Celeb goss 28th March 2017 by Victoria Stokes
Twitter Is Absolutely Raging About This Infuriatingly Sexist Daily Mail Headline
“The 1950s called and asked for their headline back.”
If you haven’t already seen the Daily Mail’s Tuesday front page headline, then brace yourself, because you’re about to get mad. Like, really mad.
The newspaper covered yesterday’s meeting between British PM Theresa May and Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, but instead of talking about the politics that the leading political figures were there to discuss, the Daily Mail chose to focus on something else: their appearance.
SIGH.
“Never mind Brexit, who won Legs-it” reads the headline.
Mail’s ‘sexist’ Legs-it headline sparks anger https://t.co/HIJ1HJv9Va pic.twitter.com/0ifhmK9APG
— Alana Lucy (@newswork24) March 28, 2017
Seriously?
Not surprisingly, Twitter is absolutely livid and people have taken great delight in trolling the newspaper for their offensive front page.
The 1950s called and asked for their headline back.#everydaysexism https://t.co/s1W1XfhrhN
— Ed Miliband (@Ed_Miliband) March 27, 2017
The Daily Mail. Edited by adolescent teenage boys. pic.twitter.com/D2EYTUpK4N
— David Schneider (@davidschneider) March 27, 2017
Sadly I can’t find the source for who made this, but whoever you are, you’ve made my day #legsit pic.twitter.com/wgbFYLb8XZ
— Emily Davies (@EmilyDTV) March 28, 2017
Legs-it. The UK’s in an unparalleled state of flux but when its most influential leaders are meeting, yeah, let’s look at their legs. Christ
— Gavan Reilly (@gavreilly) March 28, 2017
Imagine putting something so sexist on ur front page in 2017?? Imagine thinking Legs-It is a good pun??
— Josh Salisbury (@josh_salisbury) March 27, 2017
Also, “legs-it” isn’t even a very good pun. What does it even mean?
— James O’Malley (@Psythor) March 27, 2017
. @DailyMailUK I’ve edited your front page as it is currently wrong. Technically the winner of Legs-it is the millipede. pic.twitter.com/nHMybXGy2O
— Joe Lycett (@joelycett) March 28, 2017
Sorry, what year is it again? We’re confused.