Wearing socks *is* a social construct
-
Feet will naturally build up thick, tough, resilient calluses in natural environments. There have been some interesting studies done on this topic with indigenous groups.
Which indigenous groups don't wear shoes? Genuinely curious. In North America, moccasins are pretty well-known. I understand that part of the need stems from climate though. I'm more curious about what terrain an indigenous group might live in that can be safe to live barefoot.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
everyone replying that socks have a practical use, as if social constructs arent practical???
my issue is that even though "clothing" is a social construct, the stuff that socks are made out of is not. calling that stuff a sock is a social construct, but choosing to put the fabric on your body is not. becoming "clothed" is a social construct, but the unspecified uncategorized state of having that fabric on your body is just a physical state, not a construct. the meaning we apply to it is the thing that wouldn't exist without socially constructed systems of meaning.
It's kinda sad, i guess. I'm usually the first one to champion XYZ is a social construct, and have to deal with morons not understanding it, but here? no one is willing to say it?
Socks are not a social construct.
-
Contract yes, as it pertains to laws, but I would argue construct no- since protecting one's offspring is a natural/biological impulse. It's non negotiable from a survival viewpoint, and some people have better survival instincts than others.
You cannot invoke biology to generalize here. There are many mammals who use their offsprings as projectile decoys when they are in danger.
-
Your feet are nasty. I don't need to see them.
Also. The world is nasty. Go raw dog the world and see how long you make it
Aren't hands much more nasty?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Vegetables are a social construct too.
Afaik, botanically, there is no such thing as a "vegetable". Only fruits. What we perceive as "vegetable" differs between cultures worldwide.
-
You cannot invoke biology to generalize here. There are many mammals who use their offsprings as projectile decoys when they are in danger.
Are homo sapiens one such mammal?
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
I get that it's a joke, but wearing socks is not a social construct-- it's a social convention, but its utility is driven primarily by non-social factors. A social construct is an idea created and maintained by society specifically for its social function, which neither socks nor the act or wearing them nor the idea that wearing socks is good, are.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Health care is a social construct too.
-
Your feet are nasty. I don't need to see them.
Also. The world is nasty. Go raw dog the world and see how long you make it
Your feet are nasty. I don't need to see them.
Then don't look.
-
Vegetables are a social construct too.
Afaik, botanically, there is no such thing as a "vegetable". Only fruits. What we perceive as "vegetable" differs between cultures worldwide.
The botanical definition is just "edible parts of a plant". The culinary definition however does differs per culture.
-
You cannot invoke biology to generalize here. There are many mammals who use their offsprings as projectile decoys when they are in danger.
Typically those are mammals with larger litters and shorter gestational periods. Human offspring are too resource intensive to be widely used as decoys.
This is a weird conversation.
-
Are homo sapiens one such mammal?
As long as one person in history has done it once, yes. Just because people around us doesn' do it, doesn't mean it's not "natural". I don't know how tribes with 11 disposable children behave.
We used to be night active but if you ask anyone nowadays they'd act like waking up to the sun is THE "natural" thing.
-
They said the child was using to "get out of anything and everything", including wearing socks, which implicitly argues it to be a bad thing.
The child is more or less saying that because something is a social construct, that means that they do not have to follow it.
I could see that, thanks.
I still don't understand why there's like a hundred comments saying the same thing slightly differently, looks a bit fake. I don't have the time to go through all of those, but it reminds me of account sellers trying to get some legitimate-looking history. Shame if that's the case -
Your feet are nasty. I don't need to see them.
Then don't look.
My dicks out. It needs to breath.
-
My dicks out. It needs to breath.
You should see a doctor about that.
-
Vegetables are a social construct too.
Afaik, botanically, there is no such thing as a "vegetable". Only fruits. What we perceive as "vegetable" differs between cultures worldwide.
Wait till you find out that some places around the world think fish meat does not count as meat and is vegetarian
-
everyone replying that socks have a practical use, as if social constructs arent practical???
my issue is that even though "clothing" is a social construct, the stuff that socks are made out of is not. calling that stuff a sock is a social construct, but choosing to put the fabric on your body is not. becoming "clothed" is a social construct, but the unspecified uncategorized state of having that fabric on your body is just a physical state, not a construct. the meaning we apply to it is the thing that wouldn't exist without socially constructed systems of meaning.
It's kinda sad, i guess. I'm usually the first one to champion XYZ is a social construct, and have to deal with morons not understanding it, but here? no one is willing to say it?
Socks are not a social construct.
Social constructs aren't practical.
-
My dicks out. It needs to breath.
I'd be cool with that.
-
Wait till you find out that some places around the world think fish meat does not count as meat and is vegetarian
those people are morons
-
As long as one person in history has done it once, yes. Just because people around us doesn' do it, doesn't mean it's not "natural". I don't know how tribes with 11 disposable children behave.
We used to be night active but if you ask anyone nowadays they'd act like waking up to the sun is THE "natural" thing.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Are you suggesting that if even one human lacks this biological impulse to protect their children, we can't say that humans generally have a biological impulse to protect their children? That's absurd. And isn't this point entirely moot with regards to people who do have that in-built instinct?
