In a recent article, the New York Times set out to decode the supposed political meaning behind conservative political figures’ maternity wardrobes, but it really just exposed how desperate the media has become to smear them.
“Vanessa Friedman, the author, claims ‘these pregnancies symbolically reinforce the administration’s emphasis on the pronatalist movement, pushing family, motherhood, and higher birth rates,’” BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey reads from the article on “Relatable.”
“Actually, the truth is that the Trump administration and MAGA in general is young. Like it is a younger movement. I’m not saying all of the youth is MAGA. Obviously, the youth is still predominantly Gen Z, but you got a lot of young people. I love it,” she continues.
“But we’re all kind of like the same generation, in the same stage of life, having kids. That’s cool. Not that I’m someone who needs representation,” she adds.
In the article, the author writes, “If the bare-chested, muscled, mixed martial arts fighters at the UFC match that President Trump hosted on Flag Day were the poster guys for the MAGA’s image of masculinity, then the pregnant women of Trump world are one half of their feminine counterparts.”
“They offer an image of idealized womanhood that gives literal shape to the pronatalist movement,” she added.
The author used old photos of pregnant Jackie Kennedy and British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s wife, Cherie, to illustrate her point: that women used to hide their pregnant bellies, and now they show them off, like Usha Vance.
“Now, she tries really hard to go deeply into this to say that this has to do with promoting fertility rates, which may be so, but this is also a change in style. She is trying to contrast style in the 1960s, in 2000, to today,” Stuckey explains.
“I think a lot of women have found that actually accentuating the bump or being able to show that is more flattering than wearing things, especially when you get bigger, that look like a tent,” she continues.
Usha Vance responded to the article on X, writing, “Now that we know the political significance of my $8.75 coral maternity dress from Old Navy, can’t wait to hear what the New York Times has to say about my elastic-waistband pants and compression socks!”
“She’s just trying to make the point again, it’s not that deep. I bought a dress that was super affordable and that I could fit and that’s all. It’s not some marketing scheme to promote fertility,” Stuckey adds.
Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Read the full article here
