Rachel's Joie De Vivre and Analyticism

Rachel's my favorite player of all time. Why?

First, because she embraces difficulty.

The joy she derives from being in a tough spot is a thing of beauty. It's not just tolerating the difficulty, the uncertainty, and the potential end of her game (as in the last episode): it's enjoying the opportunity it gives her to turn it around. As a therapist, seeing how she handles the rough moments warms my heart.

Second, because she doesn't use seductive wiles in her social game.

I'm not criticizing women players who have done this. It's the society we live in, and Survivor pre New Era was no exception. But to see her just being human, playing a major game through human interactions, is refreshing.

Third, and relatedly, because she is analytical and grounded.

She's clearly been kind and/or used kindness in her game, as when she sewed Teeny's bag. But she's also so clearly analytical. It's not just puzzle-thinking, but also analysis of human motivation and cause and effect. It's an uncommon enough set of characteristics, especially in Survivor. She eschews stereotypes. Neither a villain nor adopting previous winner templates, she's playing the middle in all ways to ascendency.

---

Edit 3: Directly responding to the aggressive commenter who keeps editing her comment: you're stalking a post you've been blocked from. Really sit with that, your ongoing intrusion. You can edit your post multiple times—watering down reactivity, deleting your reference to your "15 likes" lol, editing out the obvious distortions/assumptions I pointed out, and generally trying to appear far more reasonable than my post edits would suggest—but that fact remains. What a freaking drag. Yes, we are ALL subject to biases. Too bad you couldn't figure that out during your previous attacks.

1) You assumed I'm not a woman. Yes, you indeed are very subject to biases.

2) You assumed I believe only women use flirtation and sexuality. I specifically chose not to use the clichéd phrase "feminine wiles" because much of my post is against stereotypes, which has been obvious to most everyone but you, somehow.

3) You keep blowing past the fact that I hyped Rachel for "eschew(ing) stereotypes," since your grandstanding otherwise doesn't make sense. After all, you don't get to school me on stereotypes if you can't admit that much of my post was hyping Rachel for playing against tropes. (Go argue with people who have said New Era Dee used a "flirty strategy," ok?)

4) So what does that leave? What are you really saying? If I'm being generous, that you'd prefer not mentioning the stereotypes that some players have perpetuated and that the show previously encouraged. Avoidance isn't healthy, but it sure helps me to see where your reactivity comes from. If I'm not being generous, that your only interest here is your ego. Let's not forget you are the one person who took Edit 1 personally, "really enhanc[ing] my point!" Congrats on diverting attention from a woman player you ostensibly like and towards yourself—you've really scored big for women here, essentially repeating one of my post's primary points ad nauseam.

Edit 2: I've been informed that someone I blocked for a cheap attack is continuing to have a one-sided argument. I said nothing about Rachel being an outlier. Let's talk about logic and grammar: "who have done this" is a restrictive clause, which means I had to define that some women do this because obviously not all do. (Hence, "She eschews stereotypes.") That is yet another projection, meaning that it's reading into my text based on a binary way of seeing the world that is not mine.

Edit 1: people can get reactive and not read the full scope of something, so I'll just repeat: I'm not criticizing women who have done this. You can appreciate x without it meaning you hate/dislike/are criticizing y. If you insist on taking that part personally or minimizing the not-criticizing part, that's a you thing.