Meet Zoo’s idea of a topless woman

Tacky and several of the comments Zoo is receiving shows that. Fine line between funny and tacky at times.

Makes it much easier to spot the misogynists when they use their own facebook account to respond. Hardly surprising given the mentality of the readership, but pretty depressing none-the-less.

Even more depressing than the predictable “which end would you take” is the casual misogyny with which respondent’s well thought out replies are laden.

Objectify much?

Really offensive… as usual.
But it wouldn’t have made it past the ASB if they tried to run it on TV or outdoor. I believe they don’t look too kindly on objectifying the human form to the point of actually deconstructing it…

Sorry, but they know their demographic well. And to please your customers you have to be irrelevant/ offensive, etc to the rest. Job done.

If anyone was looking for a list of “Who not to date or be friends with”, the respondents to that Zoo Facebook question are the ideal start.

I agree with I McHunt – I am not the target audience (I suspect with a handle like I McHunt he/she probably is) so could care less but probably spot on for who they want to talk too. If nobody was ever upset, offended or alienated then likely nobody would be inspired, amused or entertained either and what a boring landscape that would be.

Funny thing happened the other day. I was minding my own business watching the tele and along came this ad:

http://bit.ly/T4BneC

It really pissed me off, at first. Completely emasculated men, reducing us boys to little more than pathetic spineless whelps, lost and impotent without our ladies. Shortly thereafter I realised something. The ad’s not aimed at me. I quite like it now.

Now you may love or hate the Lindauer ad, not the point really, and that is there’s no point getting your feminist panties in a bunch about a a piece of humour in Zoo magazine. Come on girls, it’s Zoo magazine. I’m not expecting you to like it, but make half an effort and put it in context. Jeez.

Ok, so because it’s a lads mag it’s offensive and misogynistic to run this kind of content, but if it were NW or one of those other types of trash mags that show a guys abs or pecs etc and makes equally stupid references, it’s fine right?

@Man. No. To the others re context. In a way, fair enough…but suggesting that we should tolerate content because of audience doesn’t cut it entirely as an argument given there are several audience ‘interest groups’ that we as a society have decided not to cater to. Now I understand tho why Mumbrella opened with a comment about the manager/moderator. I’d probably find it hard to allow a couple of the FB comments to remain. Where do you draw the line? If someone posts for example and says all women are good for is oral sex….do you accept that as meeting that audiences needs/humour? What about if someone else posts that a vagina is all a woman is good for and that all the rest can be thrown away as useless. Where is the line drawn re audience interests and broader social acceptance?

But Susan, no one has said any of that. Oh you should realise that the slippery slope argument you’re using goes both ways. In the similar way you could demand that commentary around gender issues becomes ever more sensitive for fear of offending people. And what you’re left with then is sterility. You know, that sort of PC gone mad stuff that people, rightly, complain about in equal measure. It’s the sort of ridiculousness we often see now when people level complaints against ads for either ludicrous, or worse, hopelessly subjective points of view that no advertiser in their right mind could ever have anticipated.

The only way to really moderate this is to look at the context and apply a wee bit of commonsense, which was all I was asking.

Well shit, you wimminz. Welcome to the internet. People get offended by anything, it’s natural. Don’t get so worked up on it, because honestly, it really doesn’t (or shouldn’t) concern you as a person. Zoo is a men’s magazine, it’s expected that some form of humour regarding this sort of topic should come from it.

@Circling Sharks…I do see what you mean and I’m aware this issue isn’t black and white.

Being Friday I’d like to end my discussion here with a brilliant quote from Twitter today. Cos, clearly, all this issue could be resolved by #sensitiveTony. He gets us ‘wimminz’:

From ‏@mrbenjaminlaw #SensitiveTony will yield to the needs of your Goddess Array and is sympathetic to vaginal grief.

He also knows precisely which tampon to get when sent to the supermarket.

Let’s ask “sensitiveTony the ‘zoo’ question.

Tim, have you ever thought of having a subscription for mumbrella for members of the advertising / media / marketing commuity only. Yes I know it will limit the reach but we won’t get stuck with people who hate any kind of advertising and pushing agendas. I’m just sick of seeing all these crap comments from people who just don’t get advertising and the role it plays.

@Paul..that’s presumptive. Some advertisers actually concern themselves with social conscience and social issues. Ref. Kid’s clothing ranges sold in Target.. Ref. the ‘Can’ campaign and the ‘bomb’ advertisement shown during the Olympics. You’d be in a very isolated industry spot if you didn’t recognise opinions like those shared here today are part and parcel of the mix.

However I think I know the answer most men would give unforch

FFS, come on people.

If it was a bloke in the same scenario and in a woman’s mag, nobody would give a hoot, lest start a social media witch-hunt over it. Lighten the hell up.

I agree Susan, however in this case it went from a ‘topless’ girl in zoo magazine to an Abbott bashing post #gofigure

People with agendas feigning outrage at some ad campaigns are really starting to get tiring. I don’t doubt most brand managers think these people are total nutjobs, but have to take action for fear or losing their job or having their brand further tarnished in media.