write a post

Hurtado_Sinha_Chapter3.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >write a post

CHAPTER 3

Toward New Masculinities: A Chicana Feminist Intersectional Analysis of Latinos’ Definitions of Manhoods

In Jimmy Santiago Baca’s memoir, A Place to Stand (2001), the author re- lates the painful childhood memory of visiting his father in jail. Five- year- old Jimmy does not understand why his father is in this place of chaos and restriction and why his father cannot leave with him and his mother at the end of the visit. Baca is caught in a world of emotion and pain that haunts him for the rest of his life. Even in adulthood, he is unable to articulate the pain of leaving his father behind in a cage.

Baca lacks words both literally and metaphorically because in his world, men do not talk about emotions, and because he is illiterate until his early twenties, when he learns to read and write during his own incarceration. Even after he becomes a writer, his discourse about pain, love, and emo- tion remains limited because of the restrictions dictated by what it means to him to be a man. These restrictions limit his interactions with and ex- pressions of love toward his brother, his mother, and the rest of his family. Not until he writes his memoir do those he loves learn what he felt as a child, as a young man, and as a mature writer. Through self- education by reading books and in practicing the use of words, Baca acquired the dis- course and vocabulary that enabled him to articulate what it means to “be a man.”

Jimmy Baca is like many of the young Latinos we interviewed for the Latino Masculinities Study. They too had limited terms for defining man- hood until, through education, reading, and relationships with women and, in a few cases, with other men, they discovered the power of words. These resources provided them with the opportunity to explore their feel- ings through written language and conversation. Here we examine the respondents’ answers to the question, “What does the word ‘manhood’ mean to you?” With the answers to this question, a world of doubt, pride,

Hurtado, Aída, and Mrinal Sinha. Beyond Machismo : Intersectional Latino Masculinities, University of Texas Press, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucsc/detail.action?docID=4397289. Created from ucsc on 2020-06-22 00:00:46.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Toward New Masculinities 55

apprehension, fear, love, and potential change opens up as these young men tell us what they see as their gendered positionings in the world.

In this chapter, we examine the Intersectional Identities of the sub- sample of respondents who identified as feminist and who declared their class background while growing up as working class or poor. As one of our intentions in this book is to explore the possibility of dismantling machismo and of constructing new masculinities, the intersection of pro- gressive feminist identification and economic deprivation in young, edu- cated Latino men is a possible identification node where the disruption of previous definitions of manhood is likely to occur. We begin our analy- sis by reviewing the research on machismo to identify the components that scholars use to delineate the contours of machista behaviors and be- liefs. We then turn to our interviews from the Latino Masculinities Study (LMS) to answer the following questions: (1) How do educated, young Latino men who identify as feminist and grew up as working class or poor define manhood? (2) Do their definitions of manhood include the differ- ent dimensions of machismo identified in the scholarly literature? (3) If not, what other dimensions are present in their definitions? (4) Whom do they admire as men, and what are the characteristics that they find admi- rable? (5) Do these characteristics include machista elements as outlined in the scholarly literature? We conclude by exploring the possibility that young Latino men are constructing new masculinities that go beyond machismo.

The Predominance of Machismo and Its Definitions

According to the Mexican philosopher Octavio Paz (1961, 31), who wrote the classic treatise on machismo, Mexican masculinity dictates that a man be “a hermetic being, closed up in himself. . . . Manliness is judged ac- cording to one’s invulnerability to enemy arms or the impacts of the out- side world.” Machistas, according to Paz, “must never show weakness nor emotion because such blunders could crack the machismo mask, an opening which enemies would exploit. To the extent that a man opens up and shows emotion or weakness, he becomes less of a man” (as cited in Strong et al. 1994, 19). Paz identifies a second dimension of machismo: “the adroit wielding of power, usually physical in nature, to dominate women” (Strong et al. 1994, 20) and sometimes other men. Machismo involves men displaying a hypermasculinity that thrives on power and domination and that is threatened by weakness (Mirandé 1997). Within

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

56 Beyond Machismo

the paradigm of machismo, women—conceived as the opposite of men— are disdained, considered weak, and subjected to domination and abuse. Similarly, weak heterosexual men and homosexuals are perceived as being more like women than men, as parodies of what men should be, and are therefore also subject to abuse. As a result, machistas harbor feelings of extreme homophobia with an underlying tendency toward physical domi- nation and abuse of those who fail to live within the parameters of their perspective of Mexican masculinity.

The third dimension of machismo is a disdain of intellectual endeavors, because the acquisition of knowledge negates the physicality of domina- tion. Also the sensitivity required for intellectual work violates the emo- tional distance required for a machista masculinity. The “denigration of intellectual activities” (Panitz et al. 1983, 35) then becomes another core value of machismo. This three- pronged definition has shaped the per- ception of Mexican and Latino manhoods, curtailing the examination of other significant Social Identities that Latinos may hold important.

Intersectionality and Masculinity

Intersectionality Theory has not been extensively applied to the study of the experiences of Latino men (Noguera, Hurtado, and Fergus 2012), which leaves unexplained the consequences of their contradictory posi- tion as men existing within a system of privilege that offers advantages. As Latinos, however, they also experience the disadvantages of those belong- ing to devalued social categories, that is, men who come from a working- class background, who are immigrants, who speak Spanish, who often look racially nonwhite, who have a Latino background, and who may be gay. The experience of multiple oppressions in the form of racism, ethno- centrism, classism, and heterosexism may create a space “in- between” (Anzaldúa 1987; Pérez 1999), thereby facilitating the development of a consciousness about the denigrated position of Latinos’/as’ group affilia- tions. According to Intersectionality, Latinos in the United States are more likely to see social injustice based not solely on any one category— their class, their race, their ethnicity, their sexuality—but on all of these categories simultaneously. The experience of Intersectionality therefore also leads to a multilayered, complicated sense of self (Hurtado 2003c).

Intersectionality also provides the theoretical aperture for considering within- group variation. By providing an analytical tool that explicates dif- ferences within the social category “man,” it permits the examination of

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Toward New Masculinities 57

other disparaged Social Identities’ influence on the experiences of gender. Such variation in men’s experiences contributes to more nuanced under- standings of how different groups of men view and respond to hegemonic conceptions of masculinities at the same time that it provides insights into potential resistance to hegemonic definitions of gender. As we proposed in the introduction and in chapter 2, Intersectionality can be examined ana- lytically by focusing on the intersection of more than one Social Identity, in this case, the intersection of ethnicity (Latino), gender (male), class (poor or working class), and the effects that this constellation of Intersec- tional Identities have on the respondents’ definitions of manhood.

Looking at the Data

For this analysis we look at interviews from the 36 of the 105 LMS respon- dents who considered themselves feminist and who identified their class background while they were growing up as either poor or working class. From the perspective of Intersectionality, these are the respondents who should be more sensitive to the disadvantages of machismo precisely be- cause they have an Intersectional Identity constellation that should make them more aware of its negative aspects. Gurin and her colleagues (1980) predicted that a subsample’s self- identification with a working- class back- ground and Latino ethnicity should form an Intersectional Identity node that could manifest itself in greater consciousness around gender issues, including a feminist identification. Therefore, we have placed the respon- dents’ definitions of manhood under the microscope of empirical scrutiny to determine whether they have indeed rejected the majority of, if not all, aspects of machismo and hegemonic masculinities.

Respondents’ Backgrounds

Because one of the goals of the larger LMS was to explore Latino defini- tions of feminisms (Hurtado and Sinha 2006b; Sinha 2007), respondents could choose to identify as feminist according to their subjective under- standing of the term. Further, they were asked to identify the economic background of their families while they were growing up.

The age range of the 36 respondents was between nineteen and thirty- three, with an average age of twenty- five for the subsample. Thirty of the respondents were born in the United States; 6 were born in Latin America (Colombia, El Salvador, and Mexico) and arrived in the United States be- fore age eleven. Seven of the respondents had a bachelor’s degree, one had

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

58 Beyond Machismo

earned a master’s degree, 4 were enrolled in a master’s degree program, 6 were doctoral students, one was a medical student, and 16 were under- graduates. One respondent had attended a community college, but was not enrolled in school at the time of the interview. The 36 respondents at- tended twenty different institutions of higher education across the United States, ranging from a community college (e.g., La Guardia Community College) and state colleges (e.g., California State University, Monterey Bay) to large universities (e.g., University of Michigan). Thirty- three of the respondents identified as heterosexual and 3 identified as gay. Thirty- four respondents were single, one was married without children, and one was married and had a child.

Data Analysis

The transcripts of the interviews with the 36 respondents who self- identified as feminists were coded and data analysis was conducted on re- sponses to the question, “What does the word ‘manhood’ mean to you?” The first thematic coding was based on the three dimensions identified by scholars and researchers as composing the core aspects of machismo: domination of women; denial of emotion; and denigration of intellectual activity. We first coded to see if the three dimensions were mentioned by the respondents. We then conducted a second thematic qualitative analy- sis of the respondents’ answers,1 which was intended to identify the core characteristics of the respondents’ definitions of manhood that were in- dependent of the definition of machismo found in the research literature.

We coded the first three mentions by each respondent when answer- ing the question, “What does the word ‘manhood’ mean to you?” Few re- spondents offered more than three mentions; therefore, we were able to account for the full range of responses in the sample.2 Overall intercoder reliability was 79 percent.3 Respondents could opt to use their real names or pseudonyms. The majority chose to use their full names, others elected to use only their first names, while a few chose to use a first- name pseudo- nym or a first- and last- name pseudonym.4

To gain further insight into the respondents’ definitions of manhood, the initial question (“What does the word ‘manhood’ mean to you?”) was followed by two additional questions: “Who do you admire as a man?” and “Why do you admire him?” The responses to both of these questions were coded following the process delineated above—first, for inclusion of the dimensions of machismo and, second, for the thematic analysis of aspects of manhood that the respondents found admirable.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Toward New Masculinities 59

Respondents’ Social Identifications

Consistent with Intersectionality as proposed in chapter 2, all 36 respon- dents identified their significant Social Identities (Gurin et al. 1980), which included gender, ethnicity, race, sexuality, and class background, and exhibited consciousness through awareness of the valuations placed on their Social Identities within society at large. All identified as men of Latino ethnicity (with slight variations in ethnic labels based on national origin and social context). All of the respondents were aware that their skin color and facial features signaled either their mestizo background (mixed race) or their European lineage, and all of them identified their sexuality either as heterosexual (33 respondents) or as gay (3 respondents).

To determine the salience of the respondents’ Intersectional Identi- ties, we conducted a content analysis of the gender issues section of the interviews, which contained eleven open- and closed- ended questions. We asked respondents about their views on feminisms, manhood, and male privilege. We also asked if there was a feminist and/or strong women and men in their family, if they could provide examples of men they admired (as well as the reasons for admiring them), and if they considered them- selves to be “men of Color.” We counted each time they referenced their race, ethnicity, class, or sexuality. The frequencies presented below are based on the responses to the interview questions.

Table 3.1 presents the results of the content analysis of respondents’ identification with their significant social groups. All 36 respondents ref- erenced their race from one to fourteen times (median number of re- sponses was four). They talked extensively about being racialized by their families, communities, and society in general based on their phenotype, that is, whether they were light- or dark- skinned and whether their facial features looked “indigenous” or “European” to others. If respondents

Table 3.1. Respondents’ identification with significant social groups

Social identity Number of

respondents Range

(no. of mentions)

Median (middle number

of mentions)

Race 36 1–14 4 Ethnicity 32 1–15 6 Social class 22 1–11 2 Sexuality 8 1–9 2

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

60 Beyond Machismo

were fair- skinned, they mentioned being misidentified as non- Latino by both other Latinos and non- Latinos.

Further, a few respondents discussed the ways in which their race had affected their higher education experiences. This was particularly salient for respondents who had attended private educational institutions be- cause, many times, they were one of the few working- class students of Color in their classes and at graduation ceremonies.

In some cases, respondents wove references to race throughout their discussions of male privilege. These responses illustrate the way race inter- acts with gender to complicate the experience of male privilege. Some re- spondents felt that their race prevented them from gaining access to patri- archal privilege in the same way that white men could. Albert Domínguez III, who was twenty- seven years old and working as a program coordina- tor at George Washington University, provides an illustrative example:

Let’s not forget we’re Latinos. I am not a white male . . . if I was a white man I could say “Hey, I have certain privileges” in terms of society, I could get into or a certain door you can open a little bit easier . . . I am a Latino male . . . let me give you a better example of what I am trying to say. It’s as if you are Black, you’re Jewish and you’re gay . . . that’s the ultimate minority right there, right? So I feel like to a certain extent I am a male but I am a Latino male so if I was just a male . . . being of a differ- ent ethnicity or a different nationality there may be a little bit of extra perks.

Albert’s narrative illustrates an awareness of the stigma attached to his racial and ethnic identity and an understanding of how this stigma inter- sects with and limits his access to male privilege. In reflecting on his male privilege, he repeatedly emphasized that he was a “Latino male.” In nar- rating his gender identity, he also mentioned his racial and ethnic identi- ties, and did so repeatedly in the same passage. Albert also demonstrated an understanding of the way various disparaged Social Identities (e.g., being Black, Jewish, or gay) could work in combination to limit men’s opportunities. Overall, respondents were, like Albert, aware of their sub- ordinate status in society based on their racial and ethnic categorization, which they viewed as influencing their experience as men.

Thirty- two of the thirty- six respondents mentioned their ethnicity in their narratives from one to fifteen times (median number of mentions was six). Respondents referred to their ethnicity by indicating the use of Spanish in the home, by discussing various Latino cultural practices, and

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Toward New Masculinities 61

by relating parents’ immigration experiences. Jorge Morales, a twenty- seven- year- old doctoral student in comparative literature at the Univer- sity of California, Berkeley, emphasized the role of Latino culture in the way that masculinity was constructed: “I guess it depends on what kind of manhood you’re talking about, whether it’s manhood as constructed in American culture or as it’s constructed in Mexican culture. I think they’re very different constructions.”

Twenty- two respondents referenced social class in their narratives from one to eleven times (median number of responses was two). These respondents discussed their parents’ level of education and working- class occupations and the economic hardships they experienced while grow- ing up. José “Nike” Martínez, who was twenty- two years old and had graduated from California State University, Monterey Bay with a degree in computer science, was unemployed and looking for work at the time of the interview. He described the struggles his father experienced while raising their family:

He went to like the second or third grade and then he had to drop out of school to support his family. Once he gained his own family, which is us, he immigrated to the United States in search of work . . . back in Mexico, we had it really hard . . . it’s just hard to make a living over there . . . he’s pretty much worked all his life, he’s worked in the fields, like lettuce and strawberries . . . and I’ve seen him get up every day at like three or four in the morning and come back at like five or six in the evening and every day doing this backbreaking job all sunburned . . . that’s all he’s done all his life, is work in the fields . . . he’s done that for us.

José’s narrative describes the reasons he admired his father as a man, alluding to the way that ethnicity and class had interacted in his life to influence his views of what it meant to be a good father (and, ultimately, what it meant to be a man). José inserted class and ethnicity in his discus- sion of the physical hardships his father endured for the sake of the family. He referenced his own social class (exemplified in his father’s limited edu- cation, occupation, and long work hours) and ethnicity multiple times. José’s narrative, like that of many of the other respondents, illustrates the way his ethnicity, as manifested in his Mexican immigrant background, is inextricably tied to his class background and shapes his views on gender.

Only eight respondents referenced sexuality, from one to nine times (median number of responses was two). Two respondents discussed the fact that they were gay, some talked about their heterosexuality in un-

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

62 Beyond Machismo

problematic ways (e.g., their relationships with girlfriends or partners), while others confronted the unearned privileges heterosexuality bestowed on them and complicated their definitions of manhood. At the same time, the exaggerated heterosexuality (machismo) attributed to Latinos was a form of racialized stigma.

In discussing his sexuality, Issaac, a twenty- five- year- old elementary school teacher who had earned a master’s degree from Columbia Univer- sity, stated that he had to “fight more stereotypes because” he was not a “macho male of Color.” He thought that “in people’s minds” the proto- typical “Latino male is Ricky Martin or Antonio Banderas,” both of whom were represented in the media as a “suave model.”5 Issaac felt this way of thinking was a “paradigm [that] still exists” and one that his version of heterosexuality did not “fit into.”

These results suggest that respondents were aware that they belonged to various social categories and, further, that some of these categories were perceived as problematic by society at large. As proposed in chap- ter 2, problematic Social Identities are reflected upon more often than are Social Identities that confer privilege and require negotiation. It is note- worthy that the majority of our respondents were heterosexual (i.e., this was a dominant social category) and that membership in this group was mentioned the fewest times.

Respondents’ Definitions of Manhood

Table 3.2 pre sents the results to the open- ended question, “What does the word ‘manhood’ mean to you?” which was coded based on the three dimensions in the definition of machismo: domination of women; emo- tional distance/reserve; and denigration of intellectual activities. None of the respondents mentioned these three dimensions as a component of their definitions of manhood; that is, these feminist- identified Latino men

Table 3.2. Responses to “What does the word ‘manhood’ mean to you?”

Dimension of machismo Number of responses (N respondents = 36)

1. Domination of women 0 2. Emotional distance/reserve 0 3. Denigration of intellectual activities 0

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Toward New Masculinities 63

from a working- class or poor background had Intersectional understand- ings that led to the rejection of machismo.

If Not Machismo, Then What Is Manhood?

If not through the concept of machismo, how did the respondents define manhood? Table 3.3 outlines the three major coding themes that emerged from their definitions and the dimensions (or subthemes) within each gen- eral theme: (1) relational engagements of manhood; (2) positive ethical positionings; and (3) rejection of hegemonic masculinity. Table 3.4 pre-

Table 3.3. Themes in respondents’ definitions of manhood

I. Relational engagements Manhood is a developmental process that is reached when a person is responsible for raising a family; commitment to putting family first. Manhood is relational, as in belonging to a culture, a community, a family (e.g., able to stand in a “circle of men that is constituted by extended family”).

II. Positive ethical positionings Manhood should be equated with womanhood, humanhood, peoplehood. Manhood is exhibiting ethical characteristics: respect for others, living up to one’s word, not cheating, being a responsible person. Manhood means being comfortable with oneself, being independent, approaching life more confidently. Manhood entails succeeding educationally (e.g., “putting yourself through school”).

III. Rejection of hegemonic masculinity Manhood is not definable at the present moment because the concept of manhood needs to look beyond biology; requires a more inclusive definition that includes women (if they are responsible for the family) and gay individuals. Manhood rejects the hegemonic definitions of manhood and its negative manifestations (e.g., “use tools, fix cars,” “tough burly guy makes you more of a boy than a man”); rejects dimensions of machismo (e.g., father never exhibited violence against mother); possesses positive attributes instead of negative ones (e.g., not rude, not aggressive, not insulting to others and their beliefs, more collaborative, supportive, less selfish, open to new ideas, able to express emotion). Manhood is the same as patriarchy and is therefore undesirable (e.g., “patriarchy is bullshit,” “manhood is false,” “manhood means undeserved privilege and everyone suffers because of men’s privileges”).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

64 Beyond Machismo

sents the coding results. The relational engagements theme includes di- mensions that emphasize relationships with family, community, and other groups of people as part of the definition of manhood. The positive ethical positionings theme includes dimensions that emphasize taking an ethi- cal stand and exhibiting values such as respect, truthfulness, self- respect, confidence in one’s decisions and in one’s identity as a man, and pursuit of education to become a better person. The rejection of hegemonic mas- culinity theme includes dimensions that explicitly critique the dominant definitions of manhood, such as equating it with biological sex instead of valuing an individual’s personhood regardless of gender; rejecting domi- nance and patriarchy; and openly emphasizing positive characteristics to counteract the negative aspects of masculinity. In defining what manhood meant to them, the respondents did not address their individual Social Identities separately; instead, their responses were based on clusters of Intersectional Identities that included gender, ethnicity, race, class, and sexuality.

Relational Engagements as Part of Manhood

Eighteen respondents mentioned relational engagements as part of their definitions of manhood. The mention of this theme ranged from one to twenty- two times (modal number of responses was one). Respondents provided elaborate explanations of manhood as a developmental pro- cess that unfolds as individuals mature. The end point of the process is reached when an individual is married and begins raising children. As Andrés Elenes, a twenty- six- year- old senior at MIT majoring in manage- rial science, indicated, “The word manhood, it’s when your mind matures enough that you start thinking as a grown adult. . . . It’s a person who from

Table 3.4. Themes mentioned by respondents in definitions of manhood

Theme

Number of responses

(N respondents = 36)

Range (number of mentions)

Mode (most frequent

number of mentions)

Relational engagements 18 1–22 1 Positive ethical positionings 22 1–35 1 Rejection of hegemonic

masculinity 14 1–20 1

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Toward New Masculinities 65

now on, instead of thinking about himself, is someone who starts thinking about repercussions about his actions for his family and for [his] commu- nity.” Andrés’s emphasis on manhood as a developmental process that cul- minates in a commitment to the family and community is consistent with the definition provided for middle- and working- class African American men (Hammond and Mattis 2005).

A second component of this theme is the notion that manhood can be understood only in relation to cultural and community practices within families and groups of individuals. As Alberto Barragán, a twenty- seven- year- old medical student at the University of Michigan, stated,

Manhood to me is a culture . . . the ring of men at our family func- tions—manhood is being able to stand in that ring. And when you stand in that ring that means that you have a job . . . adolescents are able to stand in the ring even though they are low- ranking members. You’re a full member of that ring when you’re married and have children. . . . Like I said, the men [in my family] tend to be quiet and passive. You don’t brag about things. Manhood means being able to stand in that ring and talk and be respected, have an opinion . . . my father having all of his children in college is an incredible booster in the manhood ring.

Alberto’s response demonstrates the influence that the interaction be- tween ethnicity and gender had on his definition of masculinity. His em- phasis on manhood as constructed in the context of a “culture” and among the “ring of men” at family functions highlights the relational and cultur- ally specific nature of such definitions and echoes the words of respondent Jorge Morales, quoted earlier, that is, that constructions of manhood vary from one culture to another.

Positive Ethical Positionings

Twenty- two respondents mentioned definitions of manhood based on positive ethical positionings in their responses, ranging from one to thirty- five times (modal number of responses was one), making this the most frequently mentioned of all three themes. From this perspective, manhood entails being ethical, standing behind one’s word, not cheating or being untruthful, being a good human being, and respecting others. For example, Hugo Hernández, a twenty- one- year- old junior at the Uni- versity of Arizona, stated that “manhood would be to work hard to respect people.” Furthermore, he believed manhood was a commitment to view-

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

66 Beyond Machismo

ing everyone as equals, honoring people as people, and emphasizing their “humanhood.” Issaac, the twenty- five- year- old elementary school teacher quoted above discussing his sexuality, eloquently stated his views on the definition of manhood:

It’s coming into one’s own about being open to change and to new ideas but also staying strong to principles or values that you have set out for yourself . . . like Gandhi says, “Being the peace that you wish to see”; it’s like being the man that you wish to see in others . . . walking through the world in a way that is open but strong. In that sense, it’s not only men; all people should be [that way]; kind of like a peoplehood, where we all learn to be strong but also collaborative and open to help and conversa- tion, being open to dialogue about those things but also holding strong to whatever it is you bring to the table in whatever conversations you engage in; knowing who you are. . . . To me that’s coming into one’s own about being a man or womanhood or peoplehood or personhood, I guess that’s how I define it.

Issaac’s views about manhood highlight his feminist orientation inso- far as the ethical characteristics he describes directly contradict aspects of hegemonic masculinity. He emphasized “being open to change and to new ideas” and identified this openness not only as a positive quality that men should strive for, but also as one that all people, regardless of gen- der, should try to attain. Issaac’s response resonates with the ideas found in earlier scholarly works discussing feminist men (Christian 1994; Vica- rio 2003; White 2008) in that he emphasized a version of masculinity predicated on a selfhood that stresses the importance of connections (as opposed to isolation), especially collaboration and receiving help from others.

Respondents also felt that part of being an ethical person entailed being comfortable with one’s independence and approaching life more confi- dently. Jesse Obas, who was thirty years old and working for the Edu- cational Partnership Center at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said,

Manhood is when you are comfortable with your identity. I’m not say- ing complacent or that’s all you want to achieve, I’m not saying it’s the pinnacle of your manliness, but . . . for the longest time I was uncom- fortable with who I was as a man and who I was as a person. . . . I feel like right now I’m probably the closest I’ve ever been to the man, the person,

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Toward New Masculinities 67

the Chicano, the Filipino, that I’ve ever been . . . encompassing all those identities. . . . I think that’s what manhood is.

Jesse’s response directly connects his definition of manhood as an ac- ceptance of his various Social Identities, such as being (bi)racial and, ulti- mately, a person of Color. He was also able to have a critical view and articulation of his multiple subjectivities, exhibiting a nascent mestiza consciousness as articulated by Anzaldúa (1987).

Rejection of Hegemonic Masculinity

Fourteen respondents provided definitions of manhood that rejected as- pects of hegemonic masculinity, ranging from one to twenty responses (modal number of responses was one). These respondents felt that defi- nitions of manhood were in flux because of the intense questioning of gender and sexual roles. As a result, definitions needed to extend beyond biology and the objectification of women as the basis for manhood. Re- spondents were concerned that biological definitions excluded other people from the rubric of manhood if they did not meet the “physical” requisites. Some were concerned about excluding women who had the re- sponsibilities usually assigned to men, such as being the main breadwinner in their families, or excluding gay men because of their sexuality. Respon- dents mentioned female single heads of households who fulfilled the re- sponsibilities of both mother and father but received little credit for their hard work in maintaining a family. They advocated for the definitions of manhood to include anyone who took on the responsibility for and care of a family, be they man or woman.

Douglas Arévalo, a thirty- one- year- old student majoring in math and sciences at La Guardia Community College, insightfully noted that he had difficulty defining manhood because a single mother had raised him: “Manhood, I don’t know. . . . How do you define a man? . . . The bread- winner of the house? It’s very hard, especially nowadays because the breadwinner in my house wasn’t my stepfather; it was my mother who was doing the running around—always doing that. I guess a man is just whoever can take the responsibilities for running a household, so it doesn’t matter whether you’re a woman or who [it is]!” From Douglas’s perspec- tive, his mother had lived up to the challenge of caring for the family in- stead of running from the responsibility. She, in his estimation, had been more of a “man” than his stepfather because it was she who had honored the commitment to raise and support her family financially.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

68 Beyond Machismo

Jesse Obas also indicated that “manhood . . . doesn’t mean hetero- sexual, educated man . . . it could also mean gay, white or whatever.” Other respondents rejected particular sexual behaviors associated with hegemonic masculinity. Ryan Ramírez, a twenty- year- old sophomore majoring in philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder, provides an illustrative example: “There’s always that whole thing when you are younger . . . the whole virginity thing, you know, if you don’t sleep with someone by the time you’re this age, then you’re not a man and I’m like, well whatever. . . . I consider myself a man because I’ve done things.” Ryan explicitly rejected the notion that in order to achieve manhood, one had to engage in sexual intercourse with a woman—a rejection of heteronorma- tivity. Instead, he considered himself a man because he had “done things,” alluding to the fact that he had overcome economic obstacles to succeed educationally. Ryan traveled from Denver to Boulder alone, enrolled in courses, and was working his way through school independent of financial support from his mother because she was the single head of the household and had to take care of his sisters. His narrative is illustrative of the ways that respondents refused to objectify women in defining masculinity. In- stead, Ryan’s definition of manhood emphasizes his educational accom- plishments, especially in light of his working- class background. His re- jection of heterosexual sexual engagement as a test of his manhood runs fundamentally counter to one of the core behaviors associated with hege- monic masculinity (P. Collins 2004).

Respondents were also concerned that hegemonic and normative defi- nitions of manhood reinforced the negative aspects of masculinity. They were especially concerned about the negative behavioral characteristics of manhood that entailed harshness toward and domination of others. Among the dispositional characteristics enumerated were such behaviors as being rude or aggressive, insulting others’ beliefs, and not listening when others spoke. Respondents also explicitly cited rejecting specific di- mensions of machismo, such as abuse of women by male family members. Instead of including negative characteristics as part of their definitions of manhood, they enumerated the desirable traits that men should ascribe to, for example, being supportive, being less selfish, and expressing emotions.

The last theme mentioned by respondents was the rejection of man- hood because it is a social construction that has no value—a construc- tion that respondents were openly rebelling against by questioning its meaning. As Jonathan Rosa, a twenty- three- year- old doctoral student in anthropology at the University of Chicago, stated, “[Manhood] means a constructed image of masculinity . . . it means an idea that I am trying to

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Toward New Masculinities 69

fight against; something that I am trying to unsettle personally, and in the world individually, and among the social networks where I occupy differ- ent positions . . . manhood is bullshit, basically.”

Jonathan, as well as other respondents, equated manhood with patri- archy and undeserved male privilege. Patriarchy hurts everyone, and therefore manhood is a flawed ideology that should be deconstructed and eventually obliterated and replaced with more equitable arrangements be- tween people. Jonathan’s and other respondents’ views toward manhood endorse this theme and echo the words of other feminist men (Vicario 2003; White 2008) who advocate for a fundamental restructuring and transformation of social relationships and an outright rejection of mas- culinities as a social construction.

Most Admired Men

We turn now to whether these 36 respondents were consistent in identi- fying the characteristics of manhood of the men they admired most. One question that might arise is whether the respondents rejected machismo for themselves but in fact admired its characteristics in other men, espe- cially those they held as worthy of emulation. In other words, at times, it may be difficult for young men to not align themselves with other men, even when those men may not be viewed as admirable in terms of their gender attitudes toward women. Can male solidarity be broken when the costs for young Latinos may be very high?

Respondents’ responses to the questions, “Who do you admire as a man?” and “Why?” were coded for the first person mentioned, followed by the reasons given for admiring him. For the second question, we used the same coding scheme as that applied to the definition of manhood. Con- sistent with their definitions of manhood, respondents’ descriptions of the men they admired omitted the characteristics essential to the definition of machismo. Respondents did not feel that manhood entailed the domi- nation of women, the denial of emotion, or the denigration of intellectual activities, nor did they admire men who displayed these characteristics.

Admirable Men

When respondents were asked whom they admired as a “man,” the ma- jority of the 36 respondents (61 percent) named their fathers (see table 3.5). Given these results, it is not surprising to learn that a large number

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

70 Beyond Machismo

(80 percent) of the respondents were raised in two- parent households. Other family members, such as grandfathers and uncles, were cited as sec- ond most admired. Men outside the family, such as coworkers or scholars, were mentioned least. All told, respondents cited a family member as the most admired in nearly 80 percent of cases.

Characteristics of Admirable Men

When we asked why respondents admired certain men, the characteristics they offered were very similar to those themes that emerged when they de- fined manhood and fit within the three dimensions of manhood that had been identified: relational engagements, positive ethical positionings, and rejection of hegemonic masculinity (see table 3.6).

Relational Engagements

Within the relational engagement category, respondents mentioned that the men they admired demonstrated commitment to their families by sup- porting and loving them and by working in jobs that were undesirable and low paying. Edgar González, a twenty- four- year- old who graduated

Table 3.5. Respondents’ identifications of individuals admired as men

Individual named

Percentage of respondents

(N = 36)

Father 61.0 Grandfather 12.1 Uncle 6.1 Professor 3.0 Nelson Mandela/Gandhi (one- person entity) 3.0 Roberto Clemente/sports figure 3.0 Arturo Islas/Chicano novelist 3.0 Pastor 3.0 Jamie Foxx/comedian/actor 3.0 Don’t know because never met a man he admired 3.0 Total 100.0

Note: Responses are the first mentioned in list of admired men.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Toward New Masculinities 71

from Princeton University with a bachelor’s degree in politics and was employed by Wells Fargo as an investment analyst, responded as follows when asked whom he admired as a man:

My father . . . he is a very good family man. He did what he had to do to provide for his family . . . he [worked the] graveyard shift for over fif- teen years. He did [it] day in and day out and didn’t complain . . . he did it for us and that to me is like what a man should do. . . . He’s great to my mom, great to my brother, sister. We all get along great. . . . I respect him a lot. . . . Growing up you see a lot of males who are heads of house- holds who don’t treat their families with the same amount of respect as my dad did and he’s been a wonderful person.

As part of the commitment to family, the respondents explicitly men- tioned family members, primarily fathers, who immigrated to the United

Table 3.6. Noted themes in characteristics of admired men

I. Relational engagements Commitment to the family by supporting them financially, morally, emotionally; selfless acts for the family’s survival; ability to survive the immigration experience for the sake of the family; grit and determination in surviving the immigration process to provide a better life for children and family Personality characteristics that are admirable (e.g., funny, energetic, charismatic, strong, perseverance, self- empowerment, lovable, jovial, a listener) Political commitment to those less fortunate (e.g., “What I respect about my father is his connection to the common man”)

II. Positive ethical positionings Responsible human being; having a work ethic Succeeded educationally or supports education (e.g., “he is a thinker,” “I really admire someone who can teach me things”) Overcome personal obstacles and tragedies to become a better human being (e.g., having a brother murdered, experiences in Vietnam, alcoholism, family abuse, breaking the cycle of violence)

III. Rejection of hegemonic masculinity Exhibits the opposite of dominating characteristics (e.g., confident but not arrogant, humble, gentle, service to others, selfless, not loud or forceful, treats his mother like queen, loves wife, treats people with dignity, respect, and caring) Never saw a man the respondent admired

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

72 Beyond Machismo

States from their native countries to seek a better future for their families. As noted in the earlier discussion, 83 percent of the respondents were born in the United States (the remainder came to this country before the age of eleven); however, 80 percent of the respondents came from families in which at least one parent had immigrated to the United States.

Immigration experiences were often traumatic and fraught with diffi- culties. Family members explained that they endured these problems to provide a better future for families left behind in their native countries, as well as for future families they might establish in the United States. Israel García, a nineteen- year- old sophomore at the University of Colo- rado, Boulder, discussed extensively his father’s travails in coming to the United States from Mexico:

My father’s story, my father is my hero. And there’s no other way to go around it but saying it. He was the second oldest of eleven children. And his father was killed when he was twelve, murdered. . . . He dropped out of school in sixth grade and began to work so he could help his mother support the family. And when he was sixteen, he left the household because he felt himself more as a burden and that he could help her more by immigrating to the United States and getting a job here. So that’s what he did. . . . He was alone here in the states . . . when he was only sixteen.

Israel’s father went through a difficult time growing up with no family in this country. Eventually, he learned English and found refuge in a church where he ultimately became a pastor. He also became a “court in- terpreter, so he works in court alongside judges and lawyers. From a poor boy in Mexico to come to America and be able to accomplish that much, it’s hard to say anything but that he’s a strong man and that he persevered.”

Israel took inspiration from his father’s struggles and found his dedi- cation to his family admirable and worth emulating. His father’s Inter- sectional Identities as manifested in his gender, ethnicity, race, and class status, coupled with these immigration experiences, formed the core of Israel’s views on manhood.

Ethical Positionings

Respondents also expressed admiration for individuals who “did the right thing,” even when they were not obligated to do so. James Aranda,

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Toward New Masculinities 73

a twenty- seven- year- old master’s degree student in community and re- gional planning at the University of New Mexico, was born when his mother was sixteen. His father left soon thereafter. His maternal grand- father, whom he considers his father, raised him. James’s grandfather was committed to doing the right thing; he did the same for James’s cousins and other family members. James grew up regarding his cousins, uncles, and aunts as siblings because they had been raised together as a family. James responded in the following way when asked whom he admired as a man:

Definitely my pops; he’s taken . . . me and my brother [James’s uncle] and he didn’t have to . . . he’s done it with cousins who were in trouble and in and out of the criminal justice system, going to jail. He took them into his home just because—that’s his responsibility to his family. That’s what comes first—his family, his sisters, his brothers, his cousins, he takes care of business . . . he’ll drop everything right there for his family. I definitely say I admire him more than any other man.

The ethical commitment James’s grandfather felt toward his family was a source of guidance for James. James knew how selfless his (grand) father had to be in order to “do the right thing.” James also understood how unusual it was for individuals to exhibit such a high level of sacrifice. His grandfather’s ethical positionings were implicitly central to James’s definition of manhood.

Respondents also admired men who showed conviction and personal strength in overcoming seemingly impossible obstacles and personal tragedies. They mentioned such impediments as alcoholism, childhood abuse, and Vietnam. Joseph García, a thirty- three- year- old master’s de- gree student of Latin American studies at the University of New Mexico, stated that “someone he admired as a man” was his father, who, “having limited education, growing up in an abusive household, being forced to go to Vietnam—he could have come out a lot worse.” Instead, he felt his father had made a contribution to democracy by serving in Vietnam. Ac- cording to Joseph,

There’s all this patriotic discussion about democracy but in the history of this country it’s the people at the local level, at the very community level, that have done something to create positive change in actually doing something about what makes this country a true democracy; they are the heroes of this country. Those that have gone and fought wars that

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

74 Beyond Machismo

were initiated by white supremacists . . . utilizing people of Color to fight these wars as well as working class, poor people. As we see overwhelm- ingly, many of the frontline soldiers are people of Color and to come back recognizing the ideal . . . of what this country is about; and being able to make positive change and understanding one’s faults but under- standing also that one is a human being. The ability to enjoy life . . . no matter the pain, or the oppression they are under.

The commitment to country exhibited by Joseph’s father moved him to reflect on the nature of war and its inherent injustice in deploying the poor and people of Color to fight for rights that everyone enjoyed and only a small number paid to have those rights. He was moved by his father’s commitment and renewed his admiration for his father’s courage and patriotism.

Rejection of Hegemonic Masculinity

The direct contradiction of the definitions of machismo was another prominent theme in the list of admired characteristics enumerated by re- spondents. For example, Xavier Márquez, a twenty- five- year- old who had received his master’s degree in physical therapy at the University of New Mexico, explicitly stated that his father, the man he most admired, had always “given us everything we’ve needed” and “was always there, he never abandoned us.” But most important, his father was “good to my mom; he treats her like a queen, like whatever she wants or needs he’s going to give it to her before he gets something for himself. He knows how valuable my mom is; I think that’s definitely another mark of a man.”

Xavier’s father not only treated his wife with the utmost respect, he also bestowed similar esteem and love on other women in his family. Ac- cording to Xavier, his father had always wanted to go to college. However, his sister (Xavier’s aunt) also wished to go to college, so Xavier’s father resolved this conflict by sacrificing his own education and paying for his sister’s degree. As told by Xavier, “He always wanted to go to college, and his older sister wanted to go to college, too, so instead of him going, he worked so he could pay her tuition. She ended up becoming a teacher . . . that’s crazy for him to do that in the late sixties, early seventies.”

Respondents also looked to the men they admired for shaping a “new masculinity,” one that did not include harshness and domination. Respon- dents were still unsure what this new masculinity would look like, so they

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Toward New Masculinities 75

picked men whom they thought embodied a different brand of manhood. For example, the elementary school teacher Issaac, introduced earlier, stated that he was trying “to think politically” in selecting the man he admired most, but “it’s slim pickings lately, politically.” After some con- sideration, he picked “the coach of the Indianapolis Colts, Tony Dungy” because of “his presence, like he’s not a very loud forceful presence on the field.” Instead of forcefulness, the coach exhibited “a certain dignity about the way he interacts with his players and the media . . . his presence is strong and his character is strong even though it’s not necessarily through his voice.” The coach’s quiet strength appealed to Issaac: “I’ve been think- ing about my own teaching and working with young children. It’s like I struggle as a young teacher . . . learning how to work and collaborate and manage and facilitate with children.” For Issaac, teaching was the “big- gest struggle because it’s like I have all these great ideas but we can’t do anything if we can’t create a safe space for children to think and to learn.” Issaac was having difficulty embodying the middle ground where he could be authoritative but at the same time gentle so that his elementary school students could feel supported. For Issaac, “it’s hard as a male teacher, especially with young children, because you don’t have too many role models.” According to Issaac, of the thirty- six teachers he worked with,

there’s three [male teachers]; one of them is in his first year of teach- ing and there’s another one who I don’t perceive as a good model. So I look elsewhere—I look in sports or in reading Paulo Freire [a Brazilian scholar] that embodies some kind of critical liberation. . . . Where we build community and move people, not only ourselves but each other in a quiet way with strength. I think those are the kind of men that I admire or look toward [as examples].

Finally, one respondent claimed he had never met a man he admired because the concept of manhood was so reactionary that men should not be admired on that basis.

Changing Definitions, Changing Norms

As early as 1982, the Chicana sociologist Maxine Baca Zinn was calling for the study of Latino manhood to go beyond gender: “We must under- stand that while maleness is highly valued in our society, it interacts with other categorical distinctions in both manifestation and meaning” (1982,

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

76 Beyond Machismo

38). Furthermore, “it could be argued that energy expanded in refuting machismo may devote too much attention to the concept, and overlook whole areas of inquiry” (34). We have heeded Baca Zinn’s call to go be- yond gender by examining definitions of manhood using Intersectionality that considers Social Identities in addition to gender. The results indicate that Intersectionality is a fruitful approach because the respondents did indeed look beyond machismo and provide expanded definitions of man- hood for themselves and for the men they admired. The results are also consistent with Social Identity Theory and Intersectionality as the re- spondents are feminist- identified men and therefore question hegemonic definitions of manhood.

Privilege and Oppression in Respondents’ Social Identities

Tajfel’s (1981) theory of Social Identity predicts that when individuals become aware of the illegitimacy that privileged Social Identities afford them, they are more likely to modify the content of their Social Identities or even reject them. Indeed, the respondents in this study discarded the dimensions of manhood associated with machismo, such as the domina- tion of women, suppression of emotion, and rejection of intellectual en- deavors. Instead, they revised the definition of manhood to include such positive, nonsexist characteristics as collaboration, honesty, and gender equity. Their questioning of manhood went as far as to suggest the elimi- nation of the concept altogether, focusing instead on positive values and behaviors, such as providing financial and emotional family support. By highlighting the behavioral aspects of manhood, they show that individu- als who are not biologically men, such as women, or who are perceived as “failed” men, such as gay men, may still fulfill the requisites of manhood.

Furthermore, respondents also responded according to an Intersec- tional analysis: they acknowledged the disadvantages they and the admired men in their lives suffered because of their class background, race, and eth- nicity but simultaneously questioned their privileges as men. Respondents also acknowledged the advantages of being heterosexual. Heterosexually identified respondents explicitly stated that the concept of manhood had to be modified because of its oppressiveness toward and exclusion of gay sexualities. Respondents who identified as gay also acknowledged their additional disadvantage because of their sexuality, race, ethnicity, and class background while simultaneously recognizing their privileges be- cause of their gender.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Toward New Masculinities 77

In summary, the historical emphasis on the concept of machismo for studying Latino men’s gender identification has limited the inclusion of significant Social Identities that at times turn into Intersectional Identities that could facilitate a broader range of knowledge production. None of our 36 respondents identified the three dimensions of machismo as essen- tial to the definition of manhood. In identifying the men they admired in their lives, they focused primarily on their fathers and other family members. The reasons given for finding these men worthy of admiration were because they also did not conform to the three dimensions of the core attributes of machismo. Quite the opposite, respondents admired the men they mentioned because of their work ethic and commitment to sacrifice in the service of others, especially their children, so they could succeed in life.

The young Latinos who have come to identify as feminists may be out- lining new conceptions of manhood that go beyond machismo and that are aligned with other oppressed groups. They see themselves in alliance with women, the poor, gays, and other disadvantaged groups. Further- more, they view being a man as something to question and redefine, lead- ing to a possible new model for more equitable social arrangements.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. U

ni ve

rs ity

o f T

ex as

P re

ss . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed