I don't care if Reanimated Coco Chanel herself with the help of Jesus and a unicorn with opposable thumbs designed Desiree Rogers' gown. It's really... awful. It looks like she raided a child's costume chest and ruined some sheer ill-fitting bedroom curtains. Her outfit reminds me of a waterlogged Zelda Fitzgerald.
The McNeil family's comments are pretty blatant admissions that Catherine was inflicting those cuts on herself. I just hope she gets all the support, love and hope she needs to pull through. My experiences with people I love self-mutilating makes this an issue that's close to my heart.
@Tchotchke: Ditto. However, oddly, I'm kind of glad that she chose to go out in public with the scars on her arms. I regularly cut my shoulders and my breasts, and it's only been very recently that I'm able to face the public world with the evidence still in my skin.
The sooner we stop being ashamed of our disease, the sooner the rest of the world will accept it as such.
As long as she's not flaunting it (tacky) or spending public money (illegal) there's really no harm...I mean we wouldn't know how much the stuff cost if it weren't for nosey reporters trying to start shit by asking what she's wearing and running off to tally up the tab. Shame.
I do, however, question the length of that skirt for a formal state function.
Is she buying her own clothes? Is it hurting anyone? Is it really kind of stupid to tell people to stop spending money because we're in a recession? Does anyone tell men to spend less money on suits?
@greengrey: Really, if people who had money stopped spending, wouldn't it keep us in the recession longer? I thought it was kind of the panic of "AAHHH THE RECESSION!!" that perpetuated the problem because it scared consumers (including those in no real danger, a category I am sure would include Ms. Rogers) away from helping the market at all.
While I disagree that "looking good" is in the job description (if the Social Secretary were male, I sincerely doubt that being easy on the eyes would be considered a requirement) I don’t think that Rogers’ sartorial choices are damaging the White House’s econ-cred in any meaningful way - particularly if she is paying for her designer wardrobe herself. We don’t get on male cabinet members’ cases for wearing expensive designer suits, so I fail to see why Roger’s fashion choices merit this much scrutiny.
And for the record, I would be more offended if Rogers were to go sartorially down-market in an attempt to appease the masses – she looks damn good and should not have to apologize for it.
@Alecto: I'd be really offended too. I would have to read that as "she thinks clothes are going to fix the economy. she doesn't get it."
At least everyone isn't poor. There's a glimmer of hope for me yet.
I think it's FINE. As long as her clothes aren't paid for with public money, we don't have the right to judge how much her coat cost. It doesn't even matter if it's part of her job--it looks like style is part of who she IS. W
i wouldn't necessarily say that she never had anything handed to her. her family is pretty influential in new orleans, and new orleans is a town built upon familial dynasties. i'm not going to criticize her and say that she doesn't deserve what she has or that she didn't work her ass off to achieve it. i'm merely pointing out that she doesn't come from a rags-to-riches background; she definitely had a leg up on the world. i pay close attention to class narratives in this country, that's all.
I know that is naive, but where does a gov't employee get the money to purchase such expensive clothing? I can't believe these are msotly freebies from the designers. So, I assume that she either made a lot in her previous career or has a generous, wealthy family. Both things I have never experienced, though sometimes wish I did!
@WashingMyHair: she does come from a pretty well-connected family down here in new orleans. not saying that has anything to do with the clothes. but yeah, pretty powerful family.
If she is paying for her clothes than it is none of our damn business how much she spends on it. Plus her appearance is a part of her job and so it really is a work expense.
It would be so much more patronizing and empty for Rogers to suddenly stop wearing the designer clothes that obviously fill her closet (and have for some time) in order to convey the "right" message to the nation. Yes, there is a divide between rich and poor in this country. But no, it cannot be bridged by having rich people pretend they are not rich in order to get poor people to... what? Feel better about themselves? Trust me, Desiree Rogers wearing Talbots is not going to make me feel better about the economy.
Not to mention, it's always awesome to see a successful black woman enjoying her success. Would people expect Jay Leno to stop buying vintage cars in a recession because it sends the wrong message to those who have less money?
11/25/09
I hope she wears those thigh-high boots to the next state dinner.
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
11/25/09
The sooner we stop being ashamed of our disease, the sooner the rest of the world will accept it as such.
11/25/09
And your company has his name, so I suggest you take his views into consideration.
11/25/09
08/17/09
I do, however, question the length of that skirt for a formal state function.
08/17/09
08/17/09
Besides, that's a cute skirt.
08/17/09
And for the record, I would be more offended if Rogers were to go sartorially down-market in an attempt to appease the masses – she looks damn good and should not have to apologize for it.
08/17/09
At least everyone isn't poor. There's a glimmer of hope for me yet.
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/17/09
Not to mention, it's always awesome to see a successful black woman enjoying her success. Would people expect Jay Leno to stop buying vintage cars in a recession because it sends the wrong message to those who have less money?