INTRODUCTION AUX GENDER STUDIESThe role of Machismo and Marianismo in the construction of sexes in Latin America.

Written by: Juan FernandezProfessor: Alexandre Jaunait

Winter 2009

1

INTRODUCTION.

The difference between sexes is perceived as an unquestionable natural axiom, a self-

evident reality legitimized by religion, society, biology, history; however, a groundbreaking

field of study and research known as Gender Studies appeared around the 1970s to challenge

the traditional perception on sex relations. With the present essay, we would like to shed light

on one of the subjects of study of this field: the construction of sex roles.

Most evidently, this purpose raises two main questions we would like to clear in order

to simplify understanding. On one hand, the first idea to clarify is the concept of social

construction; we perceive it as the process by which history is transformed into nature, by

which the unnoticeable culturally arbitrary is turned into something appearing as natural. On

the other hand, sex roles are the degree to which an individual acts out stereotypical

masculine or feminine role on a daily basis. Moreover, the two terms are linked by definition

as the second one implies the existence of the first.

This construction of sex roles seems omnipresent and dynamic as we perpetuate it even

unconsciously through acts of speech, prayers, fashion, media, etc. It is precisely in the latter,

that we have seen in recent years a progressive increase on the diffusion of images and

stereotypes associated to Latin American men; the “latino” is portrayed as a bronzed,

libidinous and, above it all, macho man.

Even if cartooned by the simplified vision of the media lens, this depiction leads to a

significant questioning of the construction of sex roles in Latin America. Indeed, we can find

particular patterns of construction of sex roles in this area of the globe which merit a deep

study we consider neglected by the academe; in this sense we would like to study the role of

Machismo and Marianismo as patterns of construction of sex roles in Latin America.

In order to puzzle out this question we will firstly tackle the issue of the contingency

and variation of the construction of sexes in order to; secondly, approach directly the question

of sex roles in Latin America, evidenced by two main patterns: Marianismo and Machismo.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and

female he created them. (Genesis 1: 27)

1

The construction of sexes: contingency and variation of a “natural” model.

Our intention with this first part of the work is to demonstrate how differences are

submitted to the dichotomizing force of gender in order to create sexes and how this

dichotomy can be altered by the context.

It is rather simple to accept that every individual of the human species is born

biologically a male or a female. Hence, humans are naturally either women or men; if you’re

not a man, then you’re a woman and vice-versa. However, this division has been contested for

decades by a plethora of authors.

The first obstacle of the dichotomic model of sexes was raised by Margaret Mead in

1963. In spite of the fact that she recognizes that the division of society in two fields

according to different traits of human beings is perfectly arbitrary, she thinks this division

between women and men can be explained by factors as the difference of physical force and

the reproductive capacities of most of the members of each sex and. Thus, according to Mead,

it is not totally inconvenient.

In 1972, Ann Oakley is going to go a step further to theorize this division and affirms it

comprises two components: a biological one and a social one. The former is called “sex” and

it is related to the biological differences between female and male (even if initially genital,

these differences will evolve in time to include bone structures, chromosomal configuration,

genetic characteristics, etc); sexes are invariable, universal and, in the same way,

incontestable. The latter is named “gender” and it comprises a series of social roles attributed

to the “feminine” and the “masculine”.

Nonetheless, this natural existence of two biological sexes is contested by “nature”

itself. Indeed, even if the dichotomy of sexes pretends to be appropriate for each biological

level used to determine the “biological sex” (genital: vagina/penis, gonadic: ovaries, testicles,

chromosomic: XY/XX, etc) we can find exceptions for each one of those biological levels as,

in most cases, these traits are expressed as continuous (vs. absolute) variables. Hence, the

concept of biological sex is the result of a dichotomized perception of biology that’s possible

only because of a simplifying reduction made by society. Thus, we can see how the sex/

gender as natural/social model is obsolete.

2

In the absence of a solid biological basis, gender and sex are denaturalized and a new

model is presented based on Gender as a social category. For the critics of the “social gender/

biological sex” model, this new proposal has three main advantageous consequences: Firstly,

it concentrates everything that appears as social and arbitrary in the relation of sexes in one

concept; secondly, it allows to focus on the division principle itself (Gender) instead of in the

divided partitions (sexes) and; finally, it contemplates the hierarchic relation between the

divided parts (DELPHY, 2001). Gender is, thus, associated to other social categories which

constitute principles of division in themselves: Race, Class, etc.

Through this new prism, the differences between human beings are grouped in two ideal

types no individual can escape: male or a female, the two possible sexes to which society

attributes a certain amount of psychological, behavioral and biological traits.

Nevertheless, this social construction is not the result of a single moment; on the

contrary, the construction of sexes is a continuous task that starts playing its part from birth:

babies are attributed either a blue ribbon or a pink ribbon with their name engraved while

staying at the maternity ward, specialized physicians “correct” every physical condition

falling out of the norm in newborns, advertising, clothing and toys condition what is

acceptable and right for girls and women, etc.

As we have seen, sexes are the result of a dichotomic dividing principle widely

subjected to the influence of social norms. However, the structure of this duality varies

according to the context, demonstrating the arbitrary and contingent qualities of this model. In

Latin America, this dichotomy is articulated in a particular way and the construction of sexes

is conditioned by two main conceptual patterns: marianismo and machismo.

3

Sex roles in Latin America: virgins vs. machos.

As we have seen, the dichotomic model created by gender is submitted to variations

which can be linked to geographical contexts. In this sense, Latin America doesn’t escape this

bipolar division executed by Gender and we can identify particular characteristics on this

“model” that make it distinct. Indeed, two patterns emerge in order to define sex roles in Latin

America: marianismo and machismo.

Marianismo: following the steps of the holy woman.

The inclusion of a woman in the monotheistic Christian “pantheon” is not a result of

hazard but the consequence of a long set of enchainments rooted in Ancient History. In order

to explain Marianismo we are compelled to find its origins in the presence of (pseudo)

goddesses in (pre-)religious history and its heritage in Latin America.

One starting point to study the particular perception society has of women can be found

unearthing artifacts from the upper Paleolithic era. As a matter of fact, it is during this era that

the production of female figurines reaches a first boom. “Brassempouy”, “Willendorf” and

“Lespugue” are the first exaltations of the reproductive capacity of women and the subsequent

admiration/adoration of their life-producing power.

Further ahead, this cult of a “mother goddess” spawns in southern Russia, the Near East,

the Indus Valley, Crete and the Aegean Sea. Initially, “the female figure appeared alone,

unaccompanied by any male figure” (STEVENS, 1973). To illustrate this first stage of this

figure we can mention the importance of Ishtar, goddess of fertility and love, in Mesopotamia.

Later on, this figure experiences a series of mutations related to the presence of a young

male figure near her, generally dying. In this stage, the goddess becomes not only a life-giver

but a grieving and searching mother (a precedent of the mater dolorosa). A prehistorical

Aegean example of this figure is Cybele and his son/lover Attis. According to Stevens, the

cult of the mother-goddess spread to the south of Europe from Crete, conditioning pre-

historical Spain and Italy and the ulterior implantation of Christianity in the region. In fact,

some theorists point out that “the dead, bleeding, naked, limp Christ so common in Catholic

statuary” even if not theologically, on the psychological level is the “equivalent of Adonis-

Attis” (OBEYESEKERE, 1984).

4

Furthermore, we have to mention that the importance of female figures for early

Christians is very low, which is perceived as an attempt to establish a powerful monotheism.

However, once Christianity is consolidated, the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 instills

Christianity with the dogma of the Theotokos, Mary the Mother of God; allowing the

reappearance of the female figure, this time in the Christian “pantheon”.

As our intention is not to write a detailed account of the Marian cult in Christendom, a

leap is to be made until the migration of this cult to the New World. Mexico seems to be the

first relay point with the appearance of “Our Lady of Guadalupe”, declared as patroness of

New Spain by Pope Benedict XIV. The cult of the patroness of Mexico, whose dark-skinned

complexion appeals to ethnic feelings of a plurality of the Latin American population, will

become associated with nationalistic sentiments and will be erected as a vector of

marianismo.

Nonetheless, marianismo as we understand it is not a religious practice focussed on the

special veneration of the Virgin Mary (cf. Mariology), but the “secular edifice of beliefs and

practices related to the position of women in society” associated to the cult of the Mother of

God from the Mexican Rio Grande to Argentinean Tierra del Fuego. This practice generates a

stereotype of the ideal woman based on qualities akin to those observed in the life of the the

Virgin Mary such as moral integrity and spiritual strength (STEVENS, 1973). The two main

qualities of “real women” are associated with marianismo:

On one hand, at home, they have to display abnegation and self-sacrifice in relation to

their families (specially towards the other superior mother figures in the extended family) and

the pain they might go through because of their role as a woman and mother. Likewise,

women are supposed to be infinitely patient and bear with her husband’s bad habits and

decisions as they are “like kids” and can’t help the intemperance of their “nature”.

And on the other hand, on the sexual level, marianismo is closely linked to the Christian

mandate of chastity before marriage (“virginity”) and frigidness vis-à-vis sex after marriage

(MALLEY-MORRISON et HINES, 2004). Let us not forget that the Mother of God never

engaged in coitus according to the Catholic tradition, making intercourse a private matter

contrary to purity. Briefly, women are not supposed to enjoy sex, a mundane pleasure akin to

5

men’s moral baseness but forbidden to “good women”. These women ought to “endure” sex

as one of the duties of marriage and should not talk about it in “foul” terms; instead they

should appeal to a “rich lexicon of circumlocutions (...) to refer to sexual

intercourse” (STEVENS, 1973). This last point is particularly evident in phrases used by

married woman (Ex. In Mexico they might say “Le hice el servicio”1) or by unwedded

women (Ex. In Venezuela: “Me hizo la maldad”2) when referring to intercourse

Other characteristics expected in women emerge from marianismo: sadness, mirroring

the lost of the mater dolorosa and mourning, for example, were for a long time deemed as

very positive qualities on a Latin American woman (STEVENS, 1973); acceptance of

domestic violence as a part of abnegation (MALLEY-MORRISON et HINES, 2004);

responsibility of the integrity of the household chores (CHONG et BAEZ, 2005), etc.

Clearly not all women in Latin America comply with this series of “requirements” in

order to be deemed “good women”. In fact, some even might challenge the pattern and

consciously move against it. In this case, despite the progress achieved by feminist

movements in Latin American, a woman might find herself being considered many things but

not a “real good woman”. Instead, terms which relate these individuals to the masculine or the

animal might be used.

A sudden judgement might imply women are just tyrannically oppressed by men

unilaterally; otherwise, why would a woman accept to be a part of this oppressive pattern?

The answers to these assumptions can tell us a great deal about sex roles in Latin America. In

fact, these “spiritually superior” women are in charge of most of the upbringing of children in

these societies, it is them who imbue these roles appropriate for their status as they consider

them natural and right. Consequently, machismo emerges in opposition to the image of the

gentle and pure virgin in order to rule the patterns reigning the sex roles attributed to men in

Latin America.

6

1 English: I did him the service

2 English: He did me the evil thing

Machismo: the other side of the coin.

Whereas marianismo refers to the ideal of a woman, machismo is the adaptation of

patriarchy in the Latin American context created in parallel opposition to marianismo.

Nevertheless, to find the reason behind this evidence is not an easy task, as our society has

accepted patriarchy as a natural model.

In order to avoid the colossal influence of the society in the which we have been

brought up, authors like Peggy Reeves Sanday turn to cross-cultural data on sex roles and

sexual stratification in order to explain the origins and variations of female power and male

dominance in tribal societies. The result of her studies are particularly helpful to understand

how the roles attributed to each sex are established in an early stage of these cultures.

Firstly, Sanday associates the productive activities and cosmology of the tribal societies

to their perception of women and men. She divides the tribal societies in three main

categories: The first of these categories exhibits an inner orientation towards power, they

depend on hunting small prey and gathering food in order to survive and their cosmology is

based on the myth of a fertile mother-goddess. A second category is characterized by an outer

orientation towards the forces ruling the sources of life, they are hunting societies living in

hostile territories who focus on death, killing and male aggression; in this type of societies,

women appear as dangerous and need to be controlled. Finally, Sanday deals with societies

living equally out of gathering and hunting; in these dual orientation societies, cosmological

myths are associated with an original couple.

Even if we cannot say the tribes studied by Sanday mirror the patterns of sex-roles

defined in our Western culture, we consider the argument of a conditioning cosmology

particularly clarifying for the purpose of our study. Furthermore, we know Latin American

society is influenced by the Judeo-Christian doctrine and tradition. In this sense, a brief

analysis of the cosmology of the world according to this tradition becomes necessary.

According to the book of Genesis, the original couple populating Earth was the product

of a divine creation. However, the account of creation makes specifically clear that the first

woman wasn’t a result of God’s original volition but the consequence of man’s need of a

“helper” (Genesis 2: 20). Further on, this narration makes it obvious women are unreliable

and potentially dangerous; in her naiveté, the woman (named further on Eve by Adam) ate

7

from the forbidden fruit and led Adam to do as she had causing the doom of humanity.

Because of this tremendous error, women’s desire will only focus on their husband and their

respective husband will rule over them (Genesis 3: 16). Regardless of the modern

interpretation that the Catholic church makes of this account, in terms of dominance we can

see the Judeo-Christian tradition has led to a mythical male-dominant society; a society were

females are allowed to hold significant economic and political power but men act as if they

are the dominant sex (SANDAY, 1981).

To trace the path of patriarchy from the beginning of civilization until our days is

irrelevant to our subject of study. What we must be able to grasp is that the dichotomization of

the sexes and the attribution of particular behaviors to each one of them is a product of a

“collective labour of socialization of the biological and of biologization of the social [that]

combine to overturn the relationship between causes and effects, and end by making them

appear to be a naturalized social construction”. We assist, thus, to the naturalization of a

contingency. This supposed naturalness of the social order makes it difficult to contest and

leads the members ruled by it to accept it with its “relations of domination, its rights and

prerogatives, tis privileges and its injustices” (BOURDIEU, 1998).

We are not to look very far to see examples of this “conformity” to the patriarchic

model. In most societies, women obtain the right to vote decades after men do. To illustrate

this point the case of France is particularly interesting as this country is considered one of the

first bastions of republican principles; while the French proclaimed the universal male

suffrage in 1792 for the first time, women had to wait until 1944.

As we see, patriarchy is rooted in many different cultures and it subsists as it’s

considered natural. This affirmation does not vanish when we analyze the situation in Latin

America, on the contrary, patriarchy is expressed very strongly and particularly by a pattern

known as machismo.

Machismo refers to the stereotype of the ideal man in Latin American culture3. This

image comprises a series of attributes that define men in the region and, while some authors

8

3 In fact, the word is the result of the suffixation of the word “macho” in Spanish, which means (animal) male.

are very critical of this model and highlight the potentially negative qualities of it, some

others praise the positive connotations of the word.

On one hand, machismo is considered as the cult of virility, an extreme endemic form of

patriarchy marked by exaggerated aggressiveness and intransigence in male-to-male

interpersonal relationships and arrogance and sexual aggression in male-to-female

relationships (STEVENS, 1983), the belief that men are “the sole, unquestionable authority

within the household” (GARCIA, 2002) and the idea of men as “tough, dominant and

insensitive” (KORZENNY, 2005).

However, on the other hand, some authors belief this negative image of machismo men

is a stereotype instrumentalized by sectors in power to vilify the lower socioeconomic strata.

Instead, the view in machismo a positive image associated with dignity, strong family values,

respect for women (specially his mother) and a strong sense of self-identity and character

(CASTRO, 2000).

We believe the previously mentioned conceptions of machismo are Manichaean; in

other words, they try to define the characteristics of the ideal Latin American men as “good”

or “bad, a debate we’re not looking forward to poke. Our idea is to bring forwards how, from

both fields, the characteristics attributed to male Latin Americans conform to the naturalized

patriarchic model and oppose (in the second case we might say “complement”) marianismo.

In spite of the incapacity of authors to agree on the “correctness” of the model, it is

impossible for us not to realize machismo consists on a series of behaviors which are clearly

patriarchic: superiority in relationships, paternalism, protective attitude, pre-eminence on the

stratification of authority and whose most complete expression is typical of Latin America

(CHONG et BAEZ, 2005).

9

CONCLUSION

Briefly, we have seen how the perception of sexes and the relations between them has

clearly evolved in the last decades. We have passed from accepting gender and sexes as

natural concepts to question their existence by showing the way they emerge from social

conventions. By accepting this construction of gender we have shown how they’re submitted

to variations in different societies. Amongst these different ways of perceiving the relations

between sexes, we have concentrated on a particular area of the globe: Latin America.

In this region, we have seen how the dichotomizing model created by Gender is very

much valid but ruled by particular patterns according to the sex in question: On one hand,

marianismo conjugates religious fervor with the perception of the ideal woman to generate a

stereotypical feminine figure. On the other hand, and in opposition to the first, machismo

emerges as a patriarchal pattern tinged with aggressiveness and lustfulness characterizing the

ideal masculine figure in the region.

Clearly, these patterns are progressively contested by social movements lauding sexual

equality and freedom to the extent that nowadays they seem to be deteriorating and confined

to the most conservative sectors of society. Nevertheless, it would be inappropriate to dismiss

these patterns as useless because they constitute a set of key concepts that help us understand

patriarchy and sex relations in Latin America.

Nevertheless, it would be adequate to examine the link between patriarchy and male

violence, which is not a singularity of the Latin American region. In fact, a new study by

Sanday published in 2007 explores extreme male violence in the universities of the United

States and how this violence materialized in gang rapes work as a “sexual expression and

display of the power of the brotherhood to control and dominate women”.

10

BIBLIOGRAPHY

- BOURDIEU, Pierre. On Male Domination. Le Monde Diplomatique, online edition. October, 1998. Available at: http://mondediplo.com/1998/10/10bourdieu

- CASTRO, Rafaela. Chicano folklore: a guide to the folktales, traditions, rituals and religious practices of Mexican Americans. Oxford University Press. New York. 2000.

- CHONG, Nilda et BAEZ, Francia. Latino culture: a dynamic force in the canging American workplace. Intercultural Press. Bensalem. 2005.

- DELPHY, Christine. L’ennemi principal. Vol. 2: Penser le Genre. Syllepse. Paris. 2001.

- GARCIA, Alma. The Mexican Americans. Greenwood Press. 2002.

- KORZENNY, Felipe. Hispanic marketing: a cultural perspective. Butterworth-Heinemann. 2005.

- MALLEY-MORRISON, Kathleen et HINES, Denise. Family Violence in a Cultural Perspective. Sage Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks. 2003.

- OBEYESEKERE, Gananath. The Cult of Goddess Pattini. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. 1984.

- SANDAY, Peggy. Female Power and Male Dominance: On the Origins of Sexual Inequality. Cambridge University Press. New York. 1981.

- STEVENS, Evelyn. Marianismo: The Other Side of Machismo in Latin America. Female & Male in Latin America: Essays. University of Pittsburgh Press. Pittsburgh.1973.

11