Might be good to put that up top next time.
And maybe even permaban a site that's fabricating interviews with real people (without disclosing that until 16,000 words later).
The only hint I saw: there's many unusual notes in how she's speaking, which don't come across comfortably. You have to stop and consider whether she's speaking out of personal bitterness and resentment, or is using herself as an example, to drive home a point about how women in general were mistreated. Then it turns out it's fabricated, and this is not what she spoke in an interview.
I'm very sympathetic to the message, but angry over the misleading way it was presented.
The disclosure comes only after 16,000 words of fabricated interview and community Q&A. And, in the ~900-word afterword, the "We ask you to read this interview in the spirit in which it is offered: as a thoughtful, historically grounded, but frankly fictional..." really should've been at the beginning. I hope this was a publication editing mistake, rather than intentional.
We need people to be much smarter than we are right now. Yet, in a discourse environment in which truth and reasoning are being attacked and eroded from many directions, this article offers new bad example to young adults.
||voxmeditantis.com^$important