Want public-service journalism? Get today’s ‘Daily Mail’

Slow hand clap, Daily Mail.

The British newspaper, whose attempts to stay relevant in the digital age seem to chiefly involve elevating trolling to a branch of journalism, has once again succeeded in generating headlines about its headlines.

Today's offending front page features a photograph of two of Britain's most prominent politicians – women who are currently making crucial decisions that will shape its future – Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon and British prime minister, Theresa May.

The position of the camera at roughly knee height means that the two women's legs take up two thirds of the photograph. Clearly, a late night was spent in the offices of the Daily Mail trying to find a way to stitch together the fact that Britain is teetering on the brink of one of the most unstable periods in its history, as May prepares to trigger Article 50 and Sturgeon is preparing for another referendum on Scottish independence, with the much more preoccupying sight of two pairs of female legs.

A weirdly fetishistic study is given over to the legs, and what their significance might be

After much rubbing of greasy hands on meaty editorial thighs, some genius came up with the following dismal pun: “Never mind Brexit, who won Legs-it!”

On the inside pages, a detailed anthropological – no, let's call it what it is – a weirdly fetishistic study is given over to the legs, and what their significance might be.

"What stands out here are the legs – and the vast expanse on show. There is no doubt that both women consider their pins to be the finest weapon in their physical arsenal. Consequently, both have been unsheathed," Daily Mail columnist Sarah Vine writes.

She goes on: “Sturgeon’s shorter but undeniably more shapely shanks are altogether more flirty, tantalisingly crossed, with the dominant leg pointing towards her audience. It’s a direct attempt at seduction: her stiletto is not quite dangling off her foot, but it could be.”

Exactly who Sturgeon was trying to seduce (May? The photographer? The Scottish people?) is left to the imagination of the Mail's readers - some of whom, judging by the comments, were only too happy to oblige.

Of course, those familiar with the Daily Mail know that, in the bizarre parallel universe in which this newspaper resides, female bodies are never allowed to merely exist. Curves are "flaunted". Bumps are "displayed". Teenage bodies "bloom". Perky cleavages "plunge". Stunning physiques are "shown off" in "flirty one-pieces". And yes, legs are "unsheathed".

Even so, choosing to objectify Sturgeon and May rather than focus on the issues at stake at such a crucial moment in the country's history seemed in unusually poor taste, and especially incendiary. If the aim was to inflame (who are we kidding? Of course it was), it was a spectacular success. The reaction was swift and furious -- and no doubt accompanied by jubilant high fives in the offices of the Mail.

Amelia Womack, the deputy leader of the Green Party, said she has complained about the newspaper to the UK Press Regulator. Other British politicians who made their distaste known on Twitter include Harriet Harman, Yvette Cooper, Ed Miliband, Jeremy Corbyn and the former political adviser, Alastair Campbell.

Social media has conditioned us to crave a daily dose of indiscriminate fury. Click here for outrage, it promises. Click here for bile.

The uncomfortable truth is that this kind of thing is part of the Faustian pact of the digital age. If we didn’t enjoying bingeing on outrage so much, the Mail would give up providing us with a daily diet of it. Social media has conditioned us to crave a daily dose of indiscriminate fury. Click here for outrage, it promises. Click here for bile. Click on this link to bang your forehead off the keyboard.

But while it's tempting to say we should just ignore the Mail in the hopes it would go away, we should probably thank it instead. By devoting an entire front page to a vivid illustration of the sexist nonsense female politicians in almost every country in the world still have to put up with, it is performing a useful service to humanity.

Most of the time, women in politics avoid talking about gender issues because calling sexism out – or being seen to "play the woman card", as Donald Trump put it with his customary delicacy – doesn't always work out well for them.

Look what happened to then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who put up with years of being sniggered at and condescended to by Tony Abbott and his Liberal Party cronies and labelled in grossly offensive terms by misogynist voices in the Australian media before she finally, gloriously, hit back.

"I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. Not now, not ever," she shot back at Abbott across the floor of the House of Commons, before going on to tell him that if he wanted to know what misogyny looked like, he should look in a mirror. Gillard's smackdown went viral – but it didn't stop her being ousted as leader of her party shortly afterwards.

In France last year, 17 female former government ministers made a public protest over the sexism and lewd comments rife in French politics, and “the omertà and the law of silence” that allows male politicians to get away with it. In Italy, the health minister Beatrice Lorenzin complained that “this is not a country for women” after Silvio Berlusconi said a woman could not be both a mother and the mayor of Rome.

Earlier this month, a Polish member of the European Union Parliament, Janusz Korwin-Mikke, commented during a debate that “Of course women must earn less than men because they are weaker, they are smaller, they are less intelligent.”

Before we trip ourselves up in our scramble to occupy the high moral ground, it’s worth taking a look at our own, less than glorious track record in this regard, whether it was Padraig Flynn accusing Mary Robinson of having “a new-found interest in her family” in the 1990s; Brian Cowen telling Eamon Gilmore to “rein [Joan Burton] in now and again” in 2010; or Mick Wallace referring to Mary Mitchell O’Connor as “Miss Piggy” in 2011.

It is also a useful reminder of just how far women in politics still have to go to be treated as equals

So yes, the Daily Mail's treatment of May and Sturgeon is retrograde, moronic, depressing and deeply offensive – not just to them, but to the public, both the women and men that they represent.

But it is also a useful reminder of just how far women in politics still have to go to be treated as equals, and equally deserving of respect. It is a klaxon call to the rest of us that we shouldn't have to put up with this. Next time someone tells you we don't need feminism, just pick up that Daily Mail cover and wave it at them.