Culturally Responsive, Gender-Adapted Counseling Approach With Mexican American Men

Gendered Constructs: Machismo And Marianismo

Machismo has been identified by scholars as a construct which could explain the negative outcomes associated with rigid and inflexible adherence to masculine ideology among Mexican and Mexican American men, and have subsequently discovered the construct’s link with violence and heavy drinking (Alaniz, 1996; Neff et al., 1991), aggression and sexualized behaviors (Beaver et al., 1992; Mosher & Sirkin, 1984), domination of women (Mayo & Resnick, 1996), depression and psychosocial stress (Fragoso & Kashubeck, 2000), restrictive emotionality and gender role conflict (Liang et al., 2011) and negative correlation to paternal involvement (Glass & Owen, 2010).

Relatedly, Mirandé (1997) identified the marianista construct, where women are held to the feminine standard of self-sacrifice. In the 1970’s, Stevens (1973) coined the phrase Marianismo to capture the influential set of gender-specific expectations applied to Latinas (Morales & Perez, 2020). The construct finds its origin in Roman Catholicism and Latino culture where Latina women and girls are implicitly required to embody the characteristics of the Virgin Mary. These expectations typically involve a strong commitment to and dependence on family, subordination to men, spiritual virtuosity, selflessness, and adherence to standards of chastity (Castillo et al., 2010).

Machismo and Marianismo function descriptively and proscriptively, insofar as describing the behavior and attitudes typical among men and women, while spotlighting the pressure felt both internally and externally to conform to these ideals. Anything less than perfect adherence to gender ideals can result in gender role conflict (Niemann, 2001), a concept that will be discussed at greater length. However, the conceptualization of Machismo has come under criticism for “overpathologizing” Mexican and Mexican American men (Ojeda & Piña-Watson, 2014, p. 288).

Machismo is assumed to be a construct composed of negative traits, including sexism, aggression, and violence. Consequently, the assessments created to measure Machismo have predominantly aimed to pinpoint these negatively perceived traits. However, this perspective has faced criticism for its oversimplification. Arciniega et al. (2008) challenged this view, arguing it is tautological, and advocate for a more nuanced understanding. They propose that Machismo should not be seen as a unidimensional construct, characterized solely by its negative aspects. Instead, they argue for a bidimensional approach, recognizing that Machismo encompasses both positive and negative masculine traits. This reframing calls for a broader, more balanced assessment of Machismo that acknowledges both the positive and negative dimensions of Mexican masculinity (Arciniega et al., 2004).

Arciniega and colleagues (2004; 2008) are not the only scholars who have been critical of the restrictive, problem or deficit focused lens used to examine traditional masculinity. Other scholars have also argued that the research into Machismo has been limited by a restrictive characterization (see Casas et al., 1994; Felix-Ortiz et al., 2001; Mirandé, 1988, 1997; Penalosa, 1968; Ramos, 1979; Rodriguez, 1996). By contrast, evidence conducted in the late 80s supports the notion of a positive dimension of Machismo. Mirandé (1988) surveyed Latino men and found that 35% described Machismo as a basis of pride and honor, and in later research, conceptual basis was expanded to include the positive elements within Machismo (Mirandé, 1997) such as “assertiveness/standing up for rights, responsibility/selflessness, having a general code of ethics, and sincerity/respect are positive Latino representations of the macho” (Sugihara & Warner, 2002, p. 320).