Finally somebody gets this right. I've been appalled at the many reviews of Scanlon's book that uncritically swallow her argument that Brown was somehow a pioneer feminist whose emphasis on the joys of sex made her brand of feminism so much more fun and more in tune with contemporary life than the kind that inconveniently insisted on boring things like equality, autonomy, and dignity. Brown was and is no feminist; her philosophy is all about teaching women to get what they want by pleasing men. Kudos to Shapiro for pointing out what should have been obvious to other reviewers.

How about getting what you want based on your own merits, and not relying on a man (or woman) to get you there? That would be a nice lesson to learn.

Feminism isn't about outpacing men or making men "miserable"; its about women being able to move forward in their lives without needing a man for things like, say, food and shelter. Not having to "snag a man" for these things is pretty great, I think. Not having to deal with unwanted, casual sexual innuendo at work is pretty nice, too. As is being treated as a compitent member of a team rather than a lil' lady trying to get by until she lands a rich husband. All these things? Pretty awesome, right there.

And if a man thinks it's miserable to consider a woman his equal, well, fuck you, man. Go wear some high heels, a skirt and tights. Let me dock your pay, refuse to let you open a bank account without a woman's permission, have all your friends shun you if you decide to sleep with even one person before marriage. Why don't you go home and raise some damn kids, cook dinner and clean house because that is the only "respectable" thing to do with your life. Let me deny you choice in your life because society or "God" says its the proper thing to do. And when you complain, I'll sigh and ask why you're trying to make people miserable.

Jesus. I hate it when people equate feminism to "making people miserable."

I understand your point of view carrots, and you make a fair point. The problem is that, after reading your post, I feel pretty miserable.

HGB is a flawed individual, but her contribution to feminism was that she recognized that there is a constant tension between the sexes that needs to be exploited. By the standards of our generation, she seems hopelessly backward, but she actually preached a fairly revolutionary message for her time. The playing field has changed for feminism, but her message still has some value. I suppose one could argue that, through all of her man-pleasing rhetoric and "marrying up," she still ended up running a major magazine and became a prominent figure in both culture and business. It may be useful to rememebr that the Cosmo messgag must speak to someone - it is a huge selling title, and man are not the one's buying it. That being said, I picked up a copy at the gym the other day, and it was quite entertaining. My wife has an MBA and is every bit my equal in and out of the house (most years she out earns me, which delights me). But there is a part of most women who also enjoy dating, sex and "the battle of the sexes." HGB tapped into that.

I don't think she made any substantial contributions, though. She SAID she made contributions and that seems to be enough for a lot of people. When she was editing the magazine, it was one long guideline on how to fuck your way to the marriage to the top guy - not even to the top job. Nothing feminist there.

She also lived her guidelines. I have to agree with the reviewer. Look at where she is now. A freakishly over-botoxed old, old lady who's had more surgeries than we can count and who's been anorexic all her life, just so she could hang on to the image she created almost 50 years ago.

SHE would tell you that she looks great, and that what she's done to herself cosmetically is what we should ALL do to hang on to a man. She's kidding herself, though. She doesn't look great, she looks like an old lady that's trying too hard. That's sad, not "revolutionary".

The sexual revolution was already long underway before she came on the scene and would have taken the same course whether she edited the magazine or not. What she DID do is capitalize on it beautifully and pull a failing magazine out of the red. All she seems proud of is her marriage though. Sad indeed.

MessyONE:

All she seems proud of is her marriage though. Sad indeed.

Well, she did practice what she preached, and quite successfully at that. I'll give her credit for one thing. She was a successful editor who found an audience for what she was selling. No one can take away that fact. Still, she is an example of why the term "golddigger" was coined. If she's okay with being a golddigger, I'm okay with calling her one. I don't think I could call her a feminist with a straight face, though.

Not by "teaching women to get what they want by pleasing men," but by stealing the richest married men you could find anywhere, anyhow. That's not feminism either. A sad footnote to feminism, that's all. But who really reads Cosmo in the first place? Blech.

I wonder which one of you got laid more, went to better parties, and woke up with fewer headaches.

Throughout the Democratic primaries, I was fascinated by the number of women and feminist icons, like Gloria Steinem, who studiously ignored the fact that HRC owed her political career to that of her husband’s. In fact, Chris Matthews was more or less tarred and feathered for suggesting as much. But, in truth, how different is what Brown did to get ahead from what Hillary did? Both of them married men and then used those men to advance their careers, goals, etc. I think many feminists resent the fact that Brown doesn’t appear to resent her husband or men in general for her choice. Hillary on the other hand exudes resentment for the choice she freely made and the resulting consequences. Which brings me to the issue of choice. Feminism is supposed to be about choice. A woman’s choice. The problem is that many feminists get upset when women make the “wrong” choice. If a woman wants to get ahead in life or find happiness by trying to please and then snag and then please some more a man, so be it, as long as it’s her free choice. The problem arises when she doesn’t have a choice. If the only way a woman can get ahead is by finding a rich man to bed and marry, then we’d have a problem. But no one can make that argument with a straight face. When two of the last three Secretaries of State were women, a woman almost won the Democratic presidential nomination, more than one unmarried woman is considered a leading candidate for the Supreme Court, and the Speaker of the House is a woman, you can’t credibly argue that women are suffering from a lack of choice in how to get a head in life. Finally, I find it fascinating that wanting to please a man is considered proof that a woman is not a feminist. Certainly no one would complain if a men’s magazine had an article on how to please your woman.