Scenario: X oversteps boundaries/misjudges audience and goes too far with its crap. X may be a national newspaper, a TV presenter, a comedian, a boss, a creepy uncle or any one of a thousand other options. Add/delete as needful.
Response tactic: X tries to wheedle out of it, often by throwing another woman under the bus. Here, the paper did this by changing the description under the headline and picture on its second edition to “Sarah Vine’s lighthearted verdict on the showdown”. Subtext: This woman didn’t mind it! Neither should you!

Scenario: The backtracking doesn’t work.
Response tactic: X comes out swinging. The Mail used two of the most common defences among people who have no argument to offer. It issued a statement that literally began with the words, “For goodness sake, get a life!” and accused its critics of having no sense of humour. These are both responses designed to do nothing more than shut down debate. “Get a life!” is a playground attempt at humiliation (it’s the British equivalent of Trump’s “Sad!”) and accusations of humourlessness are an automatic response by anyone accused of even the most blatantly offensive comments or actions, used to try and nullify both feelings and facts. Remember when you hear them it is because your X has nothing substantive to use in his defence. So keep going. The Daily Mail’s critics did.

“A step-by-step guide to sexism”: Lucy Mangan gets angry about ‘Legs-it’