Upon reading this journal, the first ad that came to mind was this Disel ad. The woman pictured is the Cosmo Girl. A lot of women complain about femininity in advertising or portray it as bad and misrepresentative. I agree whole heartedly that it is. However it is through EFFECTIVE ad campaigns such as this one that this stereotype is perpetuated. In terms of the consumption article, if this shit would not work, I highly doubt advertisers would do it. In terms of the Cosmo girl, this is it. This is striving to "catch" your boss. An overarching theme in the Cosmo Girl article was that not only are brains a bad thing in an unattractive sense, but that they are hard. That being smart takes so much more time than faking it. It really does take more time. However, which is more self serving? Which is better in the long run? At the beginning of the article I thought that Brown was empowering women through sexuality, but really she is reaffirming the house wife of the 50's, of her time. I believe she was suggesting not to actually strive for anything concrete, but to merely look like you were striving. Not to actually read books, but carry them around to make yourself look smarter. She was border lining on saying be ambitious in all aspects of life that really do not matter at all. Be ambitious about trying to snag a "great catch" without seeming to be. The most troubling thing about this article was that the Cosmo Girl had no true identity. She was a shape shifter of sorts that conforms to whatever a "successful" male needed or wanted her to be. This ad perpetuates that sentiment. Be stupid. Be what your boss "really" wants. Lose yourself in hopes of being picked up by him. Do not be you be what he wants you to be. This ties to the eharmony ad a little too. If you are defining yourself through someone else's expectations, perceptions, and most importantly definition of happiness then what kind of person re you? How do you define self? Who are you and what do you want? Whatever your boss says.