I truly thought I’ve seen everything, but here is an article from the New York Times criticizing women for going out in public while pregnant and not trying to conceal their pregnancies. The article suggests that pregnant women should wear “the maternity muumuu.”
I vaguely remember reading that back in the 18th century, it was considered unfashionable to appear outside when you were pregnant because many people thought that was indecent. It’s… curious that we’ve gone a full circle and they’re now reverting to bashing women for daring not to make a huge secret of their pregnancies.
Coupled with yesterday’s win in the NYC Democrat primaries of a Haitian woman who recently converted to Islam and is wearing a burqa-type outfit, these developments point in a bad direction.
It will never quit being entertaining that women hiding in burqas and muumuus are the next frontier of women’s liberation.
Clarissa's Blog 
LOL, nobody knows what the herd is going to do next, including themselves. I can remember my Mom sayng somethng was the fashion, but when I asked she couldn’t really seem to explain how it worked ;-D
LikeLike
😀
They are really butthurt that prominent R-associated ladies are going about showing off their fecundity. Everything Mrs. Vance, or Mrs. Miller or the press secretary are all doing must be Banned From Public Life. Because that’s the only trick they know. They even attached these ladies’ photos for the mandatory three minutes’ hate.
ethyl
LikeLiked by 1 person
I understand feeling envious of women who are basking in their femininity and the bloom of maternity, but one would think that people would usually conceal such thoughts from others, not publish them in the New York Times.
What a victory for feminism! Pregnant women should be neither seen nor heard. Truly outstanding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
IKR? It is naked envy. Which is understandable. What’s not understandable is the lack of an editor with the sense to look at that and say: “nope, not publishing that, it’s too transparently catty.”
ethyl
LikeLiked by 1 person
Much of progressivism is open, unadulterated cattiness.
LikeLike
In SA, progressivism was originally unadulterated imperialism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(Cape_Colony)
LikeLike
That is not a critical article, it is a positive article. The beautiful and powerful pregnant bodies are celebrated. The article which says that pregnant Usha should be hidden is this one https://clarissasblog.com/2026/06/23/a-flawed-strategy/#comments
-P
LikeLike
Did you read it?
LikeLike
It’s not the most brilliant of moves to demonstrate your poor reading skills to a literature professor. I said that Usha should be hidden, not because she is pregnant, but because she contributes nothing to JD as a candidate. I said exactly the same about the very non-pregnant Melania, Jill Biden, and Michelle Obama.
As for the article, Usha agrees with me and not with you. I highly recommend looking up her comments about this article on Twitter. That’s actually how I found out that the article exists.
LikeLike
Thank you for the suggestion to look at twitter. There I found Usha explaining how cheaply she was able to buy her beautiful and politically significant clothes at Old Navy. This kind of explanation is perfect American manners when someone compliments something you are wearing. When I tried to find the same dress on the Old Navy website, they were understandably sold out. Usha is basking in the public attention, as well as in her “femininity and the bloom of maternity” and also recommends the video with her husband. The NYT article includes her as part of the Trump administration’s “intuitive and strategic understanding of the power of aesthetics”. This positive assessment is completely on point, and does a good job refuting your notion that “her pregnancy is the perfect excuse to not have her participate” because she contributes “nothing”.
-P
LikeLike
Dude, I welcome new readers, but for the time being, maybe you should just get your bearings, look around, and try to raise your intellectual competence a little bit, okay? This isn’t Facebook, and we don’t appreciate people rambling incoherently in gushy ways without trying to understand what is being said.
LikeLike
NYT is often critical of Trump and those around him, but this article is positive and is purely making Usha Vance (and Karoline Leavitt, etc) look good, both literally and figuratively. Usha sees this, and leverages it effectively on her Twitter.
-P
LikeLike
Repeating the same thing several times in a row is not the same as presenting an argument. It’s more akin to throwing a tantrum.
LikeLike
You can of course ignore or reject my argument, but to deny I’ve made one is just nonsense.
I can also give further evidence that Usha likes this article, beyond the fact that she responded to it according to the traditional etiquette when clothing is complimented: her most recent tweet is still the two day old link to it. She tweets sporadically and it fits well with her postive and aesthetic tone.
-P
LikeLike
https://x.com/i/status/2070483605478941114
LikeLike
It is good to see JD Vance also seeing the positive and being witty. As Trump is not getting any younger and will presumably only continue gradually losing his grip, we need someone new to lead. JD Vance is not yet up to this level, but maybe he can get there, and maybe Usha can help him. Now if he can just stabilize the Iran situation…
-P
LikeLike