I was in the self-help section of our local bookstore yesterday (I was actually looking for anything on anthropology, but I just drifted on) and there was a book called 'Women Who Think Too Much: How to Break Free of Overthinking and reclaim Your Life'. (see Amazon for details). When I looked, however, this did not deal with females like myself whose thinking too much involves trying to work out whether it's worth reading Habermas, or what in the world (if anything) Lacan means by the Phallus, let alone whether there's any way of stopping George Bush. Instead, this book was all about women who over-analyse relationships/conversations etc. I'm the first to admit that this is a problem I sometimes suffer from, and so do some other people I know. But why is it supposedly just women? Is the idea of Men Who Think Too Much so ludicrous? If the author believes there are fundamental differences in male and female communications (as in the works of Deborah Tanner), shouldn't there be a companion volume about Men Who Don't Think Enough (or, even more to the point) Men Who Talk Too Much AND Don't Think Enough? I suppose in practice, this probably isn't really a sly bid to reinforce patriarchal control, but simply a marketing ploy. It is probably only Women Who (Possibly) Think Too Much, who can be persuaded to start worrying about whether they do think too much and thus buy the book. The lack of self-knowledge of (some) men may not only be a consolation to them, it may also come cheaper (at least in the short run).
Subscribe by email
You can receive the posts of this weblog by email.
Last comments
- highlyeccentric on: Hincmar’s world 1: canon law in the ninth century?
- Jonathan Jarrett on: Hincmar’s world 2: bishops, ‘jurisdiction’ and theories
- Bo on: Preparing five year-olds for Oxbridge
- kishnevi on: Hincmar’s world 2: bishops, ‘jurisdiction’ and theories
- dr ngo on: Eric Hobsbawm and post-modernity
- Jonathan Jarrett on: Hincmar’s world 1: canon law in the ninth century?
- Jonathan Jarrett on: Hincmar’s world 1: canon law in the ninth century?
- magistra on: Hard church, soft church, no church
- magistra on: Hincmar’s world 1: canon law in the ninth century?
- magistra on: Hincmar’s world 1: canon law in the ninth century?
- Show more
Search
Calendar
Archives
- August 2008 (4)
- July 2008 (7)
- June 2008 (6)
- May 2008 (7)
- April 2008 (5)
- March 2008 (6)
- February 2008 (5)
- January 2008 (7)
- December 2007 (7)
- November 2007 (5)
- October 2007 (3)
- September 2007 (4)
- August 2007 (4)
- July 2007 (4)
- June 2007 (5)
- May 2007 (4)
- April 2007 (2)
- March 2007 (5)
- February 2007 (5)
- January 2007 (5)
- December 2006 (3)
- November 2006 (5)
- October 2006 (4)
- September 2006 (5)
- August 2006 (9)
- July 2006 (7)
- June 2006 (5)
- May 2006 (9)
- April 2006 (5)
- March 2006 (6)
- February 2006 (7)
- January 2006 (8)
- December 2005 (9)
- November 2005 (7)
- October 2005 (9)
- September 2005 (9)
- August 2005 (4)
- July 2005 (8)
- June 2005 (7)
- May 2005 (1)
- more...
Thought (or possibly not) for the day
by magistra
@ 2005-09-28 - 10:32:01
Trackback address for this post:
Comments, Trackbacks:
Leave a comment :
Recent Posts
-
Preparing five year-olds for Oxbridge
on 2008-08-19 -
Hincmar’s world 2: bishops, ‘jurisdiction’ and theories
on 2008-08-17 -
Hincmar’s world 1: canon law in the ninth century?
on 2008-08-14 -
Eric Hobsbawm and post-modernity
on 2008-08-10 -
Hard church, soft church and mission
on 2008-07-26 -
Hard church, soft church, no church
on 2008-07-24 -
Seven of Six, Seven of Seven, Seven of Ten
on 2008-07-20 -
A fragmented history of lay piety
on 2008-07-19 -
The prestige and decline of medieval history (UK edition): part 2
on 2008-07-10 -
The prestige and decline of medieval history (UK edition): part 1
on 2008-07-05
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...