The difference is that feminists are well organised and are using the Internet (through change.org, etc.) to pressure corporations to ban stuff they don't like, whereas men are hopelessly disorganised and couldn't give a toss what is published in trashy women's magazines.
Zoo was accused of promoting objectification of women to impressionable teenagers/boys and therefore should not be so readily available for sale. Fair enough. But Cosmo, Cleo, etc., which frequently give impressionable young girls tips, in effect, on how to manipulate men and twist their boyfriends around their little finger, apparently are perfectly acceptable.
Personally I don't care -- can honestly say I've never 'read' Zoo, Ralph, etc. -- other than about the double standard, which has also been so blatant in advertising, and especially reactions to it, for at least a couple of decades.
For example, this commercial (for a
lingerie chain!) was deemed sexist and promptly banned:
This (government-funded campaign FFS!) apparently was not and ran for years:
Can you imagine the outcry if a road safety campaign equated 'loose' or flat-chested or ugly women with texting while driving (or whatever)?
But speeding = undesirable behaviour = small dicks = loser is OK.
