Editor’s Note: We present an article by our good friend, Boris. He is a long-time friend and member of our group, but this is his first article for MOTW. We look forward to more.
There are a number of traits that define the Left and there are not that many. The Left is simple* and predictable. If you watch them for a while, you’ll start to see patterns and repeated behaviors and traits (Vox Day has done this in a pair of books) . One such identified trait of the Left is when they are beaten in an argument, by logic, history, or facts, they’ll seek to disqualify their opponent and claim victory by default.
While there are multiple approaches to disqualifying an argument, a popular Leftist disqualification of an argument is to call something a “Social Construct”, then act like that pronouncement destroys their opponent’s position by some magical disqualification (For clarity, I will refer to Webster’s definition of “Social Construct”: “An idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society, example: Class Distinctions are a social construct.” for this post.). Social Constructs, as a category, have been identified by the Left, and they act as if the constructs are to be treated as weak and flawed, so worthless and so broken, that anything based on them is an instant failure. But is this the case?
What social constructs do we deal with on a regular basis? There are indigenous peoples whose smallest unit of time is the day. They can’t comprehend hours, much less minutes and seconds, yet our society depends on these things. Are we to discard time, deadlines, and schedules because they are dependent on a social construct? Currency is another social construct that our society depends on. Would the Left discard currency because it’s a social construct? Fiat currency is a social construct built on a social construct, and while flawed, our society is dependent on it. The legal systems of The West are based on Common Law or Precedent Law, and both are social constructs, crucial to the stability of the advanced cultures we live in. There is a trend here, I could go on, but those who are observant will see my point; for those who are not, it will make no difference how many examples are listed. The trend is that social constructs are crucial to society and are likely based on proven principles.
From a scientific standpoint, sex and gender have a 1 to 1 correlation, but is beyond the scope of this post. We are dealing with the value of social constructs and their importance to society in this analysis. Leftists will (ironically) deny the science and claim that gender is based on nothing more than feelings and behavior, while denying male/female traits as being “Social Constructs.” Are male and female roles playthings to be (mis)applied, or are they as important as time, length**, finance, and law to our culture or nation? The obvious trend is that social constructs are hard and vital elements upon which cultures, societies, and nations are built.
When the Left calls male and female “social constructs” and acts as if that makes them meaningless, think about the importance of all the social constructs that we depend on, social constructs that have weathered centuries and are foundational to the advanced society (heck, they’re foundational to primitive societies) we live in. When the Left tries to disqualify genders as social constructs, think of the importance that all social constructs play in our lives, and with this understanding, know that the Leftists are lying and that their attempt to disqualify gender roles have failed because the very things they say have no value or meaning actually have immense societal value and definite meanings.
*When I say simple, I mean their ideologies fit on bumper stickers.
**Example not cited, but if this confuses you, you’re too short for this ride.