Helen Gurley Brown at Work

FASHION/FEMINISM - Helen Gurley Brown became the editor of Cosmopolitan magazine in 1965 and quickly changed the magazine into one that was just for women (from 1886 to 1864 it had been a more family oriented magazine).

But that is not all she did. As a sexually liberated single woman Helen Gurley Brown also brought to the magazine her own manifesto of what she thought women should behave like. In a word, golddiggers.

In her best-selling book "Sex and the Single Girl" and 8 other books that followed Helen Gurley Brown perpetuated her belief that women could have it all, namely "love, sex, and money" by simply playing the role of a woman who attracts and snares men, and then controls them using sex in an effort to gain money and power.

And when you're done with them, men are disposable and easily replaced.

This obviously comes from a woman who wasn't worried about losing her good looks.

It should be noted that many notable feminists of the time, including Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer, did not support Gurley Brown's manifesto of controlling men through sex. Gurley Brown's concepts which focused on fashion, beauty, fame and using men for sex/money were arguably a step backwards in the women's liberation movement because it promoted the idea that women should behave like tramps and sluts, but only if they're getting a lot of money.

Helen Gurley Brown continued on as editor-in-chief until 1997. She is still alive currently.

But during her 32 years in control of one of the most influential women's magazines in the United States Helen Gurley Brown managed to sway quite a few young women (the Cosmo Girl / Sex and the City generation) to her cause.

While she did claim love was a factor in her philosophy (she married movie producer David Brown in 1959) they never had any children, instead enjoying the wealthy life with no kids to worry about... but lets just test Google and see how many hits for the word love comes up on cosmopolitan.com... 11,400

12,800 hits for the word "sex".

11,800 hits for the word "guy".

2,980 hits for the word "boyfriend".

681 hits for the word "husband".

So apparently husbands aren't high on the list of priorities. Guys are okay, but guys are disposable. And love is slightly less popular than sex. (The actual "love articles" are really more about "making love" than actual romantic love.

3,420 hits for the word "romance".

Heck, lets have some more fun with this...

6,860 hits for the word "hair".

6,570 hits for the word "fashion".

3,860 hits for the words "kama sutra".

501 hits for the word "cheating" (the top articles that came up were "How to Tell if a Guy Is Cheating", "Stop Him From Cheating" and "Is Cheating Always Wrong?").

478 hits for the words "paris hilton".

413 hits for the word "marriage".

So apparently Paris Hilton is moderately less important than husbands, and approx. 15% more popular than marriage. Yeah, I think we get the picture here.

Cosmopolitan... the magazine for slutty golddiggers who don't like marriage but are just marginally better than prostitutes because they pick and choose which rich guys they want to seduce. Its completely unrealistic too (men with good looks and wealth are hard to come by and if you do they are either a: already taken or b: likely to cheat). And women wonder why men get upset about such women and call them b*tches or worse.

You see men are sensitive creatures. We may not like to admit it, but we're very self-conscious about it. We want to be loved like any other human being... but when someone is used and abused by someone they thought (or hoped) might love them, the shock and pain of such betrayal is to be expected.

Yes, the modern Cosmo magazine has helped women feel more sexually liberated, we will give Helen Gurley Brown some of the credit for that. But at what cost? This concept of hunting rich men and then using them for their money is just plain ethically wrong.

If you want money go out and earn it like a regular person. Feminists didn't fight for equality so women could sponge off rich men. They wanted to stand on their own two feet. Gurley Brown's philosophy is a throw back to Parisian courtesans, which some people may romanticize, but in reality were closer to upper-class prostitutes.

Where is the love in using someone like that? Love in such a scenario becomes a tool, a weakness which the woman can exploit and use to her advantage.

If a man did such a thing women would be up in arms and asking for his head on a platter, but women who do it are being praised by Cosmopolitan... despite the fact that these scenarios usually end badly.

Remember Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton? Her affair with the president was more about his power than anything else. She wanted POWER over him and it blew up in her face (pun intended).

That is the Cosmo Girl in action. Such actions will always come back to haunt people.