IN recent days, we have been treated to a stream of female celebrities boldly parading their make-up-free faces.
It's all in a good cause: BBC Children in Need's "BearFaced" campaign.
But while I'm all for famous bods doing their little bit for good causes, something rings a little hollow. For a start, have you seen the photographs? We're talking flattering portraits that have been immaculately studio-lit to within an inch of their lives, not grainy snaps taken first thing in the morning on a disposable camera.
But clearly I'm missing the point. According to Countryfile presenter Julia Bradbury, the campaign is "liberating", while supermodel Heidi Klum adds: "I am a firm believer in encouraging women's empowerment."
Me too, Heidi, me too. But I was thinking along the lines of equal pay, decent childcare provision and better representation of women in parliament, rather than keeping our make-up bags zipped for a day.
Put it this way: if someone told me that I could never wear mascara or eyeshadow again, I wouldn't find it "liberating" or feel "empowered". The adjectives that spring to mind are "bemused" and possibly "disgruntled".
To wear make-up is a choice. I don't do it to "make my husband like me more" (I haven't forgotten that comment, Gwen Stefani), or as armour against the world. I don't feel pressured by society into wearing make-up, I do it because I want to. And on the days I don't, I simply go without.
What gets my goat, though, is the notion that a few celebs ditching their lippy should somehow be seen as brave. The implication is that going without eyeliner for a day demonstrates empathy with the disadvantaged children for whom they are raising money. It doesn't. And to suggest otherwise is insulting, shallow and, frankly, embarrassing.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article