[lbo-talk] dixor

[Kelley]

At 02:12 PM 10/7/03 -0400, Brian Siano wrote:
>budge wrote:
>
>>>blue for boys, pink for girls)? Does it apply to social
>>>conventions which arose because they seem to work, or
>>>fulfill a strong utilitarian basis (the development of
>>>paper economies, the training system for physicians, the
>>>shapes of chairs)? Is it a catch-all for anything that's
>>>not solely derived from the genes or the brain (capacity
>>>for language, eye color, bilateral symmetry), even if we
>>>have _no idea_ if it's socially "constructed" or not?
>>>
>>Does this term apply solely to social conventions (i.e.,
>>It might help to define what "socially constructed" means.
>>
>>
>>you know, kelley wasn't particularly nice in her response to
>>your rather obtuse question, so maybe i can help. (not that
>>i'll be nice...)
>Oh, my question wasn't just obtuse, but _rawther_ obtuse?
>
>I say, Buffy, this ruffian desires social intercourse with his betters! 
>How amusing!
>
>>you joined this list and got a blurb telling you what it was
>>about.  you either read it and stayed or you ignored it and
>>stayed, but whichever it was, you were warned that it wasn't
>>about shoring up your predetermined notions of human
>>behaviour.  you were warned that silly 'cultural' topics
>>were considered fair game.
>So were you.
>
>>>Frankly, when people say that _anything_ is "socially
>>>constructed," I suspect that people are simply using
>>>quasi-technical terms to look sophisticated.
>>>
>>
>>is this what you say to surgeons when they use big words or
>>is this sort criticism reserved for fields where you have no
>>competence?
>But there's the difference. When I speak to surgeons and research 
>physicians (and I do, actually-- it's part of my job), and I ask for an 
>explanation of some abstruse medical topic, they actually _give_ me one.

it's their job. i'm not at work. were i, i'd give you an answer.

furthermore, you don't ask them from the position of someone who has 
decided, from jump st., that the phrase they're using is meaningless, do 
you? in this case, though, you made it quite clear that you didn't think i 
could or would answer you. i have no time for that sort of bullshit. had 
you seriously asked, i would have answered. but, you weren't serious.

further, as i expl'd: there was an answer to your question in the post you 
responded to. i concluded that you are either too ignorant to see the 
answer there, i'm a poor communicator, you don't want to see the answer and 
prefer to grind your axe (which you've regularly ground each week since you 
started posting *yawn*) or some combination.

and, finally, you aren't really offended by the phrase, social 
constructionism. read your own text again. what you're bothered by is a 
particular position that you happen to think is social constructionism.

Kelley