Argh. This is probably going to be a long response.

I read her blog fairly frequently because I think she represents a New York City archetype -- trustfunding, pseudo socially aware college student with an eating disorder. It's interesting to see how she engages with our political/cultural climate given those circumstances because it says a lot about the media, the youth, the internet, etc. Rachel frequently speaks out against the "white savior complex" and its influence on Africa (especially the Kony 2012 campaign) yet she bizarrely revels in her white privilege. She references '#whitegirlproblems' both on Twitter and on her blog as a means of separating behaviors that she attributes to white people from behaviors that she attributes to minorities. I think that's an example of passive racism, because it doesn't show solidarity. It glamorizes privilege in a sort of "haha, I'm soooo white, I love it" kinda way. It also otherizes behaviors that don't meet the 'white standard.' It does nothing to overcome oppression, it's ultimately just a subtle way to laugh at one's own privilege while secretly loving it in a tongue-in-cheek, passive fashion. This article pretty much sums up many of my issues with her Twitter/blog presence: http://jezebel.com/5905291/a-complete-guide-to-hipster-racism

Additionally, Rachel stereotypes the 'blonde lifestyle' as materialistic, drunk, trashy, shamefully fun, a guilty pleasure. She wants to juxtapose behaviors that are considered vapid (like photographing yourself in a one-piece incessantly) with behaviors that are considered admirable (like attending college and learning about political theory) in an effort to subvert the stereotype... but the message is completely clouded in a complete lack of empowerment. She instructs her female reader base to "own" their blonde aesthetic because it's okay to be [pejorative.] Why say that it's okay to be... trashy? Why not say, it's okay to behave however you want without being called trashy or slutty because the entire concept of 'slut' was socially constructed? It's like people saying "I'm not gay, but I don't need to be homophobic because I'm already so masculine that I have nothing to prove." That rhetoric only strengthens a heterosexist masculinity standard in the same way that "I'm so smart and confident that I can dye my hair blonde without needing to prove that I'm not an airhead" perpetuates a stereotype. Said attitude implies that there's nothing wrong with people assuming a blonde is an airhead, and it's the speaker's responsibility to disprove their assumption. I'm probably being too harsh because Rachel doesn't understand feminist theory (yet), but I hope that during her time in college she will enroll in a course about race and gender in an effort to make more appropriate commentary.

Thirdly, she exercises internalized sexism *constantly.* A quote: "I realize there’s not a lot of women I respect and/or admire. Call it societal prejudice or whatever the fucks you want, I’m pretty sure it’s just due to the fact that I was raised by one of the greatest Dad’s in the world. And maybe it’s because women are so hard to look up to, what with all our self-hate and self-doubt."

Yeesh. What does being raised by one of the greatest Dads in the world have to do with pigeonholing women as insecure and catty? Was she completely isolated from female presences as a child? Was she conditioned to believe that women do not make decent role models? Why didn't she question that pillar of thought? Why doesn't she think critically? Quotes like these only dig the hole deeper: "I’m going to admit something to all you lovely readers here, and it may come off as WAAAAAAAAAAAY slutty, but I honestly feel like you might benefit from it… Whenever I go on a date, that i think may become a sleepover party, I bring a little make-up with me. AHHH! I know, total #slutmove…" There is nothing empowering about slut-shaming. Her quote is an example of pseudo sexual liberation, the kind that reinforces internalized oppression.

Lastly, her political stance confuses me. She announced that she's seriously interested in voting for Mitt Romney (who she called "#totalbabe" in the same post) yet she claims that gay marriage rights and health care entitlements are a priority. I would imagine that her endearment toward Romney comes from having been raised in a conservative Catholic household. Still, doesn't make any sense for someone with her political paradigms to view a man who abused his dog, bullied his gay and black peers, and alienated the LGBT community publicly by denying their right to marry in a favorable light.

That is all.