Dotzilla wrote:
in my humble opinion, any publication that informs women they aren't as good at everything as they think they are is fine.
Except that's not really what Cosmo does. Instead of bringing women constructive criticism on the basis of relevant variables, it shifts those variables to a bunch of arbitrary shills designed to prey off the fears and doubts of the largest number of women possible, without actually addressing the basis of those fears and doubts.
So...what are those fears and doubts?
It's necessary to understand that America has never, until very recently, been a "free market" or "free society". Rather, America has been a traditional society. Traditional societies are defined by things like taboos, casteism and communalism.
In the postwar era, this changed: those flawed traditional values were challenged and replaced with a truly "free" society, meaning everyone looks out for themselves and does as they please, according to their own personal values and goals.
The problem is, a "free" society isn't stable or viable. Most obviously, as Hobbes pointed out, "free" societies are overwhelmingly male-favored. Men are stronger, bolder, and far more capable at the high-value technical skills in modern life, putting women at a massive disadvantage. And they are not burdened by childbirth. This is the real reason lesbianism has become mainstream in today's society - not because of tolerance but because they have an economic advantage.
As Hobbes said, human nature won't suffer such a society for long - all too quickly, people, finding such a life intolerable, of course organize themselves into blocs for mutual protection and a sovereign state begins to take form. Yet here we are, trying to do the impossible.
So, women have three options:
1) Work harder for marginal odds competing directly against men
2) Accept defacto subordinate status in society
3) Go back to the old traditional value system
1 doesn't work because women (like everyone) are lazy.
2 doesn't work because women (like everyone) are greedy.
3 doesn't work because women (like everyone) are stupid.
Women (like everyone) wanted to eat their cake and have it too. To claim all the potential benefits of a free society without falling prey to its pitfalls.
What Cosmo offered women was a false means of evening the odds. Rather than competing with men on even terms, or go back to the traditional value system, it offered a sort of buy-in: give money, faith, and personal dignity to this consumerism crap, and in return, receive security and social legitmacy.
Where this went wrong is that Cosmo's claim - that it can get women whatever they desire - is a lie. The central problem with the "free" society is that it forces individuals into a race to the bottom. In a "free" society there will always be a very few big winners and many losers. Cosmo does not change this. It's just water for the slide.
The "everything" that women needed to be "informed" they weren't as good at as men were all the things relevant to the "free market" and "free society". Women don't want to hear this because they don't want to fail. Free market advocates and corporate don't like talking about how their ideological nonsense doesn't work in real life.
So instead, we get Cosmo, telling women how they can wax and sex their way towards competing with Chinese women who have the good sense to pick option 1, 2 or 3.
Of course, Cosmo is just another "2+2=5" libertarian non-answer. There is no free lunch. There is no "having it all", just a bunch of trade-offs.
This is longwinded and abtruse. But it is the truth of the matter. The Cosmo fallacy is the free market libertarian fallacy.
