A Macho God?

Elias Miguel Munoz in "From the Land of Machos: Journey to Oz with my Father" rejects God for his machista rules, asserting, "Heaven was founded on a hierarchy of men, in which women had no voice" (23). I easily empathize with Miguel and his treatment by his father. As a Christian, I'm split between agreeing with parts of his attack on culture's myth of man but disagree on his simultaneous attack on God! Critically thinking, I applaud that Miguel takes evil seriously- because he should! But by repudiating or rejecting God, Miguel inadvertently reduces any convincing argument for rejecting the machismo. In effect, Miguel's rejection removes the edge of his point- declawing his own swipe at machismo.

Because Miguel groups his father, God, and the macho together, I will first show how Miguel characterizes machismo. Secondly, asserting that a response requires a look at ethics, I will look to another writer contributing to Muy Macho: Latino Men Confront Their Manhood, Rudulfo Anaya, for his ethic for rejecting the macho, concluding that both authors really have no ground to stand on.

Before I can "declaw the cat" so to speak, I must show how Miguel actually characterizes the macho ideal. Miguel really lumps both his father and God together. To Miguel, "God and my father became the same entity" (23). God and his father -in his opinion- emulated machismo, or macho behavior. Thus, I compare Miguel's attitude toward his father to characterize his definition of the macho because to Miguel, both represent the macho.

Miguel calls his father the, "impassive macho" (26), and the "incarnate machismo" (31). His father said things like, "I make all the decisions here," and "No woman is going to ride my horse" (20). Similarly, God was "secretly reproached" for "machista rules" (23), machista meaning male chauvinist, or man with a belief in the inferiority of women ("Machista"). In other words, Miguel characterizes both his earthly father and heavenly Father with a male superiority complex, believing women are inferior and acting as if women are inferior. His father refused to be corrected (as evident from the quotes above) while God "founded [Heaven] on a hierarchy of men" (23).

The statements quoted earlier imply Miguel disliked anything macho, but what other support is there? Miguel didn't suddenly become obsessed with "deconstructing the macho archetype" (31) but has rebelled against it since childhood. When his father got into a fight as a young child, Miguel recalled, "I remember thinking that I'd never want to be a father" (22), "willing to fight and risk[ing] getting killed" (22). Miguel recalls, "For the boy I was detested all typical boys' activities" (23). As a teen, Miguel took "pleasure to be[ing] different from [his father]" (27), wearing makeup, dying his hair, carrying flowers, and wearing necklaces (27).

In his rejection of the macho, Miguel really treats macho as an ethic, a "principle or standard of human conduct" ('Ethics'). Regardless of whether Miguel agrees or disagrees, he implies machismo carries authoritative weight in one's conduct- that one ought to act a certain way. The resentment of the macho ideal being forced upon him reveals more than expectation that one ought to act a certain way but one must conform or be chastised and punished. More than a cultural ideal, Miguel treats machismo as a moral prescription. Miguel conveys these imposed expectations of being macho through reactions to his father. Miguel was supposed to call his father, "Papi" (19). Miguel, "should've felt pride and admiration" (22) for being "more of a man, more of a macho" (21). Miguel also reflects an ethical treatment of the machismo in his reflections on Heaven and Hell. Miguel would have, "no place in Heaven" (23). Miguel proclaimed sarcastically, "I would go to Hell to pay for my crimes. One of these was a mortal sin: not wanting to act like a man, not assuming the authority of my gender" (24).

Miguel never elaborated on his opposing ethic of feminism because his attack on the macho was really incidental to the purpose of his essay. However, piecing together Miguel's cynical observations about his father and God I can observe several things. First, Miguel expects the world to allow women to have a voice (23). Second, that women are not inferior, implied by calling God's rules as machista (23). Fourth, his correction of the macho implies machismo is wrong and should be corrected. Most importantly, Miguel implies his ethic is authoritative, good, independent and transcending, or rising above, culture and humankind- not defined by his father, by God, or by his neighborhood of boys.

Hence, Miguel's rejection of the macho uses an underlying principle, or ethic, that is transcendent, independent and irrespective of society or any one person's idea. In other words, for Miguel to be right, for Miguel to be angry, for Miguel to reject the macho, father, and God, for Miguel to take evil seriously, Miguel's ethic must not reside in culture. Culture is measured against it.

I would be outside the scope of this paper to guess every possible root or underlying principle of Miguel's ethic because of the large amount of theories of ethics in the world, such as utilitarianism, divine command theory, and Kantianism, to name a few. So instead I will closely scrutinize an instance of a theory ethics by another author that helps illustrate the "declawing of the cat."

Rudolfo Anaya in "'I'm the King': The Macho Image," writes, that the particulars of the role were, "defined according to the particular culture" (59). Anaya specifically states, "the father and other males in the community shape the macho image," as well as women (67). Anaya helps to clarify that machismo really involves cultural forces, including literature, religion, and pop culture (59).

Anaya differs from Miguel in that Anaya attempts to redefine macho with a better, truer definition. Anaya believes in the "truer essence of male and female" (61). Anaya characterizes the perverted macho as a false ideal (64), different from Anaya's undefiled macho. Whereas Anaya desires to return back to the pure definition of macho, Miguel desires to completely get rid of the macho archetype. Despite their difference though, Anaya, like Miguel, rejects machismo assuming an underlying ethic.

If Miguel or Anaya's repudiation of the macho is to be taken seriously, they must make a prescriptive statement rather than a descriptive statement (i.e. "I shouldn't like machismo" rather than "I don't like machismo"). Moreover, this prescriptive statement must use a standard outside of culture, rising above it. Therein lies the problem.

Anaya calls his readers to action saying, "[I]t is time to call that behavior that is good, good. And that which is negative to the self and the community, not good" (64). In justifying his rejection of machismo, Anaya acts as if his principle of good is a transcendent, rising above culture. But Anaya has no justification for it! Saying we should begin by calling good behavior good is not really a beginning at all! Anaya's principle of human conduct, or ethic, really causes us to ask a follow-on question, "Why are "positive effects to the self and community" good?

If Anaya simply answers by saying because positive effects are good, Anaya's principle of good can be reduced to subjectivism. Saying something is good, doesn't justify it as so. Otherwise, I could say inequality is good, and therefore it would be right. Even without the problem of subjectivism, saying "positive effects to the self and community" is good has its own share of problems as well. Is a community the population at large? But what if the community disagrees what is positive to the self and the community? The term, a "positive effect" is vague and left to interpretation as well. What is positive for me may not be necessarily positive for you.
Even in ignoring the subjective problems and defining positive effect problems aside, Anaya still runs into a bigger problem! I would ask if it's ever possible for a behavior positive to the self and community be bad. A community behavior that is positive for the self and the community can still be wrong. If Anaya or Miguel disagrees, they can't even point out that machismo is wrong! The argument against the macho becomes harmless, the swipe against the machismo declawed.
With the problems of Anaya's ethic in mind, Miguel really cannot attack machismo without undermining feminism. Because for any defense of feminism (or any ethical value), Miguel must produce a theory of ethics that shows the effect (e.g. equality in political, economic spheres or positive effects on community and self), is good, intrinsically (Bahnsen 169).

Although Miguel cannot logically justify his rejection of machismo, Miguel still psychologically feels it's wrong. By denying God, Miguel cannot rationally reject machismo while simultaneously justifying it logically. Indirectly then, his rejection of God really does not make sense in the first place. It is like denying the existence of something because I don't like it. At the very most, Miguel can only say that he does not like the macho ideal. His opinion of the machismo can only be descriptive, not prescriptive.

The Christian on the other hand can rationally reject machismo because standards of ethics are not based on culture, but on the God revealed in the Bible, not based on the community but on the will of God. The Christian believes that men and women are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27 English Standard Version), men and women therefore have value because God values them. Additionally, the unbeliever, -made in the image of God- also values mankind. That's why Miguel wants to say the macho is wrong even if he can't justify it! But the Miguel would rather lack justification of his anger and resentment rather than admit God exists. Miguel would rather be angry with no reason for being angry, critique with no reason to critique, and deconstruct with no reason to deconstruct than admit God's existence. The Christian, in contrast can make sense of Miguel's serious objection of the morally wrong, and even Miguel and Anaya's inability to justify his objection!

In review, Miguel's denial of God originates from his rejection of the machismo. Both Anaya and Miguel attribute machismo to culture but assume an underlying principle that can judge culture, transcending it. Anaya adds clarification to the problem facing Miguel's denial of God by illustrating good is not good simply because one says so, or the community says so. The answer must ultimately be intrinsically good, otherwise the question of what is good can be asked over and over again. In rejecting an ethical standard without God's standard, Miguel undermines his own ethical position because Miguel is unable to say any consequence is good, such as equality in gender roles, without ultimately being arbitrary. While Miguel still takes evil seriously, Miguel would rather reject God's existence first and lose rational justification for his rejection of the macho. Ultimately, Miguel's accusation against a macho God doesn't even make sense because Miguel's correction of the macho cannot be justified without first beginning with God.

Works Cited

Anaya, Rudolfo. “‘I’m the King’: The Macho Image.” Muy Macho: Latino Men Confront Their Manhood. Ed. Ray Gonzalez. New York: Anchor Books, 1996. 57-73.

Bahnsen, Greg. Always Ready. Ed. Robert Booth. Nacogdoches: Covenant Media Press, 1996.

"Ethics." Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia. 2007. Microsoft Corporation. 9 October 2007. < http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761555614/Ethics.html#s1>.

Gonzalez, Ray. “On Macho.” Muy Macho: Latino Men Confront Their Manhood. Ed. Ray Gonzalez. New York: Anchor Books, 1996. 187-201.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Wheaton: Good News Publisher, 2001.

“Male Chauvinist.” WordNet 3.0. 2006. Princeton University. 9 October, 2007. < http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=male%20chauvinist>.

Miguel Munoz, Elias. “From the Land of Machos: Journey to Oz with my Father.” Muy Macho: Latino Men Confront Their Manhood. Ed. Ray Gonzalez. New York: Anchor Books, 1996. 17-33.

© November 2, 2007 by Nathan Haw