The Historiography of Mexican Masculinity

Reactionary Gender Studies?
The Historiography of Mexican Masculinity
Galadriel Mehera Gerardo
Since the so-called feminist revolution of the 1970s, scholarship on women has become
fairly commonplace. Especially within the social sciences, scholars have increasingly
examined women‟s lives in past and present times. Examining the previously ignored
history of women has brought forth an entirely new way of looking at the past, closely
tied with the “new social history” which has emerged in the United States in recent
decades. However, the counterpart of women‟s studies, “men‟s studies,” as they relate to
men as gendered entities, has failed to proliferate in the manner women‟s studies
has. Only recently have scholars become interested in researching men and masculinity,
and the scholarship has not flourished. Scholarship on masculinity has been especially
sparse within studies of Latin America. The trend seems odd, especially given the
common assumption in Western countries that Latin American men are
“machos.” Recently, however, some scholars have attempted to permeate the uncharted
area of study in countries like Mexico. Mexico proves especially interesting when
examining masculinity given its strong association with the concept of “machismo” in the
United States. Western scholars scrutinizing masculinity in Mexico, therefore, may have
chosen the country as a seemingly quintessential representation of masculinity in all of
Latin America. However, the strongest scholarship on masculinity in Mexico recognizes
what is specifically Mexican about the expression of masculinity discussed, even
assessing the variance of “masculinities” within Mexico, based on differing regions,
classes, ages, periods, and ethnicities. The historiography of masculinity in Mexico
proves difficult to discuss because of the variation in Mexican culture, resulting in a
variety of discussions of masculinity. Not only do the few scholars who have researched
Mexican masculinity differ in the region and periods in which they examine Mexican
masculinity, but they also work in different areas of the social sciences, so they each
approach the topic differently. Yet despite the differences in mode and method of study,
the study of existing scholarship on Mexican masculinity proves valid because one can
observe several trends, assumptions, and stereotypes in the scholarship which leave it
lacking. While one must recognize the existing scholarship on Mexican masculinity
proves revolutionary if only because it represents the first example of a new field of
study, one must also acknowledge and anatomize its faults in order to insure more valid
conclusions on the subject in future studies. While the works on Mexican masculinity
both differ and agree depending on the aspect of masculinity discussed, they all represent
similar failings because of source problems, a tendency to base their arguments on
stereotypical notions, and a failure to employ an interdisciplinary approach. Future
scholarship on masculinity may learn from these shortcomings and embrace the merits of
the current scholarship, producing a better-rounded and realistic depiction of Mexican
men, both past and present.
Background: Oscar Lewis and the Origin of the Term “Machismo”

Intrinsic to all studies of Mexican masculinity is the term “machismo,” a word
used as the stereotype of Mexican men, portraying them as estranged from their wives
and children, prone towards violence for no particular reason, and forcing the complete
subjugation of women to men. [1] The origin of the term machismo remains unclear.
Matthew Gutmann, an anthropologist who studied masculinity in a working class
community in Mexico City, expresses the belief machismo is a new concept that emerged
in the 1940s and is tied to Mexican cinema. [2] Although Gutmann shies away from
completely attributing the emergence of machismo to cinema alone, he insists the concept
emerged recently, yet he does not examine the source of the word itself, nor whether the
stereotype associated with it actually emerged for the first time in the 1940s. The term is
obviously tied to the much older word “macho,” which does not carry the negative
connotations attached to machismo, [3] and in Mexico is used as a synonym for "boy" or
"man." In her study of the phenomena of “marianismo,” the female counterpart to
machismo, Evelyn Stevens examines the roots of marianismo, tracing them back as far as
the early Mesopotamian cultures. [4] However, Stevens examines the traits associated
with the concept of marianismo (a word invented by scholars to catalog the stereotype of
Latin American women which juxtaposes them against Latin American men), not
the derivatives of the word itself.
Despite the creation of the word marianismo by scholars, few have questioned the
origin of the word machismo and its accuracy in describing Mexican men. The Oxford
English dictionary supports Gutmann‟s statement that the word machismo indeed
emerged in the mid-twentieth century, claiming the word originated in the United States
in the 1940s, deriving from the Spanish word macho. [5] Of five Spanish dictionaries
examined, [6] only one contains the word machismo, and it is a dictionary published in the
United States for English speakers learning colloquial Spanish. [7] Therefore the origin of
the term machismo, and its validity as a concept consciously considered by Mexican
men, remains uncertain. Such evidence as well as Gutmann‟s assertion that machismo
was “created” during the 1940s seems to make using the word in scholarly discussions of
Mexican masculinity prior to that decade invalid. However, regardless of the origin of
the word, some of the characteristics it describes doubtlessly did exist in Mexican society
for centuries before the 1940s. The danger of using the word machismo emerges when
scholars describe Mexican men as consciously considering the concept of machismo,
assuming machismo (the ideal form of masculinity) dictates their behavior. While the
word macho may have been used among Mexicans for some time, there is no proof
machismo was. Furthermore, many scholars use the more subtle term of “honor,” to
describe the motivation for Latin American men “defending” their masculinity in certain
situations. [8] Western scholars today have yet to prove the term machismo is or was
commonly used or understood among Mexicans in Mexico; instead, as Gutmann points
out, scholars tend to assume the prevalence of the term among Chicanos in the United
States implies a similar understanding in Mexico, which is not necessarily the
case. Gutmann further asserts the term itself is associated with North American racism
towards Mexicans, and he goes so far as to attribute the word machismo to North
Americans' need to differentiate themselves from a “backward” sense of masculinity
among a “lower” people. [9]

The question of the emergence of the term machismo brings forth another
problem when examining assumptions in works on Mexican masculinity. In his rebuttal
of the concept of machismo as a natural and all encompassing characteristic among
Mexican men, Gutmann blames Oscar Lewis for popularizing the term. [10] Lewis, an
American anthropologist, conducted pioneering research on Mexican masculinity in the
1940s and 1950s. His influence can be seen in the works of contemporary scholars of
Mexican masculinity, and many discuss their opinions of his work. While Gutmann
appears critical of Lewis for perpetuating the negative stereotype of the macho
mexicano, [11] he points out much of the negative repercussions of Lewis‟ work emerged
from scholars' failure to analyze it and because recent scholars have used some of Lewis‟
passages out of context. [12] Though many criticize Lewis for creating the image of the
lazy Mexican man who beats his wife and wastes his days drinking, Gutmann points out
that while Lewis does present Mexican men as secondary in household importance to
their wives, he also notes the importance of active parenting among poor Mexican men,
providing a less one-dimensional, purely macho image. [13] Steve Stern, who discusses
gender in late colonial Mexico, also recognizes the influence of Lewis on his
work. Although Stern appears to favor Lewis‟ work, he notes that Lewis presents a
“morbid” picture of Mexican peasant life. However, the problems Stern notes concerning
Lewis‟ work relate to his depiction of women, not men. He advocates reading between
the lines of Lewis‟ “pre-feminist” discourse to find female opposition within adherence to
patriarchy. [14] However, Stern does not challenge Lewis‟ ideas about men and
masculinity, apparently agreeing with the concept of machismo. James Taggart also
examines Lewis‟ work, using Lewis‟ depiction of Mexican men as a stereotype, which
his own research will either refute or reinforce. [15] While Taggart juxtaposes Lewis‟
work to Matthew Gutmann‟s, he falls victim to the simplistic reading and sensationalist
focus on specific incidents that Gutmann warns leads to misinterpretations of Lewis‟
work.
Oscar Lewis proves an important influence on all of the contemporary scholars of
Mexican masculinity; he researched the subject at a time when Westerners had little
interest in studying masculinity, especially in “third world” countries. His studies prove
useful if only as observations of Mexican family life during the 1940s, of which little else
exists. However, his work must be taken with a grain of salt. Lewis wrote during a time
when anthropologists practiced a sort of didactic cultural “othering,” also regarded as
cultural imperialism, in which the standards of one culture were applied to another,
resulting in a critical portrayal of the studied culture as intrinsically “different,” or
“backward.” While Lewis conducted groundbreaking research on Mexican masculinity,
he was a product of his times. Most contemporary scholars recognize the biases present
in Lewis‟ work. However, their ability to come to terms with its influence on their own
work, and their recognition of stereotypes perpetrated by Lewis‟ work, varies.
Characteristics of Mexican Masculinity and How Masculinity Is Constructed
Scholars analyzing Mexican masculinity must initially consider what “being a
man” means in Mexico in the time and place they discuss as well as search for the ways
this image of masculinity is created. The scholars appraised here look at Mexican
masculinity in different periods and regions. Matthew Gutmann, as aforementioned,

conducted an anthropological study of working class Mexican men in the colonia Santo
Domingo in Mexico City. Historian Steve Stern attempted to understand greater trends in
Mexican gender identities in the late colonial period by examining three cities with
different ethnic compositions. Annick Prieur explored masculinity as it relates to homo-
and bisexuality in a contemporary barrio outside Mexico City. In another contemporary
study, Susanna Rostas examined Concheros dancers in Mexico City. And finally,
historian James Taggart scrutinized the folktales of a contemporary Nahuat “Indian” in
Mexico, assessing them for greater indications about Mexican male identity. Although
the authors often discuss similar issues concerning Mexican masculinity, they also often
arrive at differing conclusions and present seemingly contradictory arguments. This may
occur because expressions of masculinity in Mexico vary across time and region, not
necessarily because one scholar is right and another wrong.
In her study of the Concheros (groups of Mexicans of partial “Indian” blood who
participate in Aztec dances), Susanna Rostas provides a fairly stereotypical image of
Mexican men. According to Rostas, Mexican men primarily define masculinity in
opposition to femininity. [16] She also conforms to the idea that mestizo males embody
machismo, spending time bonding with other men and using and abusing
women. [17] While Rostas attempts to defy the dominant stereotype by noting Mexican
men are often close to their mothers and possess the ability to cry, she does not expose
many other characteristics which defy the image of machismo, nor does she seem to
disagree with the stereotype as a useful way of categorizing Mexican men.
Like Rostas, Annick Prieur examines contemporary expressions of Mexican
masculinity, but in a very different setting. Mirroring Rostas‟ argument, Prieur often
reinforces negative stereotypes associated with Mexican masculinity. Prieur focuses on
the sexual characteristics that constitute masculinity. Prieur asserts (without any
quantitative data) that many contemporary urban working-class men in Mexico engage in
homosexual acts at some point in their lives, [18] thus validating his own discussion of
Mexican expression of masculinity based on the role men play in homosexual
encounters. According to Prieur, engaging in sex with other men does not make a man
less masculine; in fact, being the penetrator, whether of a man or a woman, enhances
one‟s masculinity. [19] Prieur, like Rostas, sees men‟s perception of masculinity as
juxtaposed against femininity. Being penetrated implies being feminine, polluted, and
submissive, while penetrating a feminine person (whether male or female), serves as an
expression of masculinity. [20] Prieur interprets men‟s domination in homosexual acts as a
means of defining oneself as masculine, in opposition to women or homosexuals. [21] He
further explains masculinity was partly defined as being the opposite of femininity when
attributing men‟s desire to sexually dominate and drink excessively as a need to separate
themselves from characteristics associated with women, such as humility and willingness
to forgive. [22] Prieur also perpetuates the idea that machismo prevails among working
class, urban Mexican men. He cites machismo and homophobia as traits present in
penetrators that help define them as men. [23] Throughout the essay Prieur focuses on
characteristics definitive of masculinity which conform to the idea of machismo,
including extreme sexual desire, a tendency towards violence, and participation in a
secret “men‟s world” women are left out of.
Steve Stern also analyzes masculine characteristics as conforming to the concept
of “machismo.” Because Stern‟s discourse focuses on violence, his discussion of

masculine qualities centers on their expression through domestic and local violence,
although he also addresses stereotypical notions such as heavy drinking. Stern asserts
that the ability to dominate socially and sexually characterized masculinity in late
colonial Mexico. [24] He attributes construction of masculinity to the undefined term
“society,” which forces men to conceive of masculinity in terms of power
relations. [25] Power relations involved not only relations between husbands and wives,
but also between a man and his male friends or a mestizo and “ethnically superior”
men. According to Stern, among the defining characteristics of masculinity, those which
implied power through association with ethnic or economic privilege proved most
influential. Thus a man‟s role as a provider served as a valid characteristic of
masculinity, because keeping wives and children at home was an expression of economic
success. [26] However, Stern also explores the variation of qualities defining masculinity
based on men‟s social standing, which dictated their ability to fulfill the upper-class
“ideal” of masculinity. [27] Stern notes that while some continuity of idealized masculinity
existed across classes, the lower classes did not simply accept the ideals of their social
superiors. [28] Instead, they adapted masculinity to their particular situations, combining
competence, courage, and adversary toward the upper class to create an ideal of
masculinity that resembled that espoused by the upper class, but suited the restrictions of
poverty. [29] And while Stern attributes much of the “general” internalizing of masculine
identity to Mexican society, he notes the importance of the Mexican family in
conditioning the specifically “subaltern” style of masculinity in lower-class
men. [30] Stern, therefore, while asserting the validity of the machismo stereotype in
describing Mexican men, also wishes to adapt the stereotype to include variants that
existed based on class, region, and ethnicity. [31]
In yet another discussion of Mexican masculinity, James Taggart examines the
characteristics associated with Mexican masculinity and the ways in which they are
constructed. Because Taggart‟s study focuses on only two examples -- a Spanish man
and a Nuhuat Indian in Mexico -- he discusses Nahuat concepts about masculinity more
than “Mexican” gender identity, although he does include what he views as “Spanishspeaking
Mexican” concepts of masculinity in order to juxtapose them against Nuhuat
ideas. Taggart, seemingly believing the opinions espoused by Oscar Lewis, describes the
Spanish-speaking poor urban Mexican man as authoritarian, critical, and unsympathetic
toward family members. [32] Although Nacho, the Nahuat man Taggart studies, tells
stories describing men with characteristics similar to those told by Spanish-speaking men,
Taggart asserts Nacho‟s disapproval of traditional machismo qualities is observable in the
fact he distances himself from the heroes in his stories. [33] Additionally, Taggart does not
describe Nacho‟s disapproval of machismo-like qualities as a personal preference, but as
a sense of masculinity present in Nahuats in general. According to Taggart, Nacho
attributes strength, courage, and assertiveness to Spanish-speakers‟ sense of masculinity
(an assumption Taggart apparently agrees with), [34] while his own sense of masculinity
revolves around consideration for others and a desire to provide for one‟s family. [35] In
asserting the novelty of Nahuat men‟s perception of masculinity, Taggart reinforces the
idea “other” Mexican men define themselves as the opposite of women. Nahuats, on the
other hand, respect women, and define their masculinity in different
ways. [36] Additionally, Taggart claims masculinity is constructed through cultural
influences, families, individual experiences, and specifically through ideas contained in

folk tales. [37] While confronting interesting aspects of Nahuat gender dynamics, Taggart
at the same time employs the stereotype of machismo as the epitome of Spanish-speaking
Mexican expression of masculinity, thus contributing to an already negative stereotype.
Matthew Gutmann presents a different set of traits as definitive of Mexican
masculinity than those presented by the other authors. Although Gutmann studies only a
small group of Mexican men in a particular neighborhood of Mexico City, he is the only
author to fight the image of machismo. For example, as opposed to the picture most
scholars paint of Mexican masculinity meaning constant promiscuous sex, Gutmann
describes masturbation as one of the defining characteristics of masculinity, at least
among non-married men. [38] At the same time, Gutmann reinforces the idea that sexual
desire is a definitive characteristic of Mexican men, but he divides this notion from the
concept of Mexican men wanting to “spread their seed,” and thus “conquer” or
“dominate” women. [39] And while Gutmann notes many Mexican men in
the colonia Santo Domingo still viewed drunkenness as a masculine quality, it was
actually not a requisite for fulfilling the role of a man, and was also becoming an
increasingly degendered activity. [40] Gutmann also notes the emergence of active
parenting, economic providing, and taking part in housework (though usually manual as
opposed to domestic tasks) as other defining characteristics of masculinity. [41] Gutmann
especially emphasizes the importance of parenting, asserting that “how children turned
out” was also a significant definer of masculinity. [42] And while Gutmann notes the
continued existence of wife beating in colonia Santo Domingo, he claims it no longer
characterizes mainstream notions of masculinity, but instead results from specific social
circumstances that make men feel powerless. [43] His argument parallels Heidi Tinsman‟s
discussion of wife beating in Chile, which she convincingly describes as the result of
changing economic conditions that affected men‟s ability to fulfill their ideal of
masculinity. [44] Yet Gutmann takes his argument one step further, noting that men who
partake in wife beating use the supposed “machismo culture” as a scapegoat which they
can blame their actions on. Gutmann, like many others, notes the importance of society
and the family in conditioning concepts of masculinity, paying particular attention to the
role played by changing social circumstances and economic situations. Gutmann argues
the qualities which constitute masculinity in contemporary colonia Santo Domingo
include active parenting, ability to provide for one‟s family, and sexual activity not
necessarily indicative of domination, qualities conditioned more by changing social and
economic circumstances than a timeless perception of what it means to be a Mexican
man.
Several overarching themes exist throughout the works of the various
authors. For one thing, the authors all contend Mexican men view masculinity as the
opposite of femininity, and they assert the juxtaposition provides one of the primary ways
men construct their gendered identities. However, if this is the case, how does one
reconcile the fact men needed to avoid feminine characteristics such as sympathy and
compassion, as asserted by Prieur, with the fact they were active, caring fathers, as
described by Gutmann, or able to cry and express emotion, as Rostas depicted
them? One could argue the various authors discuss the same theme in various times and
regions, and therefore their arguments inevitably will not reconcile with one
another. However, often times the authors can not reconcile that the concept masculinity
was defined in opposition to femininity with their own hypotheses. For example,

Gutmann argues male identities are often created as the opposite of women, [45] yet his
book focuses on “alternative” depictions of Mexican masculinity, describing men as
active parents and involved homemakers. If the men Gutmann describes indeed fulfilled
such “alternative” gender identities by participating in activities Gutmann notes the men
recognized as traditionally female, how then could they define their sense of manhood in
opposition to femininity? Other authors, such as Stern, simply present the argument
without providing any evidence or examples to illustrate the point. The fact that
eighteenth century men grew angry when their wives did not have tortillas waiting for
them after work does not necessarily indicate a tendency to determine one‟s gender
identity as the converse of femininity. The authors encounter problems in attributing an
anti-feminine quality to Mexican men‟s construction of masculinity because the idea
either conflicts with their arguments, or no evidence exists to support such a claim. For
these reasons, the believability of the concept Mexican men construct (or constructed)
their gendered identity based on a juxtaposition to female identity remains questionable.
Another characteristic many authors attribute to masculine identity, violence and
desire to dominate, receives vastly different treatments. Stern, who emphasizes violence
as a characteristic of masculinity to the greatest extreme, notes several aspects of male
violence. While Stern makes a great effort to dispel the belief in descarga violence—
violence which men committed without intense provocation—he depicts violence as
highly gendered, an attempt on behalf of lower-class men to retain their sense of
masculinity in the only way they saw as suitable. [46] Given the men‟s class subjugation,
Stern depicts violence, including domestic violence, as a reasonable expression of the
men‟s desire to re-claim their sense of masculinity. For Stern, therefore, where gender
relations were intrinsically tied to a power hierarchy, and “subaltern” men had few means
to protest their situation, violence was naturally the definitive way of embodying
masculinity. In contrast, Gutmann does not view violence as a characteristic of
masculinity. Instead, he implies the “fictitious” notion of machismo, with its emphasis on
male violence, provides men with a scapegoat for actions which are not used to fulfill a
characteristic of masculine gender identity, but instead are a reaction to various external
circumstances. Taggart depicts violence as a defining trait of masculinity among
Spanish-speaking Mexicans, but not among Nuhuats. Yet in a contradictory manner, he
ends his book with a description of violence between the two groups, seemingly
contradicting his argument concerning the masculine ideal among Nuhuats. [47] In fact,
the episode described by Taggart coincides with Stern's discussion of violence as
prevalent among men in Indian communities, one of the characteristics which Stern
argues joined the masculine identities of men from various regions and ethnicities in
Mexico. [48] Stern describes violence as a means for dispirited men to assert their
masculinity in circumstances when they felt their "manliness" challenged by their
subjugation to their social superiors. While Gutmann's discussion sheds insight on
domestic violence in contemporary times, Stern's argument provides a better model for
understanding the gendered dynamics of violence on a broader scope, and despite some
generalizations, Stern provides a convincing argument concerning the psychology behind
male violence and its importance in constituting a male identity among the lower classes.
Machismo: Fact or Fiction?

All the authors also discuss the concept of machismo in their discourses on what
qualities make up masculinity. Some do not question the validity or existence of the
concept at all; Prieur asserts a machismo attitude defines a man as masculine, neither
defining machismo nor defending his claim. [49] Rostas and Taggart both offhandedly use
the term as an overarching ideal of Mexican masculinity, but do not address it as primary
to their arguments. Stern and Gutmann, however, look at the concept of machismo from
a more theoretical standpoint. Gutmann questions whether the quality exists at all among
Mexican men, while Stern assumes a degree of validity to the term, and explores the
nuances within machismo, which he dubs commonly overlooked.
Stern bases his discussion of machismo—which he argues exists—on the
prevalence of violence and need to subjugate women that he finds prevalent in the court
records he uses as his primary sources. By examining three regions in Mexico with
differing social and ethnic structure, in all of which he finds various degrees of machismo
present, Stern asserts the validity of the concept. [50] While he explains some
characteristics of machismo, especially violence, emerged for different reasons and in
different degrees in different regions, their presence nonetheless convinces Stern of an all
encompassing ideal of masculinity, despite its regional diversity. [51] Stern goes so far as
to assert machismo not only was a prevalent quality cross-regionally and among various
ethnicities in late colonial Mexico, but that the same machismo sentiment exists among
men in contemporary Mexico. [52] He bases his conclusion on his personal observations in
contemporary Mexico, recent ethnographies, and gendered patriarchal language in
politicians' speeches. [53] Therefore, several examples of violence and patriarchal rhetoric
prove sufficient to convince Stern of the widespread existence of machismo in
contemporary times. Moreover, his assumption concerning the prevalence of machismo
in late colonial Mexico is based on one particular trait associated with the machismo
stereotype, violence, which he finds evidence of in a very limited source.
Gutmann examines machismo in quite a different manner. As previously
mentioned, Gutmann questions the very existence of machismo as a long term trend of
Mexican male gender identity, believing it emerged in the 1940s. Gutmann claims not to
find any pure example of machismo during his observation. Rather, he meets a variety of
men who each embody a combination of male identities. [54] Moreover, he asserts that
while he could invent four categories of men in colonia Santo Domingo, none of the men
would actually define themselves in such a manner, and no man could fit into only one
category. [55] He combines this assessment with the fact the men he meets consider the
labels macho and machismo negative to support his belief in the nonexistence of
machismo.
While Gutmann's argument proves fairly believable, it also expresses optimism
about masculinity. While the term machismo may have recently emerged, and while the
idea of an overarching gender identity which applies in some degree to all Mexican men
may be valid, one cannot discount the theme of machismo too quickly. Apparently
aspects which contemporary scholars attribute to the machismo ideology existed in
previous time (and still exist today), although they may have not been part of a larger
"value system," and they may not have been conceptualized as machismo among the men
who performed them. Perhaps the qualities attributed to machismo—violence, drinking,
household dominance, lack of emotion, and a general desire to subjugate women—should
be taken apart and viewed as individual phenomena. Such an assessment might yield a

deeper and more historically based understanding of the phenomenon so long dubbed
machismo. For example, the apparent prevalence of wife beating throughout Mexican
history may have nothing to do with a machismo sense of masculinity, but rather with
economic circumstances, such as those suggested by Tinsman and Gutmann, which have
prevailed among certain classes of Mexicans throughout time. Moreover, closer
examination of the individual characteristics of machismo might yield various statistics;
for example, perhaps wife beating is prevalent among lower class men, and lack of
emotional attachment among upper class men, but not vice versa. Such a reassessment of
machismo is necessary for understanding the true nature of how Mexican men have
defined their gender identities throughout time and depending on class and ethnicity.
The Problem of Sources
Part of the problem with the discussion of machismo and masculinity more
generally derives from the sources used. Many scholars writing on Mexican masculinity
are anthropologists, and therefore base their conclusions only on observational
research. Gutmann and Prieur both serve as examples of the shortcomings of this kind of
scholarship. Both spent time living among the men they studied in Mexico City
neighborhoods, and they base their arguments on their observations and
interviews. However, neither author situates his argument historically. Prieur examines
contemporary masculinity in a “here and now” sense, apparently not recognizing the
undefined term “society” they so often refer to reflects the history of the people and
places it encompasses. Because the two authors never discuss the historical background
of masculinity in Mexico, they can ultimately never present an innovative discussion of
how and why masculinity is constructed in the way they observe it
expressed. Gutmann‟s discussion of machismo, for example, loses credence because he
does not explain how the term originated in the past, nor does he provide examples from
the past to refute or reinforce the stereotype of machismo. Ignorance of the history of
machismo proves especially detrimental to Gutmann‟s argument because he argues the
expression of masculinity he observes is a recent phenomenon, conditioned by recent
social and economic changes. Yet he does not discuss the social and economic situations
which determined a different expression of masculinity in the past, nor does he even
explicitly describe past expressions of masculinity.
Although a historian, Taggart encounters similar source problems. Because
Taggart uses oral history as his primary evidence, he too tends to ignore past concepts of
masculinity and their influence on creating a gender identity in contemporary Mexican
men. Additionally, Taggart suffers from a dearth of sources, apparently feeling that
because his sources prove innovative means he does not need to cross-reference them
with more traditional sources. Taggart bases his entire argument on two oral history
interviews, one from a Spanish man and one from a Nahuat Indian man in
Mexico. While Taggart‟s discussion of myths as a valid form of cultural expression
proves valid, his gaping generalizations based on two oral history accounts of myths
appear unbelievable. Taggart believes that Nacho‟s depiction of men in his retelling of
myths provides an adequate means of understanding Nahuat gender identity in general,
despite the fact Nacho‟s uniqueness of opinion compared to other Nahuat men appears
obvious when Taggart recounts the violence of the men in a confrontation with Spanish-

speaking Mexicans. [56] Moreover, Taggart makes assumptions about the gender identities
of Spanish-Speaking Mexicans which he provides no evidence for, save perhaps a few
secondary sources and the assumption the sense of masculinity espoused by a Spanishspeaking
Spanish man must be shared by a Spanish-speaking Mexican man.
Unlike the other scholars, Steve Stern does situate his argument historically, and
uses historical documentation to back up his remarks. However, Stern‟s sources are
essentially flawed in several ways. For one thing, Stern only uses one type of
documentation, court records, which many people would view as evidence of deviant
behavior as opposed to a social norm. Stern argues the sources do in fact display normal,
everyday gendered relations, perhaps to greater extremes than usual, and not simply
evidence of deviance. He bases his argument on the fact the people in the court cases
were not “loners,” but people connected to families, implying they exemplified “normal”
behavior. [57] Additionally, Stern argues his sources are not only valid but provide the
“hidden voices” of poor people disguised or absent in other sources. [58] Historian Richard
Boyer believes Stern‟s argument that criminal records express normal life experiences,
based on the huge sample of criminal cases Stern examines. [59] Historian Susan Socolow,
on the other hand, finds problems with the types of sources Stern uses, believing them to
be generic and misused. According to Socolow, historians of the New Latin American
Cultural History tend to use one or two cases to make sweeping claims about all of
society. [60] Despite Stern‟s claim to the enormity of his sources, one cannot ignore the
partial validity of Socolow‟s comment, given the fact Stern constantly refers to the same
examples. And even if one accepts Stern‟s argument that court records do provide an
example of dominant behavior patterns, the use of one type of source alone cannot
validly portray historical nuances such as gender roles, identities, and construction.
Conclusion: Proposed Directions for Future Scholarship
While the works of contemporary social scientists examining gender in Mexico
possess flaws, they also prove triumphant. Each work possesses merits, and they provide
a steady groundwork on which future scholarship will build. One can imagine that if the
techniques employed by Gutmann and Stern were combined, an extremely accurate
portrayal of Mexican masculinity (or masculinities) might emerge. The two biggest
obstacles remaining in the path of scholarship on masculinity remain the stereotype of
machismo and the failure to incorporate interdisciplinary sources. Once scholars remove
the concept of machismo from their scholarly framework altogether, they will stop
wasting time looking for evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a concept which
may have been constructed by academia itself, and probably never existed in the
“universal whole” implied by older works such as Oscar Lewis‟. The concept of
machismo inevitably clouds scholars ability to view evidence concerning Mexican
masculinity objectively, and therefore it should be discarded until a more realistic,
nuanced, and unbiased depiction of masculinity emerges as a comparison. Such a result
can only be achieved through employing an interdisciplinary approach both to theory and
sources. As made obvious in the current scholarship, resolutely anthropological or
historical studies prove inadequate. A melding of traditional and non-traditional
historical sources, as well as anthropological observation and interviews, will provide the
strongest and most convincing scholarship on Mexican masculinity in the future. [61]

[1] James Taggart, The Bear and His Sons (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1997), 1.
[2] Matthew Gutmann, The Meanings of Macho: Being a Man in Mexico City (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1996), 222.
[3] J. A. Simpson and E. S .C. Weiner, eds, The Oxford English Dictionary, 2 nd . Edition.,
Volume IX, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), 160.
[4] Evelyn Stevens, “Marianismo: The Other Face of Machismo,” in Confronting Change,
Challenging Tradition: Women in Latin American History (Wilmington, DE: A Scholarly
Resource, Inc., 1994), 3-17.
[5] The Oxford English Dictionary, 160-1.
[6] Salley Davies, ed., Mexican Spanish: A Rough Phrase Book (London: Lexus, 1996).
G. Gomez de Silva, Elsevier’s Concise Etymological Dictionary (Amsterdam: Elsevier
Science Publishers B.V., 1985).
Diccionario Critico Etimologico de la Lenga Castellana, Volume III (Bern, Switzerland:
A. Frank A.G. , 1995).
Vincente Garcia De Diego, Diccionario Etimologico Espanol y Hispanico, 2nd
edition, (Madrid: Espansa-Calpe, 1995).
[7] A. Bryon Gerrard, Cussell’s Colloquial Spanish (New York: Mac Millian Publishing
Co. Inc., 1980).
[8] Verena Martinez-Alier, Marriage, Class, and Colour in Nineteenth-Century
Cuba (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1989), 120-1.
[9] Gutmann., 240.
[10] Ibid., 231.
[11] Ibid., 231
[12] Ibid., 247-8.
[13] Ibid., 248.
[14] Steve J. Stern, The Secret History of Gender: Women, Men, and Power in Late
Colonial Mexico (Chappel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1995).
[15] Taggart, 67.
[16] Susanna Rostas, “The Production of Gendered Imagery: The Concheros of Mexico,”
in Machos, Mistresses, Madonnas: Contesting the Power of Latin American Gender
Imagery ( New York: Verso, 1996), 217.
[17] Rostas, 218.
[18] Annick Prieur, “Domination and Desire: Male Homosexuality and the Construction of
Masculinity in Mexico,” in Machos, Mistresses, Madonnas (New York: Verso, 1996), 89.
[19] Prieur, 100.
[20] Ibid., 94-5.
[21] Ibid., 99.
[22] Ibid., 93.
[23] Ibid., 100.
[24] Stern, 157.
[25] Ibid., 160.
[26] Ibid., 162.

[27] Ibid., 178.
[28] Ibid., 168.
[29] Ibid., 179.
[30] Ibid., 170-1.
[31] Ibid., 182.
[32] Taggart, 67.
[33] Ibid., 63.
[34] Ibid., 48.
[35] Ibid., 243.
[36] Ibid., 244.
[37] Ibid., 15, 19, 244, 246.
[38] Gutmann, 142.
[39] Ibid., 143.
[40] Ibid., 174, 177.
[41] Ibid., 32, 70,149, 151, 156.
[42] Ibid., 70.
[43] Ibid., 220.
[44] Heidi Tinsman, “Household Patrones: Wife-Beating and Sexual Control in Rural
Chile, 1964-1988,” in The Gendered Worlds of Latin American Women
Workers (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997), 264-96.
[45] Gutmann, 257.
[46] Stern, 156.
[47] Taggart, 247.
[48] Stern, 228-51.
[49] Prieur, 100.
[50] Stern, 182-183.
[51] Ibid., 297-298.
[52] Ibid., 323.
[53] Ibid., 323-5.
[54] Gutmann, 222.
[55] Ibid., 237-8.
[56] Taggart, 247.
[57] Stern, 50.
[58] Ibid., 38.
[59] Richard Boyer, review of The Secret History of Gender, by Steve Stern. Hispanic
American Historical Review 77 (1997): 314-5.
[60] Susan M. Socolow, “Putting the „Cult‟ in „Culture‟,” Hispanic American Historical
Review 79(1999): 358-9.