One topic that keeps coming to the forefront as we inch closer to the November 2024 election is each candidate’s relatability. This nebulous concept can mean anything to voters—from a politician’s upbringing to how they speak to the clothes they wear—and it definitely exposes an inherent bias against female candidates, for whom fashion and accessories are more visible than their male counterparts.
For Vice President and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, the nitpicking public has zoomed in on the jewelry she wears, that some might argue is in direct contrast to the middle-class message she touts on the campaign trail. During the Presidential Debate on Tuesday night, Harris wore a pair of $800 Tiffany & Co. pearl earrings—part of the New York-based luxury jewelry brand’s “HardWear” collection, which was initially suspected by the internet to be secret earpieces by NOVA H1 Audio Earrings. Users online compared the designs and ultimately determined that she was not, in fact, communicating with her team during the debate via her earrings. It turns out that sometimes women just want to look nice—no hidden agendas.
But after the theory was debunked, people found another way to express their distaste about her choice of jewelry: taking issue with the price. “How about we point out that most Americans would kill for $800 in their savings, not on their ears. She’s out of touch that way,” X user @endofanerajc commented on the platform.
It’s not the first time Harris’s jewelry choices have caught some flack. Previously, The Vice President’s $62,000 Tiffany & Co. chain link necklace, which she wore in a video asking for donations in August, garnered over 10.5 million views and 5,500 comments on X.
To some, expensive jewelry (and the designer outfits that she’s worn in big moments during the campaign) marks Harris as an unrelatable figure whose wealth from her successful career as a prosecutor, attorney general of California, senator, and current Vice President shows that she doesn’t understand the economic struggle of many Americans. But this is in direct contrast to both her middle-class upbringing in Oakland, California, as the daughter of two immigrants, and the “American Dream” that promises a better life for your kids after a lifetime of hard work. Harris, who is the embodiment of the “American Dream” and is in the biggest moment of her political career, is expected to look the part of a national leader without spending the money to do so—another inconsistency in the expectations for women in the public eye.
Another user, @revhowardarson, countered the original tweet with a different sentiment. “I think that $800 earrings are a perfectly normal thing for a successful late-career professional to wear to one of the most important events of her life.” And that’s the crux of it. Many career women invest in more expensive accessories, be it jewelry or handbags, that will stand the test of time. Harris’s discreet earrings are one such investment piece, no doubt purchased for important moments and utilized often for her public appearances; she wore the earrings again the day after the debate at a 9/11 anniversary event in New York City.
It’s notable that this much scrutiny is rarely paid to male politicians, who are often seen wearing expensive watches as a symbol of their power and status. Take Harris’s opponent, Donald Trump, for example. Leaving aside his upper-class upbringing and immense generational wealth stemming from his family’s real estate business that would render him extremely “out of touch” with most of the general population, the Republican nominee regularly wears pricey watches in both his public and private life. Montredo, a digital destination for watch lovers, identified three of Trump’s most worn watches, all of which land in the ballpark of $30,000 or more each (all three together are approximately $100,000, an amount of money that many Americans would kill for in their bank account, using the same line of reasoning as @endofanerajc). If we’re going to sling “out of touch” at Harris for a pair of $800 earrings, the same analysis should be given to Trump’s—and other male politicians—accessories.
The truth of the matter is that a woman’s appearance is always under the microscope, and the idea of “relatability” will always have differing standards for men and women. Let’s be real: If Harris wore a pair of earrings from Claire’s, she’d likely get picked on for that, too. In the biggest moment of her life, wearing some nice jewelry is not unreasonable. Men who bring out their expensive timepieces are often deemed aspirational and congratulated for looking the part.
In the world we currently live in, it should be expected that public figures have amassed bank accounts with balances that many of us can’t even conceive of. They wear earrings, necklaces, bracelets, and watches, too. So, if we’re being honest, with the amount of money, privilege, and power all American politicians have access to, are any of them really relatable?
