Why Zoo shouldn't be taken off the shelves

Over the last few months there has been much discussion in Australia about men's magazine, Zoo.  People have been calling for it to be removed from supermarket shelves.  The common theme amongst complainants is that Zoo exploits young women.  I haven't myself read Zoo magazine but to my knowledge it features a whole bunch of bikini clad women with articles about how to get a woman to do what you want and how to take advantage of drunk women.  The latter has been getting people including the staff of women's lifestyle network MamaMia up in arms.

They have been up in arms because they are worried about the exposure young children in supermarkets will have to the magazine.  They're worried that men are being taught to treat women poorly and disrespect them.

The problem is that the anti Zoo brigade have missed a key point which is actually that women's magazines are just as bad when it comes to the treatment of young women and teen girls. 

Let's look at Cosmopolitan shall we?!  Cosmo is a magazine targeted at teenagers and young women.  The magazine features women in the most fashionable clothing around.  Cosmo also features stories on how to give your man the best sex he's ever had.  Are these magazines really any better than Zoo?  They very rarely have intelligent articles and like Zoo they often reduce women to sex objects who are only there for men's enjoyment and the enjoyment/envy of other women.  They lead women to believe that a woman's self worth only comes from how she looks.

It starts younger though with Dolly and Girlfriend.  Dolly and Girlfriend are tamer version of Cosmopolitan and Cleo.  They often feature sex stories and encourage teenage girls to wear make up and that they will not be complete or accepted if they don't.  they then have a number of articles on how to be popular and what you should be wearing.  The bottom line is that these magazines also feed on the notion that a woman's worth is tied up in her looks.

Men's magazines have a difference audience and so naturally they approach things differently but we also need to realise that often the women who feature in these magzines as centrefolds or other pin ups are paid models who are just doing a job.  Nobody forces the women to appear in the magazines.  they do so by choice.

Another belief is that the magazines were created by men for men, and the fact of the matter is that those perceptions already had to be in the minds of the readers for them to exist and be published.  So is it that Zoo is leading to the sexualisation and objectification of women or is it that the magazine is a symptom of society's long held belief which is that women are there for the pleasure of men and nothing more?  Before Zoo the most popular men's mags were FHM and Ralph, both of which closed due to low readership.  That should actually indicate that men are turned off by the magazines.

With the advent of pornography on the internet these men's magazines, just like all other magazines and printed media are going out of fashion so eventually Zoo many end up being taken off the shelves.  Even if it was though that would not deal with the issue of the objectification of women and no doubt something else would take its place.

The bottom line is that Zoo is a magazine targeted at a specific market, men, and that women's magazines are really no better in their treatment of women.  People do not have to buy the magazine if they do not wish to, but we live in a nation which has freedom of the press and that means being able to publish content which may or may not offend.  So, in conclusion, if you don't like Zoo, don't buy it, but don't stop others who like it buying it.  It's a personal choice.

How dare Joe Hockey tell people to work for a house, how dare he say such a prepostorous thing.

Work for a living.

How dare someone suggest such a thing.  People shouldn't have to work for a better life.  They should have everything handed to them on a silver platter and have their hand held along the way.  Everyone should be given a house for life when they're born and live in that house forever.  They shouldn't work hard or aspire to more.

I am of course being sarcastic in that last paragraph but felt the need to write about the outrage at Treasurer Joe Hockey telling people that if they want a home they should get a better job or work harder. 

As usual, the left has taken offense to being told to work for a better life.

It makes me sad to think we live in a country where being told to work harder for a better life is frowned upon.  It shows you how much damage Labor did while they were in office.  What happened to working for a better life?  What happened to aspiration?  What happened to the satisfaction you get when you know you worked hard for something and earned it?

Once upon a time it was a sign that you'd done well to be able to buy a home.  It was a sign you'd done well to be able to buy nice things, but Labor's two parliamentary terms took away that mentality and people decided they were entitled to nice things with no work.

If everyone has nice things they lose their value.  Just look at degrees.  Just about everyone these days has some type of university qualification and they're losing their value as a result which is seeing quotas introduced for certain universities and in some cases, like at the University of Sydney degrees are being scrapped.  What happens when everyone has a degree and eventually a PHD?  The answer is, we create another level.

I'm not saying home ownership is easy because it's not but if you scour the markets then it is affordable.  Nobody can expect their first home to be in the suburb they want to live in, so why not invest money while you're working for a few years to get up a deposit and then buy a house in a cheaper location and rent it out or live in a less desirable suburb for a while? 

Some of you will say that home ownership is a right, but it isn't.  Having shelter and a roof over your head is a right.  Owning that roof isn't.  It's time people remembered that, and actually appreciated the value of hard work.

If you want a better life then the simple answer is to increase your income.  Getting your first property has always been tough so if people want to achieve that goal make sacrifices whether it be going without the latest gadget or getting a second job.  It is not up to the government to give million dollar homes to everyone.

Why are people living in poverty? Or is it a budgeting problem?

Every week when we switch on the news we see yet another story about some struggling family.  There will be some family in Western Sydney or South Auckland who can't heat their homes and who can't give their kids new shoes.  We hear about families who can't put food on the table and we hear about parents who can't heat their house.  Then we hear about those who can't buy a home.  In this piece I won't be talking about the latter because home ownership is something which should be earned and not necessarily a given or taken for granted.

The first group however is considerably high.  If you believe the statistics that are released every few months with great reactions then you'd believe that 14% of people in Australia are living in poverty.  Poverty is defined as being half of the median income, or $400 a week in Australia for a single person, and $841 a week for a family of four

If you were a single person living in Sydney then $400 a week would be tight but you would get the following:
Rent $200 for a cheap boarding house in a terrible suburb with power included.
Transport $50 assuming you have a job or studies to travel to.
Phone $15
Food $70
That would still leave $65 to put into savings for a rainy day or for clothing.  One could argue that we have a distorted view on what poverty is in Australia because our wages and living standards are so high.

Now suppose you're a family of four living in Sydney, the poverty line is $841, so what could you get for that amount of money?
Rent $350 - $400 for a house with three bedrooms in Western Sydney.
Transport $100
Food $150
Power $50
Phone $40
That leaves $60 to put away for a rainy day or savings for the doctor although the doctor is free.  In other words, if you budget carefully then you can survive if you live below the official poverty line.  Yes things would be tight and you would have to watch the pennies but you could still save.

This actually brings me to my next point, do we have a poverty problem or do we have a budgeting problem?  If you are bringing in $800 a week as a family and you still can't make ends meet then you have a budgeting problem, you also have an employment problem.  if you have just relocated to a new area then it makes sense that your income would be low as you would need to find a job, however if that's not the case then you need to ask yourself the question of why your income is so low and what you can do to increase it.  Do you have skills that employers want?  Are you educated enough?  Do you have motivation?  Do you want to improve your situation in life?  Those who are proactive and want a better life will do everything in their power to get ahead and will not be on the low income for long (think less than two years) while those who are on that long term have other issues that need addressing.

Given Australia, depending on where you live, is a land of opportunity people should have no issues finding jobs and increasing their income.  It is the same situation for the young.  We hear about youth unemployment day after day and how it's awful but instead of asking why, the mainstream media just says it's happening.  I don't support activism journalism, though one could argue that is what I do in my independent blog, however surely it's the mainstream media's job to look at what is actually causing long term unemployment.

Nobody is saying it is easy to solve long term unemployment or the cycle of poverty however imagine this, if you only grow up surrounded by poor people with low education you don't know anything else, just as the well off don't know what poverty is.  Is it time that schools in well off areas had a quota of say 10% for those out of zone from the poorer areas?  And with private schools is it time we looked at increasing the number of scholarships offered?  It seems that the current system is failing people and handouts and benefits are not the answer.  Not everyone can reach the top and nor should they, but it seems like some parents, teachers and kids themselves are ensuring they never improve their lot in life.

Parents play a big part in their kids' future and education.  Without good parents investing in your education you won't have opportunities and may end up stuck in poverty, so the question is, why are parents having kids that they don't want to help achieve?  And the bigger question, how can parents live with themselves if they don't give their kids opportunities?  Are they dumb?  Or do they just not care?

Rather than just giving endless handouts, what can be done to truly help those living in poverty get out of it?  Why didn't they get the qualifications and skills when they were younger?

The same sex marriage debate

Unless you've been living under a rock then you'd know that for the last few weeks same sex marriage has been debated widely amongst the Australian parliamentarians and the Twittersphere.  As you'd expect the public and MPs are divided 50/50 on the matter.  Of course, those who support same sex marriage say that same sex couples should have the same legal right to marry that heterosexual couples have.  They say that it is discrimination and that the Government is disapproving of their lifestyles and treating them as second rate citizens. 

Supporters of same sex marriage hold the belief that opponents are homophobic and have an issue with gay people.

Those in homosexual relationships who support same sex marriage say they are being denied basic rights that heterosexual couples have and they want legal recognition in the case that their partner should die, or simple to be next of kin in case of emergency.

Firstly, nobody is saying that same sex couples cannot be together.  Nobody is saying they should be stoned like in countries with Sharia Law.  All opponents are saying is that marriage is between a man and a woman and should remain that way.  Nobody is saying that same sex couples cannot raise children because more often than one of the partners does have children from a previous relationship.  The main difference being that if one partner dies, the other may not be recognised as a legal guardian by the state.

That's fair but why require and be obsessed with marriage?  Why not just have a case by case family law system?

These days if you're getting married for legal rights then you're marrying for the wrong reason.  You can still be with the person you love.  The other aspect is religion is dying so why do people even need to get married in the first place? Of all the things you can spend money on it seems like an exorbitant waste of both time and money.

Same sex couples are not being discriminated against and marriage should, as it currently is, remain between a man and a woman not two women or two men.

With unfactual Campbell Live reports its no wonder the show was canned (specific reference to the Kiwis in Aus story)

Last night the second to last ever Campbell Live show decided to look at Kiwis living in Australia, more specifically they looked at and analysed the fact that Kiwis do not qualify for welfare.  The report was a whinge fest that took the vey worst Kiwis they could possibly find who were living on the street on the Gold Coast, had no education and we're basically dero bogans (derelict bogans who had no education).

The report was factually incorrect for several reasons and was incredibly narrow in its scope.  The only thing the report actually did right was inspiring this opinion article.

The reporter talked to a few Maori Kiwi youths who were on the Gold Coast.  They clearly had no education.  The report ignored the educated, or even non educated hard working NZ citizens who come to Australia and make a positive contribution. One can assume they were at work and that's why they weren't interviewed.

The Maori people they interviewed for the report were the very bottom of the socio economic ladder. They were what one would call no hopers and the types that in NZ would not do well either.  It is no wonder they were on the street.

At the end of the report they talked to a young man, Oscar who said he hated Australia.

So what did they not focus on? What was left out of the report? If the reporters on Campbell Live had bothered to do their job (and it's funny because as of tonight some, including Campbell himself are out of jobs, with unfactual reports its no wonder) they'd have seen that NZ citizens, myself included, come over for work opportunities we wouldn't otherwise have in NZ.  The report ignored that many Kiwis are actually very hard working. I can name several, myself, my brother.  When I was working three casual jobs last year I was staying in unpleasant accommodation and there were two Kiwis there.  They may not have been the sharpest knives in the drawer but they were hard workers and were loyal to Australia to the death, just like me, and just like my brother.

The report portrayed Kiwi migrants as ungrateful and that we just want to take from the Australian government. I know other people in Australia who are so grateful for the lives they have here and like me, can't wait to become Australian citizens.

And on that point Campbell Live left out the most important thing. Kiwis have no voice in Australia. I have written to numerous MPs and when I get a reply they fob me off to the other country's government.  That's when I even get a reply. I've only had one reply.  So if Kiwis want to maintain our democratic voice it means travelling to a country where we don't pay taxes, where we don't live and a country that isn't our current country. Why does the mainstream media keep on leaving out this very important issue?

The reports like on Campbell Live which are blatant lies and a small minority do not help the NZ citizens like myself who always back Australia, know the anthem, support the country and just want to legally call Australia home and have the right to vote in elections.

Given Campbell Live and his reporters lie about the reality of Kiwis in Australia it is a damn good thing the show has been axed.

Tinder guys to say no to

This week I wrote an article about dating etiquette.  I'd like to expand on that and some tweets with some comments about what guys should not do when they're using dating sites.  These may or may not be based on real life experiences, however just like Carrie Bradshaw I will always protect the identities of these guys.  I've compiled a list of guys to watch out for on dating sites.

1 - The controlling guys.  This, this is a topic really close to home for me right now because recently I had a complicated relationship with a guy from Tinder and he was controlling and as friends have described him, a psychopath. I wouldn't go that far but he certainly had issues.  The controlling ones will somehow reel you in.  These are the ones who are so subtle you don't even realise it's happening.  They're the intense guys who ask questions they shouldn't be asking and tell you how to dress or that your fashion sense is whack.  That type of thing is okay coming from friends but it's not okay coming from guys.  Then there are the ones who try to control you in the bedroom. Run a mile if they do this. They aren't worth the time or effort.  And if they tell you you shouldn't smoke when you've been talking for five minutes they'd never respect you so quickly unmatch them.

2 - The guys who don't reciprocate.  These are the guys who don't seem to realise that relationships are a two way street and that means give and take.  The guys who don't reciprocate won't make an effort on dates or in the bedroom. With the guys who don't reciprocate they could also be known as the selfish guys.  In some cases they don't mean to be selfish but in other cases they are just jerks with no respect for you and they aren't worth your time.  Guys should be interested in who you are as a person and try to get to know you.

3 - The negative Neils.  Apologies to guys named Neil.  These are the guys for whom the glass is always half empty.  They're never happy and you're never good enough for them.  They make excuses for why things aren't better for them and why they get treated badly or dumped.  It's because of their insecurities and these guys shouldn't be inflicting themselves on the women of the world.

4 - The one night stand guys.  These guys are worse than the negative Neils.  They'll invite you over and shower you with compliments but honey you're never seeing them again.  They simply aren't interested in anyone.  What they really want is a free hooker and women on their terms. They have no respect for women.

5 - The guys who won't date you.  These guys are suave and smooth talking.  The most you'll get out of them is a drink at some pub but you're more likely to end up hanging out at their place.  Save yourself some time and don't go down this road.  If they won't show you respect in the beginning they'll never show you respect.

These are just some of the guys you should be wary of.  There are so many decent guys out there, but they're, as someone said to me when I was 18 in first year uni, they're the guys who want to get to know you. They're the ones who want to talk to you about politics and what's going on in your life.  Unfortunately you do have to go through a lot of psychos to find the catch.  A good catch is someone who will spend time getting to know you and make an effort all the way.  A good catch is neither too slow nor too fast and they will take their time because they want things to work.

The politics of dating and effort

I often write about politics and fitness but today I started thinking like Carrie Bradshaw about the politics of dating.  You see I've been internet dating since I was 14 I believe.  I used to go into chat rooms.  As times moved on I started to meet guys on Internet forums/discussion boards.  It would start with a few messages and then you'd end up meeting for a drink.  Some guys these days like to go for coffee though.  I prefer going for a casual drink or two myself.  At about 20 I started using dating sites.  I have met a few decent guys from them but they're mostly weirdos so really, this column is going to ask a few questions and make a few statements about my experiences and the politics of dating.  Things have changed significantly over the last ten years.

Let's start with the first point though, the picture.  Look, the first picture is so important. I'm not saying you need to have a professional head shot taken because let's be honest, who can be bothered with that for a dating site/app, but please, I don't want to see you shirtless.  It makes you look like a tool.  Nor do I want to see with some bimbo or looking scruffy with a beard or a gut.  If you can't make an effort with your picture what does it say about who you are as a person?  And if you can't make an effort when trying to win someone over how much more will you let yourself go?

That brings me to my next point.  When I was 18 guys would make effort, loads of effort, now they don't. Where's the nice date?  I'm not saying you have to wear a suit but inviting me over for drinks may be cool and lead to more it actually shows instant disrespect.  How about starting as you mean to go on? Casual is cool but at least make effort.  That doesn't mean you need to text all the time or take me to some fancy place but seeing someone once a month and not doing the proper dating thing is dumb.  When you're 18 that type of thing is okay but in your late 20s or over 30 you should know better.

The effort extends to messages.  We all know men love food, but asking a woman about food when she's said she's an exercise and fitness addict is just asking for trouble or to be unmatched as happened this morning.  People should be able to read cues.  Now I do know that men sometimes need to be whacked over the head with a big neon sign but still, reading people and reading between the lines isn't a puzzle, or at least it shouldn't be.

Some people have baggage by the time they're in their 30s but it doesn't mean you should shut someone out.  No two people are the same, or as Ross from Friends once said, it only has to happen once. Joey, in episode one said to him to grab a spoon. It's obviously a metaphor for opening up.  Everyone has had negative experiences but why hold onto them?   I'm glad all my exes are exes because as I said over drinks a few weeks back, I no know what I don't want.  People need to be more willing to take chances and be open.

I could start to ask questions about work, age and money but these are topics for a whole new blog and I don't yet actually have the answers to those questions. There are so many things to consider when dating but the big take away from today's article is, please make effort and consider the other person.