I’m trying to think through the bigger picture, the philosophical side, the logical reasoning on why I long ago started disliking Cosmo. You could say, oh, she’s religious, and the Pope told her to hate it, or you could say she’s conservative, which for some, apparently discounts all logical thinking. But the truth is I disliked Cosmo long before I was religious, and before I had words to give to my probably then-latent conservatism. I think in my gut I found it demeaning. And dare I say it: Predictable, aka just a little boring. Then I read this piece in the Post and of course, I disagreed with it, but what I want to do is think more seriously about why. The woman just passed away and I’m inclined to not speak ill of the dead. But I can’t help but see someone whose potential and talents were wasted by her pruriency.
_________________________
Update: A good article about the hidden conservatism of Helen Gurley Brown, here.
by 
I say your dislike is neither from ‘religious’ or ‘latent conservatism’ origins. It seems to me you think and think reasonably. I mean this neither as patronizing to yourself nor demeaning to those who disagree with yourself. However, the implication is there that those in disagreement somewhere along in their reasoning do resort to unreasonableness and irrationality as they try to maintain their preferences despite what is confronting them – something akin to ‘hearing and they do not hear’ and ‘seeing, they do not see’.