1. Caitlin, your article is your sandbox, and you can play in it any way you wish, but I'm going to call out your hypocrisy because it landed in my feed, and you've gone too far. Last night you had 177 followers, right now you have 165. You may have overplayed your hand for a few thousand claps. You are a one hit wonder.

2. Let's start with your title. MAGA Launches Increasingly Horiffic Attacks on Women. Do I really need to spell out the "word picture" you are creating here? Do I have to define violence for you? Are MAGA voters on the streets slaughtering innocent women? This is radically divisive language, not championing women's rights. As writers and journalists, we have a responsibility to be accurate, fair, and balanced, especially on serious matters. Don't take that responsibility lightly. Slinging mud is not intelligent.

3. Regarding "Holding commenters responsible for their own biases is fair; projecting them ["racist" and "sexist"] onto me is not." Birds of a feather flock together. The second you called out "white" women in your tagline, you exposed your racism. You didn't have to use the word white. Not all MAGA women are white.

4. You shaming MAGA-voter "white women" in your opening paragraph is clearly insulting. Are you that tone-deaf? You can acknowledge systemic issues without being insulting.

5. Your entire article is nothing more than an opinion piece. You do not list or link to one fact. Regarding "Nowhere in my post did I claim that my values are more important than anyone else's," your whole article laments what ignorant white women did. That's the whole point of your article, starting with your title.

6. Regarding my comment "You are uninformed and unhinged, to be polite." In fairness, I apologize for using the term unhinged. That's loaded language. You are not unhinged. The proper term is Illusory Superiority.

7. Regarding my statement, "Relax a little. Remember, emotions lie like the devil," I'm not dismissing concerns about "rights and safety as emotions or dismissing advocating for women's rights." I'm saying how a person advocates can be an emotional overreaction. As the saying goes, "Calmer heads shall prevail." You are right, "Advocacy is not an emotional overreaction." A reasoned response to systemic inequality is an "emotionless idea." I'm pointing out that your emotional overreaction and loaded language in your article cries foul. If you feel patronized for that, that's for you to work out.

8. Regarding "Advocating for rights and safety is not "fanning the flames of hate," your rant tapped into the mass emotional disappointment of those who lost the election. Fortunately, your reach is an echo chamber of those who champion the leftist woke idealism, meaning your article won't change anyone's mind. Your article does fan the flames of hate and division, just not from your point of view.

9. Regarding, "I invite you to reconsider the privilege of being able to view these concerns as optional," again, so sanctimonious! I'm so fortunate to bend a knee at your table of wisdom. Thank you, oh, gracious one! LOL Caitlin, I'm teasing. I understand your points.

Your article caught my attention because I am also working through these issues, and I also advocate for women's and human rights in general. When you advocate for women's rights, I'm 90% certain that's code for your Federal right to abort a child (which is an actual horrific slaughter, btw). Three years ago, my wife and I had to choose to lose our unborn baby or lose my wife due to an ectopic pregnancy. It was a horrible choice. Upturning Roe vs Wade does not prevent a hospital from aborting a baby when the mother's life is in jeopardy, nor will a hospital turn away a mother in a medical emergency.

That said, I do not advocate killing unborn babies for reason of convenience, which is statistically the main reason for abortion. That is my personal value based on my experience and understanding. I have deep regrets for my past choices thirty years ago. Trump did not stop abortions, nor did he do it because he hates women. That is stupid talk. He shifted abortion policies over to the states where they should have been all along. Women can still choose as they wish.

You have a loud voice, but that's not enough to solve the problem of women's rights, which extends far beyond abortion. Good leaders build bridges with intelligence, maturity, and experience. They don't burn them down, like your article does. (I get it. It's a rant.) I'm going to follow you because you have a unique opportunity to develop your voice.

Sincerely, I wish you the best. ~ AE