill the beans about "their" truth.

I like her love story. I always like it when I truly see a love story in a season. This is not always the case so when I see one (Ali/Robert, Ashley/JP, Rachel/Bryan, Tayshia/Zac) I am happy. This show is entertainment and once over, I am done.

But Rachel keeps coming back to my screen when I open anything bachelor-related. And it is always negative and what I see revengeful and bitter. I don't like it.

I understand she may be unhappy with things but I believe things she got words after her season made her this way today. My take is that BLM pushed her to openly be upset. I totally agree that prods used her and cast the racist guy and maybe more who knows? I get it that maybe she got words that some African Americans said they preferred dating Caucasian women and that was upsetting. What else?

As @Amethyst said, she got a husband, she got the ring, she got a lot of business gigs, enough that she is no longer a lawyer, and she still has a lot of attention from the media, thanks to her and therefore continues to gain followers and sponsored partners.

So IMO, she is playing on my nerves now. Her message is now no longer interesting to me because she seems way too bitter and revengeful. When I see her, I tend to just move on and not even listen or read what she has to say because it is redundant and negative.

JMO

Norcalgal wrote:@Amethyst You said what I feel but couldn't express.
@Sprite Your conflict resolution idea is great! Lots of us tend to get oral diarrhea when we begin to confront what is making us angry!

Exactly. I work with a lot of different people and there can be a lot of issues happening. Most people dislike confrontation and hold things in and end up getting really frustrated because they let things go for so long. When they finally do want to deal with things, they do get oral diarrhea and often come off looking like they are just bitching instead having legitimate work problems. They come to me looking for advice and I always ask what are the most important issues and tell them to concentrate on those. Three max in order of importance. If possible suggest what can be done to deal with them. Practice before what you want to say. Try to stay calm and professional and don't talk too much. Listen. If you overwhelm someone with all your gripes they stop listening and can turn on you no matter how legitimate your issues are.

As a lawyer, Rachel knows all this and yet she keeps on. I get that it is frustrating. I get that she wants to improve the racism that she sees on the show. I would also love to see that, along with the general misogyny and sexism that the show reeks of, but you need to pick your battles. One of the issues I see with how she goes about things is that she is very cerebral about how she approaches things. Logic is great, but not everyone relates to it. Some humour and a lighter touch can be much more effective and unfortunately, I don't see that from her. It is clear she understands that since she talks about coming off cold in the article. Now she needs to work on that and she will become a much more effective advocate. I should know since I used to hear the same stuff about myself. Nobody wants to be called cold, bitchy, etc., but if you are getting it from multiple sides even if you know that is not what you are like, it is time for some self reflection and self improvement. A step back from the franchise is also a smart move.

It will be interesting to see what Rachel does next.