The other night I wrote an article about how there is a revival of macho and machismo to be a positive thing for men. I also wrote how I did not know if it needed reinvented when it really only meant male or masculine pride. It also meant virility and strength as well. However, having searched over more dictionaries it comes to my knowledge that there is some not so nice baggage with the term as well. Looks like it really depends on which dictionary you look at what the full meaning is of the word machismo.
a strong or exaggerated sense of manliness; an assumptive attitude that virility, courage, strength, and entitlement to dominate are attributes or concomitants of masculinity.
a strong or exaggerated sense of power or the right to dominate
Having an unusually high or exaggerated sense of masculinity. Including an attitude that aggression, strength, sexual prowess, power and control is the measure of someone's manliness.
A strong or exaggerated sense of traditional masculinity placing great value on physical courage, virility, dominationof women, and aggressiveness.
So, it looks like it really depends on where you get your definitions from what it entails. For me I used the good old classic Merriam-Webster which simply states, "a strong sense of masculine pride." This still does not answer the question I posed in my last article about if the revival was worth it or even needed. For one, it is actually the word Macho that takes precedence in the revival. It is not the word machismo even though the two are linked in the dictionary. For two, part of the quest is a reclaiming or rewording as it were.
The question overall is the worth of reviving and using the term for something positive. If that means the term changes with the times somewhat that could easily be part of that reclaiming. However, the idea of changing the term also comes with its own risks. One of those is changing so much it loses any meaning at all. The other is changing in the direction of just being whatever the ubber-feminists want men to be. There are lots of ups and downs to using the term as an archetype of masculinity.
Within my last article I was clearly on the side of using both terms positively provided on using the proper contexts. Has my view on this changed since I have been researching further? Do I now think men are better off not using the term at all? Or am I on board with it as long as it is a reclaimed version minus the domination/superiority some definitions use? Well, I plan on hopefully answering this main question in this follow up article with more information at hand.
The issue with the word is it is a package deal; in other words traditionally there is both good and bad in it. It means pride, strength, virility, and control of a situation. It also means domination of women and male superiority as well though in some definitions too. So, there is good and bad in the definition as found in a lot of dictionaries.
It also needs to be put into context if it is in the bedroom or in everyday life. There are lots of women that like their men to be in control in the bedroom as a sign of their masculinity. Not just within the Kink community, but, just in general. Of course, a woman into BDSM would not want a man that was not about domination and controlling them. Context does really mean everything when it comes to traditional machismo.
The word macho has slightly less baggage to it than machismo and that is the word at hand. Does that word need reinvented or reclaimed as something new? Or can it be kept as it meant originally without being negative? Let us take another look at the word macho once again as it has linguistically meant. If we want to know if it can be positive we need to go back to the etymological root of the term. What does macho mean again?
It turns out that Macho is actually defined in a couple of different ways by Merriam-Webster dictionary.
aggressively virile
having or showing qualities (such as very noticeable strength and aggression) that agree with traditional ideas about what men are like : manly or masculine in a very noticeable or exaggerated way
It looks like macho simply means a very noticeably masculine or manly man. However, there was also an additional line talking about it being characterized by displaying machismo. That other word we had been talking about above. Once again we have a package deal of lots of neutral traits mixed with a possible negative trait depending on your definition. However, the root is simply being male. The actual etymological root is to be male and thus to simply be a man.
Spanish, literally, male, from Latin masculus
It has the root literally in a male being a male; in a man being a man. Which fits in perfectly with the idea of male pride put forth in my previous definition. Now let us see what the root word is for machismo regardless of its current baggage. According to Merriam-Webster the etymology of machismo is as follows;
Spanish, from macho First Known Use: circa 1948
So, in essence of the word and its root a synonym for macho itself. It is another translation of the same meaning. So, what other synonyms does machismo mean? According to the same dictionary they would be virility, macho, masculine, manliness and manhood. So, going by this let us trace to its root words mainly masculine, manliness and manhood.
having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man
- a masculine voice
: of, relating to, or constituting the gender that ordinarily includes most words or grammatical forms referring to males
- masculine nouns
qualities associated with men : manliness
: the condition of being an adult male as distinguished from a child or female
: adult males : men
having qualities generally associated with a man : strong, virile
: appropriate in character to a man
- manly sports
So, essentially machismo and macho go back to simply being an expression of manliness/masculinity. Etymologically the words macho and machismo are both value neutral. They are simply other words for masculinity and manhood. So, where do I stand on the revival of the term as a good thing? I think it is very commendable. After all neither word originally had any negative association.
The answer is not to sacrifice a word that could be perfectly suitable for a specific archetype of masculinity. It is instead to put it into context and define it properly. So, if someone asks if you are Macho or not provide a proper context and define it accordingly. The New Macho is really about removing the stigma from another word for masculinity and washing it of its bad associations. It is not so much about a new definition, but, rejuvenating the original meaning once more.
