Firstly the masthead Zoo implies that the women in the magazines are as pathetic as wild animals in the zoo and they have just been put there for the benefit of male consumers to have access to watch without any restrictions. Now the masthead loaded suggests money is more of an importance to men than a woman is - basically saying women should be used and then erased from memory. Neither of these mastheads represent modern women accurately or fairly because a modern woman should be more intelligent and confident to deafened themselves in they are being referred to as wild animals in the zoo or worthless possessions.
The feature photos on both magazines show women; sexually available, loose and seductive. Reason why i say this is in both feature photos the models have false expressions excessive make-up, heavily exaggerated breasts and revealing clothing. The connotations of all this is these women are slapper, they are easy, not very intelligent and do not value themselves because if they did they would not sell themselves in aid to an old mans boredom. These models are artificial and rely on their body parts to make a living.
In the Loaded feature photo there are three people but only two of them - which happen to be female, are dressed inappropriately yet the male gets away with having to expose his body. It seems as if they have been dolled up just to be purchased by 50 cent who has then gone and posed one on each side like a pair of watches that he owns - they may as well have price tags. Even though in the Zoo feature photo there is only one model the still message is still being sent out it is quite difficult to comment on her clothing as she is wearing next to nothing but this highlights that she is sexually available.
She is giving the sort of eye contact as if she is enchanted by the consumer and that she is property of their when they buy the magazine which would give off the message that she is sexually open. So again I say that the feature photos on both magazines are poor representations of modern women because modern women have high expectations so they dress more appropriately, smartly and would not feel the need to display vast amounts of flesh to look attractive they also want t be more natural and not plastic - for having to adjust the whole of their body just to take a picture.
The puffs which are included in Zoo are terribly alarming. Ne of them reads, Britain's hottest college model disrobes. These kind of remarks make the public believe even younger girls who are underage are up for sex which is a total mistruth . the target audience which these magazines are aimed at is eighteen to thirty so i do not see why they should be interested in any school girl.
Another puff says 'celeb abbess back in uniform' it baffles me that the school uniform theme is so popular in men's consumer magazines this just undermines school girls and again supposes that underage girls are sexually available. Both of these puffs do not represent modern women accurately or fairly because a modern women should be more reserved, would be more sensible in securing her sex life and would not under mime her education in that way. Finally I would like to conclude this by saying that men's consumer magazines may not represent modern women accurately, yet they do represent them fairly.
I have come to realise that the models with are on the feature photos are hard working women the job they do is not compulsory, so in some ways it is an achievement and a lot of other women would aspire to be in their position and see them as roll models. They independently make a living and are self reliant. I would also like to point out that these women are courageous because they have the confidence to dress and to exactly what they want knowing that they are going to be dishonoured by some people. People do not recognize it but these women are impressive representations of modern women.