Holly Willoughby had the bare-faced cheek (pun intended) to tweet a picture of herself with no make-up on this week. I, too, at this moment am not wearing any make-up. What do we both have in common? According to Liz Jones, quite a lot. Because of course, in the Land of The Jones, our bare faces are the tell-tale sign that we are anti-feminists: cleansing wipes in hand, teaming up against womankind.
Ok, so there was a little more to it. The crux of the argument being that Liz believes that Holly was guilty of ‘not admitting all the effort’ that went into her troll-awakening twitpic, which she accompanied with, ‘I'm not out of my pj's yet! X Lunch done, Me however still in nightie! Makeup!’.
Liz branded Holly a ‘drag queen’, with ‘teeny, tiny pores’ and ‘the ultimate playground bully’. She believes that by going bare-faced, Holly is saying to the rest of the world that she’s ‘too busy to wear make-up at home’. Er, aren’t we all? The Daily Mail columnist accuses her of lying about the amount of enhancement (eyelash dye, hair extensions and fake tan) she’s used in the photo, and kindly publishes a photograph of her own ‘morning face’. (Thanks for that, Liz.)
Trouble is, feminism is not about make-up at all, whether you admit to how much you’re wearing or not. It’s about choice and not being pressured into wearing more or less war paint than you feel comfortable in. Not being pressured by men, friends, or columnists in newspapers.
And, after the furore of men and women standing up for Holly since Liz’s remarkable revelations (including Philip Schofield, who tweeted, ‘I swear there can be no greater force against all womankind than Liz Jones. She is inconsistent, bitter, nasty and unhinged.’ Ouch) it seems it’s Liz that’s the only one appearing anti-feminist – completely undermining the whole point of her piece (and, if you read it carefully, not for the first time).
We say: keep tweeting Holly. But who's side are you on? Was Holly being 'anti-feminist'? Or is Liz Jones stepping over the line? Voice your views below!