One thing that struck me about Ouelette's article was that, despite her best efforts to try and make a case for the positive results from Brown's "creation", Brown still came across with a negative image. Quotes like, "Poor girls are not sexy!" are too general and straight-forward for any meaning other than the one presented to be pulled from the statement. It was interesting then, when it was mentioned that Brown, along with the times, eventually changed her "credo" (which, according to Ouelette, she has tons of) to include the idea that women can be sexual objects/symbols and high-level businesswomen. I find this interesting because, from my most recent glancings through Cosmo, I have noticed that articles like the above are still the dominant subject of each issue. Also, I feel that the magazine has shifted to a younger audience because of the increased awareness and discussion of sex at a young age. Because of this, it seems that Cosmo has either gone back to its original platform, or it never really changed, and the idea of women in the workplace is just not brought up often in the magazine. Unfortunately, I don't read Cosmo on the reg(ular) so I can not fully assert this claim, but maybe others have more insight.