(For example, I recently read a book talking about how groups at the UN somehow came up with five different genders, also leaving room for more socially constructed definitions. Without some anchors in place (such as are provided by the Proclamation, for example), social constructionism can take on a (sometimes scary) life of its own.)

Christian: The author was once my mother’s visiting teacher. Borrow a copy and read it for amusement’s sake, if nothing else.

Nate, one advantage of the statement “gender roles are socially constructed” is that it is true. For someone emerging from a “Fascinating Womanhood” world, the discovery that faux-macho masculinity and fragile blossom womanhood are not foreordained behaviors can be fresh and new and exciting. Yes, it can be taken to silly excess, but it also allows the important questions to be asked in the first place. The family and much else that we believe in are social constructions, but they have very good reasons to be constructed as they are, and it’s a useful step to be able to enumerate and defend those reasons.

Does anyone–outside of first-year undergrads–really take this claim seriously?”

Maybe Nate is primarily talking about philosophers and such, in which case Jim F.’s point holds, but I think social construction=illegitimate has worked its way into the popular consciousness. I’ve encountered the idea more often than I can say, and I hardly ever consort with philosophers.

“essentialism, a sin that is committed for less often than most assume.”

So, what is essentialism, exactly, and why is it sin? I am confused.