I had this piece published on the ABC Drum Unleashed site this afternoon.
Australia’s first saint, Mary Mackillop, was a woman who devoted her life to the poor and speaking out against injustice. Known as a progressive woman of action, her canonisation has just been celebrated in Rome.
But for Zoo magazine, it doesn’t matter who she is. Or really, who any woman is. Because all women exist only to serve male gratification and pleasure. All women must be brought to their knees.
Here’s some examples of Zoo’s treatment of Mary MacKillop, using a model in a habit. 
“The life and times of St Mary in lingerie”
“The newly canonised cans of St Mary”
“St Mary Mac and her holy rack”
“Mary’s heavenly hooters blessed by Pope”
She’s presented as on her knees and “begging for it”.
I know a number of religious sisters. They felt called to a different way of living. They rejected the usual life trajectories for women. They wanted to give their whole selves in service to others. They wanted to support each other in all-women communities. While difficult for many to understand, their actions are radically counter-cultural. It’s a radical act to turn your back on all the world offers and give yourself in service to others.
That’s what Mary Mackillop did.
But Zoo’s editors don’t understand things like higher callings and devotion to others. It’s beyond them to comprehend that there are women who really aren’t interested in conforming to the Zoo version of pornified womanhood.
Their main concern is finding more fodder for the sexual gratification of their hungry male readers. More ‘hot’ women for men to ogle. More women to dissect piece by sexual piece. Pages and pages of female flesh for consumption.
So, even a woman like Mary Mackillop has to be brought under the control of male pornographers.
Catholics are understandably outraged and distressed by the ACP-owned Zoo spread.
But you don’t need to be a Catholic to be affronted. The treatment of Mary MacKillop is an insult to all women. Zoo has made a statement that no woman deserves special treatment. All women exist to provide masturbatory material. All women exist to be served up, made-up, made-over as male sexual fantasy. And they should be flattered.
“We think Mary would be thrilled and flattered at her portrayal,” editor Paul Merrill said.
Paul Merrill, your own portrayal is as a man beneath contempt.
10 Responses
Good article Melinda.
Desperate people making money by degrading women and dishonouring an upright lady’s memory. I’m not catholic but it’s not about that at all it’s as you say the pornification of all women.
Zoo what a trashy magazine… and Paul Merrill, delusional at best thinking anyone in their right mind would be thrilled at the portrayal.
I’m glad you published this, Melinda, because it will be very easy for the ‘you’re just a bunch of wowsers’ brigade and the ‘there shouldn’t be any sacred cows’ brigade to dismiss Church outrage over this as religous nonsense – and some will listen.
This isn’t outrageous because Mary was a nun – although you would hope that, even in these parlous times, there was some respect left for people who choose a spiritual path. I wonder if Zoo would find it so amusing to do one of a Buddist nun? Or a boy’s own spread of the Dali Lama? We hear a lot about everything being okay because the women in the pictures ‘chose’ to do it. Surely not even the most ardent porn-apologists can claim that a woman who CHOSE a life of celebacy and a shrouding habit in the heat of Australia would choose to be part of this disgusting exploitation?
But it is mainly outrageous because this was a woman who is known for devoting her life to service of the community and especially children. To reduce her to fodder for a spank mag is so stunningly misogynist that it is hard to believe. It is so misogynist, it transcends being anti-woman and becomes positively misanthropic. I would argue that all porn is an affront to human dignity, but this is overtly so. It is an affront not only to a brave and self-sacrificing person, but to all the people she served. All the families who were educated in her schools or helped by her sisters or inspired by her work are insulted by this attack on her person-hood.
When we as a community allow our standards to be set by people with something to sell, this is the result. If sales are your overriding concern, then anything that sells is okay – or indeed, good. The sales imperative is a reality of the world we live in, but if it takes us to a place that is untenable, we don’t have to live with it.
Paul Merrill has in a twisted way done all women a favour and what is that? Why Merrill has demonstrated men’s hatred and men’s contempt for all women by reducing yet another woman to a disposal sexualised commodity for men to use/abuse and then discard as rubbish.
As and when claims will be made that Merrill is just one individual and does not speak/represent all men – which is true, nevertheless innumerable males are buying the porn mag Zoo and devouring its contents. What does this say about the men who consume such women-hating trash – why that these male buyers believe they alone must have the right of dignity and respect whereas women are supposedly just men’s sexual service stations.
Am avidly waiting for men to challenge Paul Merrill on his latest promotion of male hatred and male contempt for all women.
This is despicable. Zoo have gone too far. hopefully this gets the catholic community behind our cause.
I’m thinking of starting a letter writing campaign, and because I go to a catholic university, i should be able to rally a fairly large amount of support, and im urging all of you readers to join in (i’ll post details here once it’s finalised)
I went to the Zoo Weekly website to make a complaint, where it seems all the media-coverage is slightly amusing to Zoo’s writers and readers. The offensive photos have been posted for all to see and comments about the media storm are invited…. with one catch – you have to be a registered member of the Zoo website to contribute!
Seriously pathetic.
As a woman and a Christian Minister committed to fighting social injustices I could rant on and on about how deeply offensive this is, but thought that was ‘preaching to the choir’ in a way – so here I am sharing what I thought was a useful update.
Any ideas as to where my ‘ranting’ could achieve maximum impact?
I sent this letter to the PM through via http://www.pm.gov.au/PM_Connect/Email_your_PM
Dear Julia,
Recent media reports regarding Mary MacKillop enticed me to research her life and I have been thoroughly encouraged to read of yet another Australian woman who, like yourself, provided an inspiring example to the women of her time to discover their gifts and use them to influence
… Continue
Sent: Wednesday, 27 October 2010 9:42 PM
To: ‘womensweekly@acp.com.au’
Subject: Apology required if purchases to continue
As a regular purchaser of Women’s Weekly I’m wondering how your editorial team feel about the decisions made by the team at ACP’s ZOO magazine to demean the memory and example of Mary MacKillop see http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40450.html
Mary, apart from recently being declared a saint by the Catholic Church, was a pioneering leader who gave hundreds of young women in her day the confidence to discover their own gifts and use them to improve the lives of others and transform the society they lived in.
I cannot believe the ridiculousness of the decision made by an ACP magazine to sully the image of an Australian Women’s Icon. Who are they going to “do” next? The Queen? Mother Theresa?
I will be refraining from purchasing or subscribing to ANY ACP magazine, Womens Weekly included, until the editorial decision made by the apes at ACP’s ZOO is publicly denounced by ACP management.
Lara Kirk
Reprehensible.
Truly beyond the pale. I am truly stunned by this, more fuming, and then to read that Zoo criticises the angry response from Catholics. Disgusting.
I sent an objection to the Zoo article to the media company through their main website. Failed to copy it, but I can tell you I included a request for a public apology and/or the dropping of Zoo from the company’s portfolio.
Actually, I find the fact that such a company publishes mags like Zoo at all a bit of an eye-opener. Wonder (and I wondered in my letter to them) whether the upstanding-looking blokes on the board of directors proudly took that article home to show their wives and daughters?
I find I don’t have the time to write long letters to every offensive company outlining all the arguments against their offense. But I hope a quick note expressing my intentions not to purchase will add weight to other people’s more persuasive voices.
Thanks to all you folk who make the effort to speak out about such stuff.