Yesterday and again today, Newsmax posted a story about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez having student-loan debt while choosing to freeze her eggs.
And after reading hundreds of comments, I think the reaction to this story is far more interesting than the story itself.
First, let’s talk about framing.
Newsmax could have reported that a 36-year-old congresswoman publicly discussed freezing her eggs, something she says she spent years saving for, while talking about the realities women face when balancing careers, relationships, finances and fertility.
Instead, the headline prominently juxtaposed two things: student-loan debt and an expensive fertility procedure.
Why?
Because putting those two facts next to each other invites the reader to make a judgment that the underlying facts don’t necessarily establish:
She has debt, yet she’s spending money on this.
And judging from the comment section, it worked beautifully.
Suddenly people were claiming she doesn’t pay her student loans. That she’s waiting for taxpayers to pay them. That her wages should be garnished. That she’s financially irresponsible. That because she earns $174,000, she shouldn’t have debt at all.
But where did those conclusions come from?
Not from the mere existence of a student-loan balance.
Having an outstanding loan does not mean someone is delinquent. A financial disclosure showing a balance doesn’t tell you the original amount borrowed, the interest rate, the repayment plan, the monthly payment, or how much principal and interest have already been paid.
This is where media literacy matters.
Ask yourself what the article actually established and what the framing encouraged you to assume.
Then something even more revealing happened.
The discussion stopped being about money.
People began discussing whether she should reproduce. Whether her eggs were “fried.” Whether she waited too long. Whether anyone would want children with her. Her appearance. Her relationships. Her former job as a bartender.
Think about that transition.
We supposedly began with a story about student debt and personal spending, yet somehow hundreds of strangers ended up evaluating a woman’s fertility, desirability and worthiness to become a mother.
That isn’t financial analysis.
That’s misogyny.
And more specifically, let’s talk about female misogyny, or what researchers generally call internalized misogyny.
Some of the ugliest comments I read about this woman came from other women.
Women mocking another woman’s fertility.
Women reducing an accomplished elected representative with a bachelor’s degree in economics and international relations to “the bartender.”
Women ridiculing another woman because she hasn’t had children on a timetable they consider acceptable.
Women deciding that another woman’s reproductive choices somehow make her less intelligent, less respectable or less worthy.
Being a woman does not make someone incapable of perpetuating misogyny.
Women grow up in the same culture everyone else does. They can absorb the same stereotypes about what women are supposed to look like, when they’re supposed to marry, when they’re supposed to have children, how ambitious they’re allowed to be, and what makes a woman “valuable.” Research on internalized misogyny specifically examines how women can absorb sexist attitudes and direct contempt or disdain toward themselves and other women.
And that’s what makes some of these comments worth examining.
You don’t have to like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
You don’t have to agree with a single policy she supports.
Criticize her votes. Challenge her economic arguments. Debate her policy proposals. Question her record. That’s politics.
But when your political criticism becomes:
She’s too old to have children.
Nobody should reproduce with her.
She’s just a bartender.
Her eggs are fried.
you’ve stopped discussing public policy.
You’re policing a woman’s femininity, sexuality, fertility and social worth.
And when women participate in that behavior against other women, we should be willing to call that out too.
There’s another irony here.
Americans constantly complain that politicians are wealthy, privileged and completely disconnected from ordinary people’s lives.
Then a politician talks openly about having student debt, saving for years to afford something expensive, balancing a demanding career with personal goals, and making decisions about her future…
and people ridicule her for being relatable to millions of Americans who do exactly those things.
You cannot simultaneously demand politicians understand ordinary people’s financial lives and then shame one because her financial life doesn’t resemble that of a multimillionaire.
So here’s my media-literacy challenge:
The next time a headline makes you immediately angry, stop before commenting.
Ask:
What facts did the article actually establish?
What did the headline merely imply?
What information is missing?
What assumptions am I filling in myself?
And perhaps most importantly:
Would I be making the same criticism if the person in the story were a man?
Because sometimes the most revealing thing about a news story isn’t the story.
It’s what the framing teaches the audience to talk about.
