I went to Dictionary.com and looked up machismo and this is what I found:

ma∙chis∙mo (noun) – a strong or exaggerated sense of manliness; an assumptive attitude that virility, courage, strength, and entitlement to dominate are attributes or concomitants of masculinity.

I was wondering how that differed from chauvinism, and discovered that chauvinism doesn’t actually involve maleness as part of its definition; it’s merely devotion to any group, particularly one’s country or military. I think what nearly everyone calls chauvinism (or male chauvinism) could much more accurately be called machismo.

I’m not a very macho guy. I think a lot of bluster and posturing very often hides insecurity or fear, and guys who are preoccupied with their power and dominance fall harder when they can’t have it. It reveals their true nature, that they’re not men but boys, crying over a toy being taken away from them. True manhood comes from the releasing of power, from recognizing that certain things have priority over even the self; things like your spouse, your kids, your family, and the things all those people love. True manhood comes from love.

At first glance, Led Zeppelin seems to be all about the machismo. The opening song on II is a charged-up burst of sexual inevitability, a dominating force that insists upon a submissive party. But after that, it takes a subtle turn. “The Lemon Song,” which probably still wouldn’t be approved by the PMRC, actually involves a guy having his manhood trampled on by his woman. Not only is she cheating on him, but he is entirely sexually beholden to her. In that scenario, she has all the power. Not so much machismo here.

But if “The Lemon Song” is machismo on the run, “Thank You” is the complete absence of it. Instead of posturing and puffed-out chests, “Thank You” has gratitude and selfless love as its centerpieces. Not only is this the opposite of machismo, but I think it’s one of the manliest songs of the entire 70s. The singer of “Thank You” is man enough to admit and be proud of the fact that he loves, and that he relies on the person he loves.

You’ll notice in the definition of machismo that it not only doesn’t mention love, but that it doesn’t have anything to do with love in any form. In fact, were the transcendent and divine power of love to take hold of us, we would find that machismo (and the female equivalent) becomes meaningless and inconsequential. Jesus talked about it; Martin Luther King Jr. talked about it. Love, in its most grand and perfect form, is not about power; it’s about oneness. When we are one, there is no power to be had.

Tomorrow: J.R.R. Tolkien the rock star, and Jimmy Page the literary scholar.

Advertisements