"Machismo" and "Marianismo"

The Marianismo Ideal

Nobody needs a man, but there’s always one of them running after you. The only thing women need men for is martyrdom. (Claudia, Guatemalan ladina, in Hooks 1993:81)

With the arrival of Spanish colonizers to the Americas also came Catholicism. It is almost impossible to think about Latin America without Catholicism: because religion, specifically Catholicism, is so ingrained in the culture of Latin America, it cannot be ignored. It is pervasive in every aspect of Latin American life from class conflict to gender construction. The Spanish did more than simply introduce a new religion in Latin America, they created a system of colonial domination through missionization and conversion that still exists today. A key part of this new religion and system of colonial domination, was the construction of gender in Latin America. The colonial economic system implanted a dichotomized sexual division of labor: men became the producers, inhabiting a public sphere of economic and political production, while women became the reproducers, inhabiting a private (or domestic) sphere of household reproduction.

Evelyn Stevens interprets the division of sexual labor further:

Latin American men and women have unequivocal conceptions of their roles and they play them out, if not in harmony, at least in counterpoint. The interpersonal dynamics of the existing social structure affords each sex a complementary sphere of influence that satisfies basic personal and social needs. (1973a:57)

In other words, men and women exist in separate social spheres -- women in the private sphere (the home) and men in the public sphere. In addition to the separate spheres in which men and women operate, there are also separate and complimentary ideals -- marianismo and machismo -- that demand certain behavior from women and men.

Men, inhabiting the public sphere, receive certain privileges and a significant degree of power and control in Latin American society. In addition, it creates an ideal of machismo. According to Evelyn Steven (1273b:90), machismo can be defined as a "cult of virility" which stresses exaggerated aggressiveness, stubbornness, and inflexibility in male-male relations and arrogance and sexual aggressiveness in male-female relations. Spanish Catholicism and the sexual division of labor also introduced an ideal concerning the role of women in society. This ideal -- marianismo -- is modeled after the Virgin Mary and along with machismo can be considered vital to understanding gender in Latin America.

Marianismo creates an ideal by which Latin American women are expected to live, and the Virgin Mary is the epitome of this ideal: Mary and women show a "resigned acceptance of any and all reality as the will of God" (Ana María Bidegain 1989:21). Mary was chosen by God to be the mother of God’s son. By accepting this fate, Mary was giving herself up to God and God’s will. In order to do this, Mary would had to have been pure, for how else could she have been worthy to carry and give birth to the son of God? Mary’s acceptance of God’s will and her purity (meaning her virginity) are the basis of the marianismo ideal. Modeling themselves after Mary, marianismo expects women to accept their fate as mothers and wives. Women are to be virginal and pure like Mary, they are to be humble, they must be willing to endure the suffering that motherhood often requires, they are to live in the shadow of their husbands and children and also support their husbands and children by all means necessary.

In short, women are to expect and tolerate certain behavior from men -- aggressiveness, sexual infidelity, arrogance, stubbornness and callousness. Women are to model their behavior after that of the Virgin Mary. Like Mary, they should accept the fate that is handed to them. Marianismo demands that mothers suffer like Mary suffered and love as Mary did for Jesus. In short, women are expected to be good wives and mothers, which typically includes self-sacrifice and putting one’s family and it’s survival above all else.

Marianismo as Strategy:

Evelyn Stevens and Tracy Ehlers

Stevens holds that the above self-sacrifice is at the heart of marianismo -- this is where Latin American wield their power. Stevens turns marianismo into a strategy where women, in a round about way, actually benefit from the ideal. Marianismo depicts women as semi-divine, morally superior and spiritually stronger than men, and these are the characteristics that allow for and make possible the acceptance of men's behavior by women (Stevens 1973a:62). Stevens believes that women's acceptance of men's wicked behavior puts women in a superior position -- both a moral and spiritual one:

A female cannot hope to attain full spiritual stature until her forbearance and abnegation have been tested by male-inflicted suffering. Men's wickedness is therefore the necessary precondition of woman's superior status. (Stevens 1973a:62).

One would think the suffering not worth the reward, but presumably by tolerating her husband's behavior and wickedness, women receive validation from society, from God. With every action of the husband that lives up to the machismo ideal, the wife is one step closer to sainthood and salvation (Stevens 1973a:62). In addition to this "sainthood," women, more specifically, mothers, have an advantage over men:

To her children, but especially to her male children, she is an object of reverence, a royal personage whose wishes must be gratified, and the ever-loving, always forgiving surrogate Virgin Mary. (Stevens 1973a:60)

The above attitude towards one's mother, and mothers in general, is often called "elevated motherhood."

In order for women to uphold the semi-divine status discussed above, women do not attempt to avoid demands of suffering and self-sacrifice brought on by the actions of men, but instead attempt to make this suffering known (Stevens 1973a:62). For through this display of self-sacrifice and suffering, women gain a certain esteem and admiration from society. Stevens considers the position of women -- held in place by the machismo/marianismo system and the marianismo ideal -- to be a powerful one, one that most Latin American women are not willing to give up.

Stevens’ article presents marianismo as an ideal for Latin American women. Additionally, however, Stevens suggests that Latin American women use marianismo as a strategy. Latin American women, according to Stevens, inhabit a position of power in the domestic sphere which they are not willing to give up. Matthew Gutmann (1996:102), in his study of gender relations and machismo in a Mexico City barrio presents a good example of Stevens’ strategy. According to Angela, Gutmann’s neighbor, parenting is mostly the responsibility of the female. Mothers have a certain amount of authority over their children. If parenting were a more shared responsibility, it could possibly threaten the above authority as well as "one of the mainstays of women’s cultural power."

As a model or ideal, even as a strategy, Stevens does not address. Reality, however, is much more complicated and does not always measure up to the ideal. It has been apparent in my research that there is much more involved in marianismo than what Stevens has to say. Within different spheres of society, marianismo is articulated and understood in a number of different ways. Among other things, the reality of one’s economic situation, or one’s involvement in a particular social movement or political party can affect the ways in which one understands, articulates and uses marianismo.

Tracy Ehlers disagrees with several key points of Stevens' theory in her article "Debunking Marianismo: Economic Vulnerability and Survival Strategies Among Guatemalan Wives." As the title indicates, instead of chalking up the existence of certain behavior patterns among Latin American women to the presumed ideal of marianismo, Ehlers makes a case that Latin America women, more specifically lower and working class Guatemalan women, make certain choices and act a certain way based on the reality of their economic situation.

Ehlers (1991:1) begins her article with a list of four problems she sees with Stevens' article (1973a). The first, which is vital to Stevens' theory, is that marianismo is a companion and a complement to machismo: "without marianismo, machismo could not exist" (Ehlers 1991:1). Second, this complementary relationship between machismo and marianismo assumes that women have access to a "positive and private realm." In other words, women are content with domesticity and the "feminine power" of the home. Third, marianismo ideal blames the victim: "wives accept callousness from men because they benefit from the status of wife/mother" (Ehlers 1991:1). Finally, it sets up a universal model for Latin American women. Based on her research among the highland Maya of Guatemala, Ehlers offers a counter argument to Stevens' article. First, she acknowledges the subordination of women, but claims that it takes many different forms. Second, Ehlers holds that women's behavior is a not strategy that encourages machismo, but rather is a strategy in response to a patriarchal power system which limits the participation of women (1991:2). Finally, Ehlers argues that "gender relations are not a static construction of ideal roles, but evolve and change with the material conditions of women's lives, and over the life span of each woman" (Ehlers 1991:2). Therefore, the conditions of marianismo are very much dependent on the economic situation of individual women.

Instead of subscribing to marianista ideals as a response to machismo and the behavior of men, the Guatemalan women Ehlers interviewed/studied are responding to their economic situation. The sexual division of labor in Guatemala excludes women from many job choices. Meaning, in order for a woman to survive, in order for her children to survive she must depend on her husband for money and therefore put up with his behavior in order to assure his economic support of the family/household (Ehlers 1992:2). Ehlers also responds to the idea that women wield power in the home/private/domestic sphere. The home is supposedly a place where women are free of the male-dominated world and can do as they please. According to the ideal, to work outside the home would be to endanger the power that women possess in/from the home (Ehlers 1992:3). In fact, reality does not always play itself out according to the ideal.

For example, the strategy that Stevens upholds is grounded in the middle class: families who not only encourage women to stay home but can also afford it if women do stay home (Ehlers 1992:4). For lower and working class women, however, work becomes a necessity (Ehlers 1992:4 and Randall 1981:184). Whether the husband has abandoned his wife, lost his job or his income is insufficient or sporadic, the situation often necessitates that the wife find work outside the home in order to ensure her family’s survival. Randall (1981), Ehlers (1992) and Fernandez (1996) all assert that in cases where lower and working class women enter the labor force it is overwhelmingly in the lowest paid sectors. According to Fernandez (1996:52), women make up 60% of Nicaragua’s informal labor sector, while men make up 59.2% of the formal economy. In addition, these jobs in the low paying informal sector tend to be an extension of women’s domestic role (Ehlers 1992:4, Fernandez 1996:53). Meaning, women working in the informal sector are engaged in jobs involving food preparation, child care, and domestic services.

Fernandez points out the ups and downs of women working in the informal sector (1996:53). First, she makes it known that women’s participation in the informal sector is, for the most part, unthreatening to the traditional Nicaraguan image of femininity, as the jobs are most often things women would be doing within the home anyway. There are advantages, however, to working in the informal sector. First of all, the jobs usually do not require any additional training or education, which can often be expensive and time consuming. Second, the informal sector tends to be more flexible: women can often choose when they work and where they work. Moreover, children can often accompany their mothers. So although women may be making less money working in the informal sector, in some ways it can be advantageous.

One of the main reasons the informal sector is feminized is because it allows women to devote the time/energy expected of them by marianismo to their family/household/children -- that is what the flexibility of the informal sector is all about. Women cannot secure the best jobs because they have been excluded from the formal job market, the job market men dominate. In addition they must worry about their children and also accomplish the tasks involved in keeping a household running. The separate public and private spheres created by the colonial sexual division of labor and enforced by the ideals of marianismo and machismo, have imposed severe limitations on women. As a result, women -- especially lower and working class women -- are left with few options, and often must put up with their husbands’ behavior in order to ensure economic survival. Women have taken advantage of the demand for the services to which the informal labor sector caters -- because the formal labor sector does not necessarily welcome women, especially women with family obligations, with open arms, and because the informal sector allows for the flexibility that many women need in order to earn a little money and live up to their household responsibility at the same time.

Marianismo both explains reality and becomes a strategy which women use to deal with reality. Because, in many cases, women have limited options, they choose to react in ways similar to Stevens’ and Ehlers’ examples above. According to Stevens’ women chose not to work outside the home because it may threaten the power they wield there. This is one way a woman, if economically able to forgo working outside the home, could use marianismo as a strategy. Ehlers, who thoroughly critiques Stevens, presents a completely different strategy. Women tolerate men’s behavior not for moral and spiritual abnegation, but for economic survival. Regardless of the ways in which women use or do not use marianismo, it is virtually inescapable for most Latin American women.

In the models that Stevens and Ehlers present, women respond to the economic system with behavior that is dictated by the marianismo ideal. Under the economic conditions in which they live, women begin to realize the limits of marianismo and machismo, and often times challenge or wish to challenge these limitations. Stevens and Ehlers (although they disagree at many key points) discuss marianismo as a strategy, a way in which to cope with a society that machismo, marianismo and a patriarchal structure have created. These strategies are passive, making it seem like the women who employ them are abiding by the expectations of the marianismo ideal and appropriately model their behavior after the Virgin Mary. The strategies are also in reference to the women’s economic situation. One’s realization of the limits of marianismo and machismo, and one’s desire to challenge or reform these limits are not solely dependent on one’s economic situation. This is not to discount or ignore a woman’s economic situation or the socioeconomic class of which she is a member. However, women can also become aware of the limits of marianismo and machismo through their political or social situation. More specifically, women often become aware of the limits they face through their participation in political and social action. In light of women’s participation in social or political action, then, marianismo becomes an active strategy. This is not to say, that by displacing the ideal of passivity through social action, the marianismo ideal no longer exists. In fact, it seems impossible to eliminate or overthrow the ideal, for, in so many ways, it is ingrained in Latin American ideology and everyday life. Roger presents an idea of an active marianismo strategy which still upholds many of the tenants of the marianismo ideal.

Firstly, the women Lancaster worked with and interviewed rejected marianismo on the grounds that it demands "sexual purity" or virginity. According to the working-class women Lancaster interviewed, this is not an important ideal of Nicaraguan womanhood (1992:310). Lancaster questions the marianismo/machismo dichotomy and the belief that masculine must be active, while feminine must be passive. For Nicaraguan women, the traditional ideal is not one of passivity, but rather one of "elevated motherhood" (Lancaster 1992:93). Additionally, the Nicaraguan women interviewed by Lancaster believe:

Traditional feminine practice, then, is conceived as a different mode of doing than male practice: feminine action emphasizes planning over risk, self-abnegation over self-promotion, domesticity over worldliness, action in and through networks rather than interpersonal competition. (Lancaster 1992:93)

Despite their rejection of sexual purity and passivity, Nicaraguan working class women still segregate women and men and value self-sacrifice and putting others before oneself at all times. From this, we may be able to hypothesize that although understood and articulated in a variety of ways (as an ideal, as an active strategy, as a passive strategy), the marianismo ideal is still pervasive and difficult to escape in Latin American society.

Despite the difficulties with its existence and pervasiveness, marianismo often plays an important role in women’s participation in political and social action. Furthermore, this participation in social and political action raises women’s awareness of the limitations imposed by the marianismo ideal, by machismo, by the patriarchal structure. Nicaragua, because of its history of social action, and particularly because women played such a prominent role in this social action, is the perfect location for an examination of marianismo as an active strategy; in which to examine the participation of women in social and political action and the ways in which this action affects Nicaraguan women’s awareness of their situations.