By Melinda Tankard Reist
Zoo Weekly has suffered a volley of artillery fire over its April “Special Commemorative Issue” marking the 100 year anniversary of the Gallipoli landing.
Model Erin Pash adorns the cover and inside pages, holding a poppy, lying tummy down among poppies and reclining against old army posters on a page decorated with, you guessed it, poppies. All in a bikini (Gallipoli involved a beach, right?).
But Zoo is in official trouble, not for sexing up ANZAC day, but for using the word “ANZAC” on its Facebook page announcing today’s issue. There are laws against using the name for advertising – and fines of $50,000.
While Zoo has gotten away with sexism for years, it was only when using the word “ANZAC” that the “men’s lifestyle” mag stepped into line. Perhaps it was because the Department of Veterans’ Affairs demanded Zoo remove all references to ANZAC and the editors didn’t want to go to prison or pay a $51,000 fine.
While Zoo made the necessary changes to avoid offence for misusing the term ANZAC, they have failed to make changes on any other front.
Where is the outcry over Zoo‘s raw, unadulterated violence against women, its exploitation and degradation of women – which fuels the ongoing global war against women? Where are the threats of fines and prison for portraying women as dehumanised sex objects?
Zoo has depicted a woman chopped in half and ask readers – 28,000 of them boys aged 14-17, according to publisher Bauer Media – which half they prefer. The responses are unprintable.
In the “Ask Danny” section, men are encouraged to set fire to their girlfriend’s pubic hair if they haven’t waxed. Danny advises on treatment of an ex: “Cut her face so that nobody will want her.” Readers are also encouraged to take advantage of women who are drunk (which is a crime): “You want to pick the ‘loosest/skankiest’ one of the lot and fetch her a drink separate her from the flock. You’re off alone, boozed-up and charming – these are three green lights!”
On its Facebook page, Zoo shows pornified images of girls who appear underage, which they’ve lifted from “teen porn” sites. Readers point out girls are underage (“I remember seeing this in teen forums 5 years ago,” says Karlos Alexander) but are happy to ogle her anyway (“F—ing awesome tits nonetheless,” Karlos adds).
Zoo posts “Who do you prefer” pics where it invites Facebook users to rank photos of near naked women. It invites young female Facebook fans to send in sexualised images to be distributed in their magazines or online.
In July 2012, Zoo asked: “Are you Australia’s hottest asylum seeker?” Female asylum seekers who had “swapped persecution for sexiness” were encouraged to send in pictures. Zoo joked about “shooting” them with a camera. In Zoo world, even female survivors of human rights violations can be offered up as porny fantasy for readers. Hot refugee women for you to get off on! Brutalised beauties for your viewing pleasure!
Zoo asked Green’s Senator Sarah Hanson-Young to pose, promising to house “the next boatload” of asylum seekers in its office if she did. She refused. So her head was photo-shopped onto the body of a lingerie model. Nothing will stand in the way of Zooreader’s ejaculatory fantasies – even a female political leader who says no. (Hanson-Young is taking legal action against Zoo).
Zoo‘s treatment of Australia’s first saint, Mary MacKillop, showed no woman was exempt from exploitation. A woman who devoted her life to the poor was celebrated with a model in a habit, and headings like “St Mary Mac and her holy rack” and “Mary’s heavenly hooters blessed by Pope.” She was presented on her knees “begging for it.”
Psychologists from Middlesex University and the University of Surrey found that when given descriptions of women taken from lads’ mags, and comments about women made by convicted rapists, most people could not distinguish the source of the quotes.Zoo was included.
Zoo Weekly is sold in service stations, newsagents, corner stores. Woolworths and Coles sell it too, apparently not caring that they are contributing to an intimidating, hostile, degrading, environment for women, including their own staff.
The persistent reduction of women to body parts is a form of discrimination contributing to violence against them. Zoo spreads the idea that male sexuality is based on power and aggression and that women must be brought into line. Displaying lads’ mags in everyday spaces like supermarkets reinforces the message that treating women like frivolous sex-objects is normal and acceptable.
Where are the governments and regulatory authorities who will step up and say you can’t treat women this way? Zoo Weekly was pulled into line for its demeaning exploitation of the ANZAC commemoration. Now can we do the same for women?
2 Responses
Only reason why the men became so angry that vile male owned women-hating porn magazine Zoo used the word ANZAC is because it insults all those supposedly ‘brave boys who were killed during WW1.’
As usual only when issue directly affects men do men swiftly act because men continue to arrogantly declare their sex is the default human one and therefore only males have sacrosanct right not to be insulted; humilated; and/or reduced to other males’ disposable sexual service stations!
This is why Women’s Liberation Movement arose in the 1960s because women finally had enough of pandemic male hatred/male contempt for women. Now however, we women are back once more to men enacting their male pseudo sex right of publicly humilating/degrading/reducing women and girls to males’ disposable/interchangeable sexual service stations!
Until such time as women rise up en masse and hold men to account nothing will change. Womens’ Liberation Movement proved we women can force men to eliminate these vile male created women-hating images.
Women are human and hence we have certain fundamental human rights including our fundamental human right not to be publicly sexually degraded for male sexual entertainment. Men who endorse/ignore this are colluding with those male owned pornographic magazines because all it takes for such vile male created women-hating images to become normal and acceptable is a resounding male silence!
ANZAC is just a word – it isn’t sacred so why should men get their panties in a twist?? If men don’t like it they shouldn’t view Zoo – after all no one forces these men and their male organisations to view such magazines! Oh and guess who ensured laws were passed to make the word ANZAC sacred? Why men again of course because as I said above anything which negatively impacts on men and their overblown hubris is automatically ‘real and important!’
I agree with Hecuba 100%. What is needed is a fierce Womens Liberation resurgence targeting all lynch pins of male dominance.
I saw how the Second Wave was co-opted by Madison Avenue – “You’ve come a long way, baby” Virginia Slim cigarettes epitomizes that trend. I saw the coalitions of gay, black and women’s groups fracture. Female solidarity was split.
It looks like male-dominated civilization is faced with Near Term Extinction, we are seeing 200 species dying a day.
I have nothing left to lose, and like Janis Joplin sang – that is freedom. Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.
Women, we have nothing left to lose – the Second Wave focused on ERA, abortion and was aiming at pay equity when it was derailed by Fun Femmes and the politics of identity and preeminance of orgasm over politics.
It’s time to get back to knitting – small consciousness raising circles who meet and choose projects, develop tactics and FIGHT BACK.
This Zoo magazine has publishers, they have names, their children go to school with neighbors who might not like the violent and terrible way women are treated by these publishers. Who wants the pornsters that put our girls and boys at risk in our midst. Time to talk tactics.
I’d like to see a talented team make anti-porn – depicting the dreck but featuring males being humiliated by females but obviously tongue in cheek so it’s not some new wank fodder – but clearly and explicitly shows how INHUMANE the out of control and ego driven the male libido has been manufactured.
T