Let’s just think for a minute and then say the following out loud; “If Liz Jones were a man”. I can kind of imagine the weight of anger that would be weighed down on her or any publication that chose to distribute her cruel, misguided and misogynistic abuse. It would come from women, disturbed and offended by such foul utterances. But she’s not, she’s a woman and so the following seems to apply; she’s “bitter”, she’s “unhinged”, she’s an attention seeking “self-styled misfit”. We appear to be accepting her crap-(even though she is getting thousands of hits on her writing every day), on the basis that she shouldn’t be taken all that seriously; people think she’s unbalanced, so they don’t buy in to her BS. I’m not so sure. Her’s is the nasty sexist/racist joke, said in hushed tones and snickered at, but never challenged.
I know what Liz Jones is-I know her “type”, she’s the front for some pretty horrific hate filled “journalism”. From what I can gather from her own columns, she’s lonely, angry, unhappy, regretful and utterly vitriolic towards other women. However I have no idea WHO she actually is, because all her articles are a pantomime and I’m not entirely sure a single word is really her own opinion. Why? I only have to look at her latest post to come to this conclusion.
A more bile filled piece you’d be hard pushed to find and lo and behold I’m fascinated to discover LJ HATES ME. With a level of venom reserved for benefit cheats and puppy killers. My crime? I’m a woman in my 30s who waited until my 30s to have a child. Never mind that I was exercising what I thought was a level of personal responsibility, never mind that I was rebelling against a disordered childhood and wanted security for my child. Never mind that it took years longer than we expected to actually fall pregnant. Nope, I am to be ridiculed and hated for waiting until my mid-thirties to embark on motherhood. Liz Jones deals in absolutes, therefore so shall I.
The following are a series of extracts from her column in The Daily Mail. Try not to take your anger out on me once you’ve read these please.
On leaving parenting until your 30s;
“Older mums have children not because they love babies – if that were the case they would have taken the plunge in their early 20s – but because they want to use a baby as a pawn: to keep a man, to prevent themselves from being sacked, and to give them something to talk about. I have a friend who had a baby in her early 40s. When I asked her why, she replied: ‘I couldn’t think of anything else to do.”
ACTUALLY LIZ. I was married and he wasn’t planning on going anywhere, I had plenty to talk about and was not in any danger of being sacked. Shut Up. Do it, Do it now and please don’t talk with authority about something of which you have ZERO personal experience.
On feminism and women going out and working;
“…Not monkeys in charge, exactly, but women who have only one thing on their mind – replacing the filter in their Miele vacuum cleaner. You see, we can’t leave these low-earning men at home because they don’t even know filters in vacuum cleaners exist. So women continue to mastermind the domestic landscape, which means the rest of us who work with them – for them, more like – have to pick up the pieces…”
No, again Liz, you’re talking utter bollocks. The one thing on my mind is normally far more complex than the vacuum cleaner filter. It normally involves how we pay the rent while I get at least one night where I get to put my baby to bed.
And she doesn’t reserve her cruelty for the mewling masses, she’s happy to lay into celebrity women too. Stella McCartney gets a grilling for what? Dressing “badly”…In Liz’s opinion anyway;
“Oh Stella! She’s been crowned British designer of the year, so why does Ms McCartney look like she dresses in the dark?”
Another victim? Holly Willoughby;
Apparently she’s “anti-feminist” and “a playground bully” for posting a picture of herself without make-up on Twitter over the weekend, according to Liz Jones she usually “resembles a drag queen”. Going on to say; “My feeling is that not wearing make-up is in fact anti-feminist. Women like Holly and Charlotte are saying to the rest of us: I am too busy to wear make-up at home. “These women are the ultimate playground bullies: they know men hate make-up (my husband used to say I was like a moth, leaving dark smudges on him in my wake), so they pretend they need no help.”
I’m not even sure what she’s angry about here? Too much or too little make-up? It’s a scatter gun approach and literally makes no sense.
On women supporting one another in the family at Christmas;
Somehow, LJ manages to insult three generations of women with this line; “Now, it seems, it’s the wives who have taken on that role; the grans are probably too busy being unpaid nannies so the mums can go to work and drink lattes, or they have descended into dementia because their adult children are so selfish and unstimulating”
And not only do generations of women supporting one another come up for criticism in this article, she also manages to throw her anti-benefit rhetoric in (but in fairness this could be a DM editor doing this)
“Everyone is shut away inside their houses, celebrating how clever they are to have divided a few cells inside their wombs and whizzed round Sainsbury’s using their husband’s PIN number and accumulated child support”
Too angry Liz to do a response justice. “accumulated child support” This coming from a woman who freely admits to having tried to “obtain” sperm by deception. She is delusional. Has to be.
She is of course on fine form when laying into Clare Balding;
“Forget discrimination. That is so last century. There is a bigger, better fight to be waged, a war to be won. It is not for more rights for women with bad dress sense, it’s a battle for animal rights, and human rights in general”.
I could get tired of saying NO to you Liz, discrimination is NOT so last century, it’s here and now and very much alive. Whilst animal rights are important and close to my heart, so is my desire to open a paper and not have to read an anti-women column like yours.
And every now and then, she’ll throw a casual punch in the face to those struggling financially or experiencing life choices that require dependency on benefits, or heaven forbid “state education”. They receive the following write-up;
Of course, we cannot all do exactly as we please. If I get a cat ‘for love’, then I don’t expect other people to help me feed him or her. I am always being abused for being an animal lover (do see last week’s column to catch up on the latest ding-dong), but at least my animals are rescued: I didn’t squeeze them out between my thighs then send them to a state school.
So, now, to finish, given that LJ has publicly shared her battles with eating disorders (which I was and still am inclined to show respect for, given the bravery it takes) I was disappointed but not surprised to read the following quote in yet ANOTHER article seemingly designed to depress and upset in equal measure;
“This is a contest that encourages women to revel in their Revels, to throw away the Slim Fast shakes and soups. It seems the only limit on their size is the fact there’s only so much Lurex in the universe that can contain them”
So, a page of Liz Jones quotes. Did it make you feel good? Nope, me neither. So every time someone says to you, Liz Jones, she’s not all there. Remember this; She’s writing for a national paper. Regularly. She’s viewed, read and repeated daily. She ALL THERE. SHE’S EVERYWHERE and her kind of journalism is insidious, cruel and gains momentum because guess what? It hates women. HATES US. She said so herself. Do not underestimate women haters. Women can hate women too and they do, she does. in every column she writes and underestimating her appeal does us no favours whatsoever.