Indian State Dinner Fashion

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jill's dress was beautiful although she could have used better foundational garments. Huge miss on Kamala's part to not wear a sari or lehenga. I'm so disappointed.

Kamala Harris has never worn Indian clothes in public so why should she start now? Her niece Meena dresses traditionally sometimes but I don’t know if she was invited.

+1, I think going that route could wind up looking tone deaf, and like an effort to use the state visit to play up her own racial background -- it could be viewed as attention grabbing in an inappropriate way.

Also, I don't know how the etiquette for these events work, but it seems that usually with state visits, the visitors often make an effort to embrace the fashions of the country they are visiting, but less so going in the opposite direction. So I might expect Jill Biden or Kamala to wear a sari or lehenga if visiting India, but not necessarily when hosting another country.

A similar approach with food. They didn't just serve a bunch of traditional Indian food at the dinner -- that wouldn't make sense and would come off as weird (why would the Indian delegation travel to Washington to eat Indian food?). Instead, they served traditional American food but incorporated some Indian ingredients and elements to send a message of sharing and unity. I think the clothing choices were similar -- both Biden and Harris wore western designs to the dinner, but for instance Jill opted for som Indian-inspired bangles when they greeted Modi the day before, and Kamala's necklace to the state dinner was ornate and evoked some Indian influence. Nothing overt, but meant to be appropriate to the occasion.

[Anonymous]

I think Kamala’s (just noticed that my default was to her first name rather than surname like male VPs) gown would have been better in a fit and flare version, to balance out her bustiness. I do like the color.

[Anonymous]

This might be more for the Politics forum = but do you think there's any backlash against guests to this dinner? It feels like a difficult thing, deciding whether to go celebrate Modi.

Like if Trump came to India and Indian-Americans had to decide if they were going to go to the state dinner.

[Anonymous]

Everyone looks beautiful. Although I don’t like that dress on Kamala. Maybe it’s the photo, but it looks tight, stiff and uncomfortable. Of all the beautiful fabrics, colors, and styles she could have worn to that event, she chose that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think Kamala’s (just noticed that my default was to her first name rather than surname like male VPs) gown would have been better in a fit and flare version, to balance out her bustiness. I do like the color.

Thank you for noticing, that’s a per peeve of mine and I pointed it out on the politics forum but got lambasted for bringing it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think Kamala’s (just noticed that my default was to her first name rather than surname like male VPs) gown would have been better in a fit and flare version, to balance out her bustiness. I do like the color.

Thank you for noticing, that’s a per peeve of mine and I pointed it out on the politics forum but got lambasted for bringing it up.

I have mixed feelings about that. I think sometimes people will default to first names for a female politician because it diminishes her. For instance, I think people who insist on saying Nancy instead of Pelosi are doing it, consciously or unconsciously, because they feel the very feminine name Nancy will be taken less seriously.

However, Kamala Harris has an incredibly identifiable first name, and she has incorporated it into her branding (her Senate campaign famously had slogans centered around how to pronounce her first name, and her campaigning has always placed her much more identifiable first name at the center of the campaign). So I think people who default to Kamala are often doing it simply because they associate her so strongly with her first name and less so with her second, to the point that I think if you said Harris, there are people who would need a second to realize who you were talking about.

Similarly, I think people often defaulted to Hillary because it distinguished her from Bill, and that her political campaigns tended to embrace her first name specifically to frame her as an individual and not as "a Clinton."

So while I agree that often it's a misogynist choice, I do think on a case-by-case basis it might not be misogynist. And in Kamala's case I think it's less likely to be misogyny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think Kamala’s (just noticed that my default was to her first name rather than surname like male VPs) gown would have been better in a fit and flare version, to balance out her bustiness. I do like the color.

Thank you for noticing, that’s a per peeve of mine and I pointed it out on the politics forum but got lambasted for bringing it up.

I have mixed feelings about that. I think sometimes people will default to first names for a female politician because it diminishes her. For instance, I think people who insist on saying Nancy instead of Pelosi are doing it, consciously or unconsciously, because they feel the very feminine name Nancy will be taken less seriously.

However, Kamala Harris has an incredibly identifiable first name, and she has incorporated it into her branding (her Senate campaign famously had slogans centered around how to pronounce her first name, and her campaigning has always placed her much more identifiable first name at the center of the campaign). So I think people who default to Kamala are often doing it simply because they associate her so strongly with her first name and less so with her second, to the point that I think if you said Harris, there are people who would need a second to realize who you were talking about.

Similarly, I think people often defaulted to Hillary because it distinguished her from Bill, and that her political campaigns tended to embrace her first name specifically to frame her as an individual and not as "a Clinton."

So while I agree that often it's a misogynist choice, I do think on a case-by-case basis it might not be misogynist. And in Kamala's case I think it's less likely to be misogyny.

Really agree.

It's not just female politicians. Jeb!

First names can be very humanizing - make you feel like you really know the person, have a (parasocial) relationship with them. That can be good.

[Anonymous]

I love their hand-beaded jewelry. I started hand bead weaving jewelry after I took a class at Potomac bead. Some of the most beautiful bead weaving designs are made by women from India, shared on YouTube. The jewelry in the photos could be crystals or real gemstones. Anyone have any info on the jewelry?

[Anonymous]

I really dislike Kamala’s dress. The color is too close to her skin tone and it looks sprayed on, especially with that high neck. Maybe a lighter shade of gold with a more open neckline would be better. I usually think she looks good and I hate this.
Jill looks great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This might be more for the Politics forum = but do you think there's any backlash against guests to this dinner? It feels like a difficult thing, deciding whether to go celebrate Modi.

Like if Trump came to India and Indian-Americans had to decide if they were going to go to the state dinner.

Indians love Trump.

[Anonymous]

Mrs. Ambani’s sari was so dull. Blah.

M. Night Shyamalan’s wife’s outfit was a stunner!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is Mrs. Ambani

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love their hand-beaded jewelry. I started hand bead weaving jewelry after I took a class at Potomac bead. Some of the most beautiful bead weaving designs are made by women from India, shared on YouTube. The jewelry in the photos could be crystals or real gemstones. Anyone have any info on the jewelry?

Given the net worth of most of the invitees I’d bet the jewelry was real. Blossom Box and Jaipur Rose have some nice costume pieces.