Yesterday, Prime Minister Theresa May and Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, met to discuss Brexit and a second referendum for Scotland – political issues that will define the decade, maybe even the century. Time will tell. Regardless, they are bloody important. To reflect this, the front page of a national newspaper focused its headline on the meeting of these two political heavyweights: the politicians and… their legs.
Yes, literally.
‘Never mind Brexit,’ splashed The Daily Mail, ‘who won Legs-it!’.
The headline appeared next to a picture of May and Sturgeon, dressed in sensible navy suits with skirts revealing they both own legs.
I KNOW!
To detail quite how astonishing this revelation was, the paper dedicated an entire article to it. ‘What stands out here are the legs – and the vast expanse on show,’ the paper explained. ‘There is no doubt that both women consider their pins to be the finest weapon in their physical arsenal,’ it continued. ‘Consequently, both have been unsheathed.’
Then followed a detailed analysis as to what the positioning of each woman’s ‘pins’ meant – in the lightening moment the photograph was taken, of course, which obviously tells us A LOT.
Now, I know what you’re thinking… What about their hands?!
Rest assured, they got some column space too! May’s ‘elegant’ fingers with her ‘classic red nails’ were ‘relaxed and open’, whilst Sturgeon’s ‘grip’ appeared ‘somewhat tenser’. Take from that what you will about the future of the UK!
And in case you’re wondering whether the paper omitted the elephant in the room – you know, the very obvious talking point vis-à-vis the women’s meeting – know they most certainly DID NOT! Because OF COURSE the women’s OUTFITS got a mention! In fact, they opened the piece: a detailed description of Sturgeon’s (apparent) decision to mirror the Scottish flag (and William Wallace) by wearing a navy and white suit, and of May opting for the ‘stateswomanlike’-look, with her ‘signature’ leopard-print heels.
It was a scintillating read. Really, truly...
When pictures of the front page emerged late last night, Twitter went into Level 10 meltdown – unsurprisingly. What was surprising, however, was that the paper appeared to respond to the furore – in part – by altering the ‘sell’ on their front cover.
What had originally read:
‘It wasn’t quite stilettoes at dawn, but there was a distinctly frosty atmosphere when Theresa May met Nicola Sturgeon yesterday’
Became (the following morning):
‘Sarah Vine’s light-hearted verdict on the showdown’
As The Times columnist Janice Turner pointed out…
There will be a lot of things written about the furore today – how sexist it is, and how this would never had happened had the meeting taken place three years ago, when David Cameron was PM and Alex Salmond, FM of Scotland.
All that is true.
But there’s something about this incident which makes it even worse than just merely being an outrageous example of sexism. It’s that it appears the paper knew it would be perceived as such, and yet they chose to publish anyway.
Let me explain…
The first point to make is that the article was written by a woman – Sarah Vine. You might think this should discredit any allegations of sexism, but newsflash, women can be sexist too. Humiliating female politicians by writing about their legs, hands and clothes (and not the issues they were discussing – like, hmm, the separation of the UK from the European Union, followed by the potential break-up of the UK itself) is degrading to the extreme whether a man or woman writes it.
So yes, the article can be read as sexist. How do we know the powers that be at Daily Mail towers would have given some thought to this?
Well, I think it’s fair to assume the paper was aware what might lie in store for them with this one. They’re not idiots down there on Derry Street. It therefore made sense for them to recruit a woman to write this particular piece because not only would a story of this contentious nature sell, but – BONUS – the paper could then wash its hands of the subsequent (inevitable) ‘sexist rag’ backlash, merely by pointing out the author was a woman. She, and she alone, was responsible.
I believe this to have been a calculated move: someone saw the photograph and thought a story on legs would sell. They knew how it would come across, so they had a brainwave – hire a lady to write it. That covers everyone’s backs. The degrading story remains, but it has an exciting female angle to placate those raging feminists. Then what happens? The day after May meets Sturgeon, all anyone can talk about is The Daily Mail! A dream come true for the publication, surely?
Still not convinced…?
Well, what about the fact they changed their front page sell? The one we saw originally might have been ‘work in progress’ at the time, and yes, they might have always intended to get the words ‘Sarah Vine’ in there somewhere – in case you’re unaware, Sarah is married to Brexit MP Michael Gove, and doesn’t it add another level of juicy intrigue to know the person behind the piece actually knows the women in it? – but the fact they had to spell out her analysis was ‘light-hearted’, indicates they were aware we might not get ‘the joke’? Since it’s not like The Mail to apologise for itself unconsciously, it’s likely they were intentionally trying to lessen the sting; which means they were aware that ‘sting’ it certainly would...
A national newspaper that publishes a headline they knew was likely to be perceived as sexist, leads me to the most horrifying realisation of all: sexism sells.
And since I clicked on the offending article, knowing full well what it was about, I am guilty of buying it.
READ MORE: Can We Stop Getting On Our High Horses About Feminism?