By Emma Jones

The Mail have turned their campaign of female body obsessed scrutiny to actress Aimee Lou Wood just weeks after a Femail reporter resigned after feeling pressured into writing misogynistic stories.

‍

In an article headlined: “Why White Lotus toothgate is a massive SCAM! Attention-seeking Aimee Lou Wood needs to get braces... or admit the truth” the newspaper urges the actress to change her appearance or make an admission of some kind.

Wood, 31, who originates from Stockport, has been under increased investigation by the publication since becoming the breakout star in the latest White Lotus TV series, in which she plays the character Chelsea.

She brought attention to the article with a repost on her Instagram page – which showed how perniciously she was being targeted.

Since season three of the HBO TV show began in February, the paper has published dozens of articles, on an almost daily basis, concentrating, for the most part, on

Wood’s distinctive teeth.

Wood’s treatment reveals the dichotomy women in the public eye face, given the paper’s unhealthy obsession with the alterations, or ‘tweakments’ they believe should, or should not have, to rectify their faces and bodies.

The repost from Wood, which originated on Emily Clarkson’s Instagram page, signposts another article, with the caption “The impossibility of being a woman in the Daily Mail..”

Just a day after the paper’s toothgate article, the paper had taken a different position.

This time journalist, Cassie Carpenter suggested actress Anne Hathaway may have had plastic surgery and was ‘sparking concerns’ with her taut face.

Exactly what those concerns were, and by whom, the newspaper did not specify.

In other words, actresses cannot win the Daily’s Mail’s beauty pageant – seemingly damned if they do, and damned if they don’t adjust their looks to the paper’s impossible requirements.

The White Lotus star was recently ridiculed on SNL, (Saturday Night Live) in a sketch which mocked her teeth and Wood subsequently complained about the lack of sophistication in the “mean and. unfunny” send up.

“I am not thin-skinned. I actually love being taken the p**s out of when it’s clever and in good spirits. But the joke was about fluoride. I have big gap teeth, not bad teeth.

“I don’t mind caricature – I understand that’s what SNL is. But the rest of the skit was punching up and I/Chelsea was the only one punched down on… Okay, end of.”

Her post was met by widespread support from the entertainment industry and from the public.

Wood received “apologies from SNL” including an apology from the comedienne Sarah Sherman, who appeared as the actress in the show.

Following the SNL backlash, the Mail published a photograph of Wood, visibly upset and crying, which had been snapped in the street, speculating her tears were a reaction to the satire.

Clearly not enough to deter the paper from publishing their latest slur.

Further in the article, in a somewhat threatening tone, reporter Bullock states: “It’s time toothy White Lotus star Aimee Lou Wood braced herself for a reality check.”

Bullock goes on to suggest the actress’s indignation was born out of desire for publicity rather than being genuine.

Labelling Wood “a self-absorbed B-list leading lady buoyed by a tiresomely predictable squad of virtue signalling cheerleaders.”

And her teeth being “a talking point” that she has played to her advantage.

Bullock writes: “Her buck tooth battle against the odds is a neat narrative propel her career and celebrity.”

“London's Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts trained, Bafta-winning star of HBO's biggest show can't resist playing the self-deprecating, insecurity card, all of which jars with the over confidence she tends to display.”

She continues: “You signed up for this Aimee, and you're making a mint out of putting your best tooth forward, so it's time to stop wallowing and grow a thicker skin. And if you can't do that - get some braces.”

This is not surprising and just the latest in a campaign of misogynistic attacks from the paper.

Recently actress Millie Bobby Brown, 20, described her own trauma at the hands of the Mail following a series of stories about her age-inappropriate looks.

As both actresses rightly point out women cannot win in this environment, dictated by the whims of a paper, hellbent on bringing women down.

In a recent GQ Hype interview, Wood said the conversation around her appearance made her “a bit sad” as she was “not getting to talk about my work”.

What’s worse, the paper appears to insist it is their female staff who pen them, undoubtedly at the dictate of their editors, who prefer to remain in the shadows, presumably with their perfect teeth and bodies.

This was demonstrated recently, as a Femail freelance writer Lydia Hawken walked out from her job, following the fallout from the Millie Bobby Brown ‘tweakments’ campaign for which she played a part.

“I want to apologise for writing this story and for not being brave enough to say no I don’t want apart in this.”

Hawken claimed she was exposed to death threats for writing the story.

The freelancer said: “I have had a flavour of what it feels like to be scrutinised and it’s been really, really, difficult. Ultimately, it’s been the wakeup call I needed”.

“This wasn’t the first time I was tasked with writing a story which wasn’t authentic to me, but it will be the last.”

Adding she had officially resigned from the Mail and would not write for them again.

“I want to apologise to Millie for the part I played in driving this sexist misogynistic narrative and I hope that other young women in newsrooms can learn from my mistake and pushback against these kinds of stories.”

Stories like these are trademark Daily Mail misogyny and have absoultely no news value.

Not only are they harmful to the individuals exposed to criticism but they perpetuate an atmosphere where women are exposed to trolling and unhealthy, sexually specific scrutiny.

Furthermore, they are damaging to the newspaper industry as a whole and to reporters who work for them, who should not be pressured to write stories to fulfil the obligations of a newspaper brand's hatred for women.

‍