More misogyny from Zoo as Ad Standards Board ruling ignored
We’ve helped bring down Zoo weekly’s ‘hottest asylum seeker’ competition, made complaints to the Ad Standards Board about its sexist ads on Facebook and called on Coles and Woolworths supermarkets to stop selling the sexist mag. But Zoo refuses to change, ignoring a recent ruling from the Ad Standards Board that posts on their Facebook page were demeaning and discriminated against women.
One of the ads we complained about was an image of two halves of a woman with the question “left or right but you have to tell us how you came to that decision.” What followed was a series of misogynistic comments from Zoo readers. We also lodged complaints about an image comparing a woman’s body to a game console. An image of a woman’s bottom wearing underpants that say ‘Nintendo’ was accompanied by the question “What would you call this console?”
A quick scan through Zoo’s Facebook page demonstrates that nothing has changed, in fact Zoo is only getting worse. An article on Mumbrella describes in detail the behaviour of Zoo Weekly and its fans on Facebook:
Meet Zoo Weekly’s women-hating, anal sex-obsessed readers
It’s been a while since I dropped by Zoo Weekly’s Facebook page.
Regular readers may recall that it fell foul of the Advertising Standards Board in November for a Facebook post featuring the top half and bottom half of a disembodied woman which asked readers which they preferred.
So how have they been since? It looks like service remains as normal.
Zoo put up a picture of Kim Kardashian riding a jet ski with the not entirely subtle innuendo: “Kim sure loves water sports.”
Reader Martin Devaney certainly got the joke, asking: “Can I piss on her?”
And thus began a cavalcade of misogynistic hate.
You can read the entire article complete with images on Mumbrella. *trigger warning* [MTR adds: disagree with the author's view here that Zoo itself isn't misogynist, but only encourages it].
It’s important to point out that Zoo magazine is an ‘unrestricted’ publication. This means that despite the sexist, pornified content and the advertising directing readers to hardcore content (see link here caution when opening) the magazine does not have an age restriction. Zoo’s own stats indicate that 28,000 young people aged 14-17 read the magazine each month. The magazine is widely available in supermarkets and service stations. Ads within the magazine urge readers to ‘like’ their Facebook page where they are served up more sexist and demeaning content.
We again call on Woolworths and Coles to stop selling a magazine that persists in demeaning women, women who make up both their staff and at least half of their customer base.
Take Action!
Contact Woolworths here.
Contact Coles here.
As published on Collective Shout
January 22nd, 2013 at 4:54 am
Proves yet again that the Advertising Standards Board has no institutional power whatsoever. Zoo editors know this which is why Zoo continues to promote male hatred and male contempt for women and girls. But of course male hatred/male contempt for women is non existent is it not because those males who are obsessed with posting a never ending tirade of women-hating sexualised degrading insults are merely engaging in ‘male humour!’
Now if a woman was to post a sexually insulting and degrading message concerning men there would be a mass hysterical response from men and claims ‘this is man-hating!’ But men are human are they not and women must constantly enact due subservience and deference to males. Whereas males have the right to subject women and girls to pandemic male hatred and male sexualised contempt.
Reason why men are obsessed with penetrating women and girls anally is because this act sexually degrades women and men know it. If anal penetration is so sexually exciting and pleasurable why then are not males routinely anally penetrated? I wonder how men would react if they were the ones being sexually penetrated because women find it soo sexy and exciting!