Marketing coordinator for a non-profit organization, Laura Pintur, 23, has launched a Change.org petition directed at the CEO’s of Woolworths and Coles, Grant O’Brien and John Durkan, calling on the big two supermarket chains to stop selling Zoo Weekly.
Ms Pintur said the so called ‘lads mag’ encouraged the sexual exploitation of women and girls.
“Zoo contributes to a culture that is hostile and threatening to women”,” she says.
”When big supermarkets like Coles and Woolworths sell Zoo it normalizes harmful attitudes to women.
The petition refers to a 2011 study comparing lads mags’ (including Zoo) and statements from convicted rapists. It found many people could not distinguish the source of the quotes.
“Zoo Weekly uses the same language as rapists in its magazines,” said Ms Pintur.
Zoo also gives tips to young readers on how to coerce drunk women into sex.
Sexually objectifying imagery and demeaning content feature on Zoo’s social media. This has included an image Zoo shared with its Facebook supporters of a woman’s body cut in two with the question, “Which half do you prefer?” Young readers described their various pornographic uses for the woman’s top half and/or her bottom half.
Zoo magazine is unrestricted, meaning there are no age restrictions on who can purchase the magazine. Bauer’s statistics indicate that 36,000 boys aged 14-17 read Zoo.
“Zoo teaches boys that women should submit to their demands. Do Coles and Woolworths, which pride themselves on their corporate ethics and support for communities, share this view? If not why spread it?” Ms Pintur said.
“I have seen and experienced first hand the detrimental costs of what this magazine endorses, not only in my life but the lives of other young people.
“What chance does my generation, and those younger than me have when such major corporations help groom boys to treat us badly?”
“It’s time for these company’s to stand up for the wellbeing of women and girls and against discrimination, harassment and violence.
Graphic adult content from inside Zoo magazine: http://www.collectiveshout.org/zoo_weekly
Released May 10, 2015
Add your comment
Showing 20 reactions
Sign in with
Zoo Weekly uses the same language as rapists- yes, research has found when study participants were provided with both quotes from convicted rapists and quotes from lads mags including Zoo Weekly, they could not distinguish the source.
Zoo Weekly did solicit pornographic videos and photos from young women. Feel free to check out screenshots on our website that prove this.
Ryan I don’t think you understand the concept of a rape culture. Nobody is arguing that men will read Zoo Weekly and go out and rape a woman. What we are arguing is that Zoo reduces women to mere sexual objects for men’s use and entertainment, that it normalises sexism and hostile attitudes towards women which are at the root of men’s violence against women.
Your perceived ‘right’ to convenient access to soft porn magazines does not trump the rights of women and girls.
porn- cannot be sold in supermarkets legally, yet zoo was, therefore the LAW stated it was not porn.
rape culture- your ignorant at no point has it ever taught men how to go out and rape women.
under age-at NO point ever has there been any type of “suggestive” being it a model, or a sent in picture been published or promoted, nor did the magazine ever suggest so.
using the same language as rapists-wow, big call of bullshit, was this researched from 100 rapists on how they speak, explain where you got that from i want to read it.
Yes if your wondering i am a man, i do read zoo, no i don’t go running around raping or beating up women, nor do i go out picking up under age woman not because a magazine taught me, but because women and MEN taught me what’s right and wrong.
your entire basis is ludicrous, if your intent is to stop magazines perpetuating unrealistic expectations on men and women and the harmful views they may bring, i looked up 9 different australian WOMEN magazines of different ages from teens to predominately 40-50s.
on each of the websites front pages, they had women in bikinis, “how to dress sexy for your partner” “how to get and keep a boyfriend” including many different ways of saying, your to fat, lose weight, look like this its better. men pictured half naked, actual under age actors and musicians featured talking about their sex appeal.
IF you want to stop the issues you say you are, i applaud it, however if you want to single out a man magazine because your offended of a woman in a bikini, grow up.
put out a petition to ban 90% of women only magazine because their just as bad and some much worse, most of which i guarantee you read, hypocrite.
Fantastic work. And I applaud Coles, too.
“Collective Shout’s Melinda Liszewski said the decision is “consistent” with Coles’ “statement of corporate responsibility”.”
With declining sales, Zoo’s life span is limited.
This is certainly not going to help anyone. Maybe you should use your abilities where it is useful. Maybe you just are a sexist, hypocritical “feminist” and just after attention. If you are truly looking to help the world, try doing something that will have a better outcome and will last longer. I wanted to get into politics to do just that, but am not suited for university and not rich. That is where someone should start, that is where it will only work and history proves it.
If you consider petite women as children, you are just naive.
If you consider the actual porn websites depicted as child friendly, you are naive.
Do you even understand anything that I have written? Stop trying to spin my words.
I also said I have purchased it since it was started. I have also stated that I would never hurt or threaten a woman/girl. You keep dodging that. You have dodged a few things, just sticking to the sentences you can spin. Just like a reporter.
I haven’t even noticed the underage thing. What issue was it in? One issue? Wasn’t that a report on Kyle Sandilands being an asshole to said girl?
You are just sounding like Tony Abbott. Trying to force men that wouldn’t hurt anyone to try and stop those that are. He said something about the Muslims stopping all of the terrorists. Maybe you should get with reality. Everyone in society needs to work together, not just delegate to some of the population. Everything needs to be changed, starting with education. If you want to start asking why I am not doing more, I was diagnosed with ASD, Social Anxiety and depression. I know exactly how evil people can be. Maybe instead of focusing on something that would only give bad thoughts to someone that is already that way inclined, go study psychology. Then become a politician and use what you have learnt. Society creates the men and women that cause it’s harm. Creating a society in which only the strong survive, causes the weaker to push past that threshold and try to survive by any means necessary. This is how criminals are created, seeing things done to them and thinking it is normal and ok. One magazine is not going to make a difference. Everything needs to change.
Really? After all that has been presented you’re still going to misrepresent the issue as being about “reading a magazine with half naked women that want to flaunt it.”
It is you who lack comprehension. You’re misrepresenting what has been argued by the petition. Did you read it? I do not have to provide ‘statistics saying that men and boys read Zoo and then decide to hurt women/girls’ because that is not the claim that has been made. Just like you didn’t have to provide statistics that a girl will read a womans mag and then get anorexia when you brought up the impact that womens mags have on girls body image. We both know its more complex than that Ricky.
If you are looking for research on the impact of media, advertising on attitudes and behaviour, please do your own homework, it is not my job to educate you.
If you want to discuss this issue at all, rather than make constant attempts to get off topic, I’m going to have to insist you read the petition very carefully. The keep this quote in mind:
“Zoo contributes to a culture that is hostile and threatening to women”
^^ This means that Zoo is a contributor to a culture that is hostile and threatening to women. It perpetuates attitudes that lead to sexual harassment and violence. Men who respect and value women don’t suddenly decide to harass, rape and commit domestic violence. But bad behaviour starts with bad values and attitudes, which features heavily in Zoo.
As for why this magazine has been ‘singled out’
This is the only pornographic magazine being sold in Coles and Woolworths. We are asking Coles and Woolworths to stop selling porn.
The magazine contains pornographic content and includes advertisements for more explicit hardcore porn content – http://www.collectiveshout.org/inside_zoo_weekly
The magazine is being sold to children.
This magazine targets ‘men’ aged 16-40 but Zoo’s own data acknowledges 36000 boys aged 14-17 in its readership. Therefore this magazine is introducing these harmful values and attitudes at a young age when their values, attitudes and even their brains are still forming.
The magazine provides commentary and advice on how to treat women and girls that amounts to predatory behaviour. e.g. “If the object of your affection is drinking, that’s already a point in your favour… you want to pick the “loosest/skankiest” one of the lot and fetch her a drink…separate her from the flock.” Given that the reason for this advice is to obtain sex, this would amount to a rape scenario.
(exercise caution with the following links)
The magazine promotes sexual fantasies with underage girls -
The magazine publishes images of women without their consent and invites fans to provide commentary on their sexual use. This woman is 17 years old and had already been subject to sexual harassment so severe that she was afraid to leave her house. That didn’t stop Zoo from contributing to her pain. http://ladsmaglosers.tumblr.com/post/58693366435/i-would-go-to-jail-for-the-things-i-would-do-to
A google image search for the following images posted on Zoo’s FB produced search results that looked like ‘teen porn’ sites (illegal in Australia) and other search results that appeared to be child porn, so much so that we couldn’t continue the search.
Ricky, I didn’t pay much attention to the models not thinking the same way as I do because – except for those ‘models’ who appear to be sourced from teen porn/underage sites and therefore cannot consent – it is irrelevant to the argument. This is another example of you responding to issues in you’re own head, rather than issues raised by the petition.
So a model poses for the magazine gets paid and is happy with that? Fine, that’s their business. But the impact these publications have on the attitudes men and boys hold towards women is everyones business. How does a happy model change the fact that Zoo Weekly is promoting pornography to children, providing predatory advice to boys, including plying women with alcohol, promoting sexual fantasies with minors? The consequences of perpetuating these harmful attitudes about women and girls have an impact on all women and girls, not just those who receive a pay cheque from Zoo Weekly.
Rather than speculating about political views or what sort of feminist a person may or may not be, (another attempt at going off topic) how about addressing the claims that have been made and the actual information presented to you.
And your final statement "if you truly wanted to stop violence against women/girls.’ come on Ricky, I’m not buying that. There are a number of organisations devoted to stopping domestic abuse, advocating harsher penalties, education programs. I would hazard a guess that you are not part of any of those and you’re not at all interested in them. Stopping violence against women is your job Ricky, you and your fellow men. But you can’t even acknowledge let alone condemn the predatory attitudes, the pics of what is likely to be underage girls, the promoting sex fantasies with minors promoted by Zoo Weekly.
The fact that these things do not bother you – and especially that you are indifferent to the underage question – suggests you have internalised these harmful attitudes. A classic Zoo Reader and a great example of why these mags should be put out of circulation.
You didn’t seem to pay much attention to my statement about the models not thinking the same way as you.
If you are a feminist, what wave are you?
If you truly wanted to stop any violence against women/girls, you would petition to have the education system changed. Starting with children’s education is the best way to preventing any future not worth having. Then petition to have harsher penalties for domestic abuse. This is where it starts, not by reading a magazine with half naked women that want to flaunt it.
I have read womens magazines in the past and yes they do have many problems. I have not bought or read them for a long time. You are saying i’m a hypocrite without even knowing what my views on these magazines are. I’m not a hypocrite for not being able to take on the worlds problems all at once.
to address some of your points:
You contradict yourself in your comment. You say that womens magazines have had a negative impact on girls ‘subduing girls into thinking a certain way about their bodies.’
But then using yourself as an example, you suggest that magazines like Zoo do not have an impact on men.
You also misrepresent the argument – where have we said that someone will read Zoo and then go out and rape a woman? This is what has been said:
“Zoo contributes to a culture that is hostile and threatening to women”,” she says.
”When big supermarkets like Coles and Woolworths sell Zoo it normalizes harmful attitudes to women."
“Zoo Weekly uses the same language (to talk about women) as rapists.”
Do you understand that attitudes lead to behaviour? You seem to understand it as it applies to womens magazines, but claim men who read zoo weekly are immune to this.
I don’t disagree with your assessment of these womens magazines by the way. We have spoken out about those before and probably will again. FYI, when we have spoken about womens magazines in the past, defenders of those mags will point to Zoo Weekly and say those are much worse. If everyone could stay on topic it would be easier to discuss these issues.
If any man or boy reads Zoo and decides to rape a woman/girl, they were not of a healthy mind to begin with. I did read the petition and flagged it as misrepresentation. Stop being a hypocrite and look at actual statistics for everything, not just what you see as to be true.
I’m surprised, impressed and appreciative to receive such a quick and complete response. I’m using IE, but it probably is an older version :( I will attempt to remedy that very soon and hopefully participate with the campaign/petition asap.
Regarding the trashy pictures, what you said makes sense. I’ve never seen zoo magazine, in grocery stores or anywhere else until seeing the examples here. I personally don’t think the bikini-type magazines and their portrayal of females are healthy for our society either, especially the public display of them.
But bearing in mind that lots of people are okay with this type of thing, it does make sense that this site would need to show those people the difference between the female objectification they are used to seeing, and okay with, and the much more blatant degradation of females such as what is found in zoo magazine, and then also explain the accessibility of this magazine to kids.
It appears Collective Shout is based in Australia. Is there something similar based in the USA? Coming soon …?
Thank you sooooooo much for all your efforts with this issue :)
Thank you so much for your support of this campaign. I’m sorry that you have had trouble signing the petition. This is an occasional problem/bug with the change.org platform (where the petition is hosted) and can sometimes be resolved by opening the petition in a different web browser. That would be the best thing to try first, please let me know how you go.
I’m with you in that I don’t need to see the content in order to comprehend the problem. Unfortunately, there are many who just don’t get what the problem is until they see it first hand. Many people who walk past this magazine when it is on display would think it has more in common with a bikini calendar than pornography. Their presence in supermarkets reinforces this idea.
It isn’t even classified as pornography by our classifications board. It is understood to be a ‘mens lifestyle mag’ in the same category as golf digest or car mags. Major retailers have hidden behind these flawed classifications to justify continuing to sell them. So it was time for us to open up the magazine and confront them – and the community in general – with the facts. Clearly, the content is indeed pornographic and leading teenage boys towards more hardcore content.
I hate seeing this stuff, but my view is that as a community, if we’re going to say that this stuff is suitable for a 14 year old to look at, it should be suitable for us to look at too. The fact that we don’t want to look at it and can identify it as explicit and degrading means we should double our efforts to get it out of supermarkets.
I hope what I’ve explained makes sense. Thanks again for your support.