3

Newswoman’s Analysis Betrays Bias … Or is it Ignorance?

It must be said: What NBC newswoman Andrea Mitchell knows about suburban moms would fit on the back of a postage stamp.

Ms. Mitchell, reporting from Virginia at the Saturday rally where Mitt Romney introduced Rep. Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate, announced with authority that Mr. Ryan was “not a pick for suburban moms. This was not a pick for women. This was a pick for the base.”

Forgive a blunt observation when I say that merely having a vagina does not make you an expert on the opinions of other women. I submit that Ms. Mitchell, neither a suburban resident nor a mom, and certainly not a coupon clipper, has zero inside information on the likely response of women like me to Mr. Ryan’s inclusion on the Republican ticket.

Of course, Ms. Mitchell’s well-established liberal bias renders her analysis meaningless anyway. Still, we gals out here in the Target-red flyover are annoyed that radical feminists keep trying to speak for us.

Women like Ms. Mitchell — leftists who still swoon over Barack Obama like schoolgirls crushing on the high school quarterback — are working hard to keep alive the bogus “war on women” meme, in which American females, presumably obsessed with having lots and lots of sex, are under attack by old, white men (and the Catholic Church) intent on taking away their birth control.

It’s a notion so ridiculous (and by the way, so insulting to all women) that it feels absurd to even type that sentence.

In reality, suburban moms and women generally care most about the same thing that concerns suburban dads and men: our pathetic economy and the lack of good jobs available for our husbands, our teens and young adult children, and us.

Yes, we’re concerned about health care. But feminists would have us believe that we’re threatened because college girls must pay for their own birth-control pills (as if having premarital sex during college is a civil right). We could not care less.

We’re too busy scrounging around our wallets for the $20 needed for sports physicals so our kids can join a team this fall. And to be sure, we care about the $70 we’re spending to fill the gas tank so we can drive our sons and daughters to campus in the first place.

Perhaps Ms. Mitchell’s feminist demagoguery is a reflection of a certain ignorance that is no fault of her own. I mean, does she really sit down and balance the Greenspan family checkbook? What could she possibly know about the concerns of real suburban moms?

Not much, to be sure, but being a partisan hack, she certainly knows this: Research shows it is so-called “Wal-Mart moms” who are likely to decide this very close and crucial election.

I’m not talking about “the people of Wal-Mart” — the uneducated, mullet-sporting, NASCAR fans that the left believes them to be — but the college-educated, married, religious, moderate and conservative women who literally shop at Wal-Mart about once a week.

“Wal-Mart moms” don’t like political labels. They don’t really care about partisan politics and they certainly aren’t radical, “repro rights” feminists.

Rather, they are the wives and mothers and grandmothers who are holding their families together, mending clothes that don’t really fit, outfitting the kids for school at second-hand stores, recycling last year’s school supplies, and serving meatless meals not because it’s the cool, vegan thing to do, but because the ground beef is not on sale.

Ms. Mitchell’s “insights” about us to the contrary, the “women’s issue” that matters to suburban moms and women in this election year is our stagnant economy and the uncertain future it is carving out for our children and for us.

The women who could make or break this election will not be pigeonholed into the media’s liberal narrative. They’re going to take a long, fair look at Paul Ryan and they may just conclude, as I did, that this is a pick that says Mr. Romney is serious about fixing what is wrong.


Marybeth Hicks is a columnist for The Washington Times and founder and editor of Ontheculture.com.


  • goral

    The media has stopped pretending to be neutral. They’re all leftists. They may as well pin the donkey on their lapels and blouses to display what asses they are. Your articles Mrs. Hicks are just great and so much fun to read.

  • Bounty

    Every now and then I read something that describes my views so well that I get goosebumps. Congratulations on making the harm on my arms stand up. I especially appreciated how it was specifically stated:

    “Wal-Mart moms” don’t like political labels. They don’t really care about partisan politics and they certainly aren’t radical, “repro rights” feminists.

    I can’t count how many times I’ve been labeled a “right-wing nut” or it’s assumed I’m a Republican when I’ve participated in online discussions. I even regularly get accused of blindly following Rush Limbaugh, to whom I never listen. The truth is that I tend to side more with the Dem’s on the environment and immigration, but I cannot forsee ever being able to vote for a Democrat as long as the party has the bloody, weeping wound of abortion (as well as other assaults on human dignity) as part of its platform. Truly, the Republican candidate is almost always just the lesser of two evils. I lean more toward the Constitutional Party, if I had to pick one.

    Thanks for writing this. I hope it gets read far and wide.

  • Carol Lokare

    I keep reading these posts applauding the pick of Paul Ryan for vice president but no one ever posts an article in support of Mitt Romney for president. Why is this? What are your objections to him? After all, he will be the “decider in chief” if you all get your way, not Mr. Ryan. And Goral, to describe Democrats as “asses,” is not very Christian-like. You can do better than that…or maybe not? I know why I will not be voting for Mr. Romney on November 6, but I would like to hear why you will be voting for him. A vote for Paul Ryan will not make a lick of a difference, unless he is successful in getting his budget plan passed and then scrounging around in your wallet for an extra 20 bucks will have a whole new meaning…but a vote for Romney surely will. And that is a terrifying thought.