Stop. The. Press. Katie Holmes decided to leave the house without make-up and wearing A CARDIGAN. Yes. She went out in PUBLIC. With her hair in a bun. AND BOOTS.
I’m sending a letter of complaint. To someone. Clearly, this is a threat to public standards of….bullshit journalism?
The Daily Mail reported this story like this:
“Katie, 32, looked frumpy in an unflattering beige cardigan, blue trousers and boots as she and Isabella went to the vegan restaurant Gorilla Food. And she wasn’t helped by the fact that her hair, tied up in a messy bun on top of her head, looked in need of washing, and her face appeared make-up free.”
This is the other side of the media coin that treats women in the public eye so shabbily. When they pose for studio shots, they are digitally altered until they’re barely familiar.
And when they walk around like the rest of us, they are slammed by a certain type of misogynist press whose objective is unclear. Is it meant to make us feel better about ourselves to read Katie described as ‘frumpy’? Do you feel better about yourself after that? I don’t. I feel insulted.
Unless Katie has some kind of contract with the city of Vancouver (where she was photographed) that she is required to only appear publicly if she is wearing designer clothes and has had 4 hours of hair and make-up, then WTF?
I think she looks beautiful.
Mamamia’s Nicky Champ agrees. She writes:
“It seems that celebrities can’t win. Nicole Kidman is accused of not loving her adopted kids, Isabella and Connor, because she is never photographed with them. And now Katie Holmes is scrutinised for not wearing the right clothes for the lunch occasion with her step-daughter, Isabella.
Maybe the reporter was offended on behalf of the restaurant, Gorilla Food. Because a comparison was drawn to her apparently more stylish outfits that were seen in other parts of the city.
“It was a far cry from the smart casual outfits that Katie has been seen in while she, Isabella and her daughter Suri spend time in the Canadian city… The trio were all seen enjoying a drink at Starbucks last week during a shopping trip in the city.”
Well, if she can frock up for Starbucks, then really what on earth is Katie’s problem?
Also mind-boggling is that the article describes Holmes as a ‘down-to-earth stepmother.’ Down-to-earth pretty much implies a low-key, non pretentious personality. Which you would think be befitting of a person not wearing make-up and dressed casually. TO GO TO A CAFE. An organic one at that.
This level of scrutiny is damaging and insulting, and it seems it only applies to women, sure the majority of Hollywood male actors only wear make-up on set, but it’s pretty rare day that a newspaper would feature an article dedicated to dissecting the outfit and appearance of say, Jake Gyllenhaal.”
What do you think? Should celebrities just put up with this kind of scrutiny, or is it offensive to say a woman looks frumpy for not wearing make-up?
Top Comments
I hope the jouralists who publish this sort of rubbish dont do it because they believe the general public is as mean-spirited, mindless and petty as they themselves are.
I love the Daily Mail, it's trashy and it's content is rubbish which makes for lovely reading whilst drinking coffee and eating equally trashy food.
And BECAUSE its the Daily Mail - this article needs to be ignored rather than more publicity thrown at it.
It's what the Daily Mail do - they talk females up one day, trash em the next and then start the circle all over again.
I think she looks fine - in fact its refreshing to see a celebrity looking normal like the rest of us!