Week 4: Conquistadors or Something

Conquistadors or something

This week we looked at the male social structure and expectations of the male in society both currently and back when America was still a budding nation. I find social structures in general to be quite interesting. It goes back to the whole, nature vs. nurture debate. Are we born with the preconceived notions of what a woman is or what makes a man? Is it built into us, as humans, to think that the man should be dominant and the breadwinner, play with trucks, get dirty, and flaunt testosterone? Likewise, are we born to think that women should be meek, innocent, submissive, homemaker, baby-factories? Or is it all a product of our upbringing?

Is it because we see how other people act, from the time that we are born? A subconscious observation that babies notice without anyone else noticing. An observation of things that are so far on the down low that we don’t even notice how they might affect children? In the movie we watched on Tuesday, this argument came up as we watched men and the social structure that is produced from watching wrestling. Whether they know it or not, people who participate in professional wrestling and who watch it are buying into the stereotype that men must be macho and defend their honor, that it’s ok to beat each other up, as well as women. They learn that women are objects to be commanded by the men, and that women deserve everything they get if they upset their male counterpart. Even by watching, even by knowing that it’s fake, they still buy into it. Because someone had to think of it, someone had to put that idea out there and have people play it in order to make it come alive. The transfer of an idea.

This male social structure is all over our society, and to just single out wrestling is unfair. Wrestling is only one component that plays into what develops the idea of the “man.” Think about it. How many Disney movies have a female “damsel in distress” and a macho, sword wielding prince charming character? Even though he may be a knight in shining armor, someone who is going to take care of the princess in the end, why is the princess going to need him? Why must he be macho, and defeat the evil character? Because the woman is weak, the man must protect her. It’s the same old gender archetypes.

This brings me to my main point. Macho men, in Disney, in history, in literature, ALWAYS have to fight for what they want, deserve, and need. If the man isn’t getting what he wants, deserves or needs, then he is going to start a war to attain such. That’s just the way it is. Where does this desire to kill for what’s yours come from? This idea only brings war when two cultures clash. As long as there are two sides to a situation, there cannot be peace, but to have everyone on the same side is boring.

Cortez and his people sought to keep control of the current Mexican people and gain more land. And why? Because as Bernal Diaz states, “I believe that we performed them not of our own volition but by the guidance of God” (p 250). The conquistador attitude that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, and take whatever they want is fits with the male social structure of that time as well as current times as well.

I know there are always exceptions. I am generalized a great deal here. But I feel that most men feel a need to be a provider, and their pride and ego are hurt when they cannot do such. At least in my experience, this is the case. Some men have no issue with a woman breaking down social structures and being the “wearer of the pants.”

So where do these male and female roles come from? Are we as humans born with natural tendencies towards one side or the other? Or is it based on how we were raised? Nature vs. Nurture. Which side would be “better” if we use “better” as a relative term. On the spectrum of good and evil, is it evil to embrace the dominant side of a male, or a female for that matter? Does that make someone evil?