http://blog.foghound.com/64/ News and views about marketing and communications Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:11:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 http://blog.foghound.com/64/#comment-442 Tony Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:14:40 +0000 http://foghound.com/blog/?p=64#comment-442 It is an interesting theory, though I do not like the term ‘foolishness’ as a categorical label for the complexity, fluidity and contextuality that many women show in their approach to life. It is an interesting theory, though I do not like the term ‘foolishness’ as a categorical label for the complexity, fluidity and contextuality that many women show in their approach to life.

]]> http://blog.foghound.com/64/#comment-28 HC Thu, 21 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0000 http://foghound.com/blog/?p=64#comment-28 It is an interesting theory, though I do not like the term 'foolishness' as a categorical label for the complexity, fluidity and contextuality that many women show in their approach to life. Also, while recognizing that there are distinct differences between men and women, I think that there are men who are more complex than straightforward analytical, reasonable, etc... and women who are more analytical, etc. than complex or 'foolish'. Perhaps pointing out different approaches and the value of including women in top positions in companies (not just as secretaries) are the key concepts in this entry and not so much the differences between sexes. I just think that by labelling it 'foolishness' it devalues this kind of approach, makes it sound novel and catchy compared to being rational, yet is inferior since it is 'foolishness' after all. It is an interesting theory, though I do not like the term ‘foolishness’ as a categorical label for the complexity, fluidity and contextuality that many women show in their approach to life. Also, while recognizing that there are distinct differences between men and women, I think that there are men who are more complex than straightforward analytical, reasonable, etc… and women who are more analytical, etc. than complex or ‘foolish’. Perhaps pointing out different approaches and the value of including women in top positions in companies (not just as secretaries) are the key concepts in this entry and not so much the differences between sexes. I just think that by labelling it ‘foolishness’ it devalues this kind of approach, makes it sound novel and catchy compared to being rational, yet is inferior since it is ‘foolishness’ after all.

]]>