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.