I wrote a bit about ,I think it is" Insane that Females wear high-heels", and how this is simply a "Social Construct",as there is no logical reason what so ever to wear High-heels!
Because society said "it would be gay,fem, etc. to have a truck this color!..Omg!,this is fine if people want to be imprisoned by this Social Construct,.yet ,one can't grow that way.
There again Stuck in Plato's Cave,!
Annotation 11 - First Amendment / United States
Freedom of Belief
The First Amendment does not expressly speak in terms of liberty to hold such beliefs as one chooses, but in both the religion and the expression clauses, it is clear, liberty of belief is the foundation of the liberty to practice what religion one chooses and to express oneself as one chooses. 169 ''If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.'' 170 Speaking in the context of religious freedom, the Court at one point said that while the freedom to act on one's beliefs could be limited, the freedom to believe what one will ''is absolute.'' 171 But matters are not so simple.
Jefferson was pleased with the constitution, but felt it was incomplete. He pushed for legislation that would guarantee individual rights, including what he felt was the prime guarantee: freedom of and from religion. Madison promised to promote such a bill, in order to gain support for the ratification of the constitution by the State of Virginia. In 1789, the first of ten amendments were written to the constitution; they have since been known as the Bill of Rights.
I truthly believe a lot people claim a certain religion,cause it is simply the Social Construct.
by c2810554 on January 14, 2011
“Social construction” may mean many things to many people. Ian Hacking, having examined a wide range of books and articles with titles of the form “The social construction of X” or “Constructing X”, argues that when something is said to be “socially constructed”, this is shorthand for at least the following two claims:
(0) In the present state of affairs, X is taken for granted; X appears to be inevitable.
(1) X need not have existed, or need not be at all as it is. X, or X as it is at present, is not determined by the nature of things; it is not inevitable.
Hacking adds that the following claims are also often, though not always, implied by the use of the phrase “social construction”:
(2) X is quite bad as it is.
(3) We would be much better off if X were done away with, or at least radically transformed.
Thus a claim that gender is socially constructed probably means that gender, as currently understood, is not an inevitable result of biology, but highly contingent on social and historical processes. In addition, depending on who is making the claim, it may mean that our current understanding of gender is harmful, and should be modified or eliminated, to the extent possible.
According to Hacking, “social construction” claims are not always clear about exactly what isn’t “inevitable”, or exactly what “should be done away with.” Consider a hypothetical claim that quarks are “socially constructed”. On one reading, this means that quarks themselves are not “inevitable” or “determined by the nature of things.” On another reading, this means that our idea (or conceptualization, or understanding) of quarks is not “inevitable” or “determined by the nature of things”.
Hacking is much more sympathetic to the second reading than the first. Furthermore, he argues that, if the second reading is taken, there need not always be a conflict between saying that quarks are “socially constructed” and saying that they are “real”. In our gender example, this means that while a legitimate biological basis for gender may exist, some of society’s perceptions of gender may be socially constructed.
The stronger first position, however, is more-or-less an inevitable corollary of Willard Van Orman Quine’s concept of ontological relativity, and particularly of the Duhem-Quine thesis. That is, according to Quine and like-minded thinkers (who are not usually characterized as social constructionists) there is no single privileged explanatory framework that is closest to “the things themselves”—every theory has merit only in proportion to its explanatory power.
As we step from the phrase to the world of human beings, “social construction” analyses can become more complex. Hacking briefly examines Helène Moussa’s analysis of the social construction of “women refugees”. According to him, Moussa’s argument has several pieces, some of which may be implicit:
1. Canadian citizens’ idea of “the woman refugee” is not inevitable, but historically contingent. (Thus the idea or category “the woman refugee” can be said to be “socially constructed”.)
2. Women coming to Canada to seek asylum are profoundly affected by the category of “the woman refugee”. Among other things, if a woman does not “count” as a “woman refugee” according to the law, she may be deported, and forced to return to very difficult conditions in her homeland.
3. Such women may modify their behavior, and perhaps even their attitudes towards themselves, in order to gain the benefits of being classified as a “woman refugee”.
Hacking suggests that this third part of the analysis, the “interaction” between a socially constructed category and the individuals that are actually or potentially included in that category, is present in many “social construction” analyses involving types of human beings.
Environmental Leftist social constructionism
The Postmodern social construction of nature is a theory of postmodernist continental philosophy that poses an alternative critique of previous mainstream, promethean dialogue about environmental sustainability and ecopolitics. Whereas traditional criticisms of environmentalism come from the more conservative “right” of politics, leftist critiques of nature pioneered by postmodernist constructionism highlight the need to recognise “the other”. The implicit assumption made by theorists like Wapner  is that a new “response to eco-criticism would require critics to acknowledge the ways in which they themselves silence nature and then to respect the sheer otherness of the nonhuman world.”
This is because postmodernism prides itself on criticizing the urge toward mastery that characterizes modernity. But mastery is exactly what postmodernism is exerting as it captures the nonhuman world within its own conceptual domain. That in turn implies postmodern cultural criticism can deepen the modernist urge toward mastery by eliminating the ontological weight of the nonhuman world. “What else could it mean to assert that there is no such thing as nature?” . Thus, the issue becomes an existentialist query about whether nature can exist in a humanist critique, and whether we can discern the “other’s” views in relation to our actions on their behalf. This theorem has come to be known as “The Wapner Paradigm.”
The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is -- second only to American political campaigns -- the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time.
-- Larry Laudan, Science and Relativism (1990)
subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions and social constructs
pernicious:having a harmful effect, especially in a gradual or subtle way.
“The true value of a human being can be found in the degree to which he has attained liberation from the self.”
(So get to Work, attaining-me),quit with all these Social Constructs,and think for yourself.