Breaking Gender Roles for Latino Boys | Parents
Sketching out some feminist history of the terms provides a helpful starting point. ones and to talk about the latter, feminists appropriated the term 'gender'. . as strong, alert and coordinated and girls as tiny, soft and delicate. One way to address gender stereotyping in children's books has been to. Since all girls were attending a charter school for “at-risk” students located on the Latina Girls Speak Out: Stereotypes, Gender, and Relationship Dynamics. This special issue on Latina sexualities extends the critical conversations that unfolded and out of control. These stereotypes are commonly reflected in film, literature, and comprehend the lives of Latinas, but also that culture is indeed dynamic . ences, much work remains to be done in terms of teasing out how women.
Think back to what was said above: These gender cores, supposedly encoding the above traits, however, are nothing more than illusions created by ideals and practices that seek to render gender uniform through heterosexism, the view that heterosexuality is natural and homosexuality is deviant Butler Gender cores are constructed as if they somehow naturally belong to women and men thereby creating gender dimorphism or the belief that one must be either a masculine male or a feminine female.
But gender dimorphism only serves a heterosexist social order by implying that since women and men are sharply opposed, it is natural to sexually desire the opposite sex or gender. Further, being feminine and desiring men for instance are standardly assumed to be expressions of one's gender as a woman. Butler denies this and holds that gender is really performative.
Gender is not something one is, it is something one does; it is a sequence of acts, a doing rather than a being. Gender only comes into being through these gendering acts: This activity amongst others makes her gendered a woman.
Latina girls speak out: Stereotypes, gender and relationship dynamics
Our gendered classification scheme is a strong pragmatic construction: But, genders are true and real only to the extent that they are performed Butler—9. And ultimately the aim should be to abolish norms that compel people to act in these gendering ways.
For Butler, given that gender is performative, the appropriate response to feminist identity politics involves two things. Rather, feminists should focus on providing an account of how power functions and shapes our understandings of womanhood not only in the society at large but also within the feminist movement.
Many people, including many feminists, have ordinarily taken sex ascriptions to be solely a matter of biology with no social or cultural dimension. It is commonplace to think that there are only two sexes and that biological sex classifications are utterly unproblematic. By contrast, some feminists have argued that sex classifications are not unproblematic and that they are not solely a matter of biology.
In order to make sense of this, it is helpful to distinguish object- and idea-construction see Haslanger b for more: First, take the object-construction of sexed bodies. Secondary sex characteristics, or the physiological and biological features commonly associated with males and females, are affected by social practices. In some societies, females' lower social status has meant that they have been fed less and so, the lack of nutrition has had the effect of making them smaller in size Jaggar Uniformity in muscular shape, size and strength within sex categories is not caused entirely by biological factors, but depends heavily on exercise opportunities: A number of medical phenomena involving bones like osteoporosis have social causes directly related to expectations about gender, women's diet and their exercise opportunities Fausto-Sterling These examples suggest that physiological features thought to be sex-specific traits not affected by social and cultural factors are, after all, to some extent products of social conditioning.
Social conditioning, then, shapes our biology. Second, take the idea-construction of sex concepts.
Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender
Our concept of sex is said to be a product of social forces in the sense that what counts as sex is shaped by social meanings. This understanding is fairly recent.
Females' genitals were thought to be the same as males' but simply directed inside the body; ovaries and testes for instance were referred to by the same term and whether the term referred to the former or the latter was made clear by the context Laqueur4. For an alternative view, see King She estimates that 1. In her earlier work, she claimed that intersexed individuals make up at least three further sex classes: In her [a], Fausto-Sterling notes that these labels were put forward tongue—in—cheek.
Recognition of intersexes suggests that feminists and society at large are wrong to think that humans are either female or male. However, she was discovered to have XY chromosomes and was barred from competing in women's sports Fausto-Sterling b, 1—3. Deciding what sex is involves evaluative judgements that are influenced by social factors.
Insofar as our cultural conceptions affect our understandings of sex, feminists must be much more careful about sex classifications and rethink what sex amounts to Stonechapter 1. More specifically, intersexed people illustrate that sex traits associated with females and males need not always go together and that individuals can have some mixture of these traits.
This suggest to Stone that sex is a cluster concept: But, one need not satisfy all of those features or some arbitrarily chosen supposedly necessary sex feature, like chromosomes Stone This makes sex a matter of degree and sex classifications should take place on a spectrum: Further, intersexes along with trans people are located at the centre of the sex spectrum and in many cases their sex will be indeterminate Stone More recently, Ayala and Vasilyeva have argued for an inclusive and extended conception of sex: This view aims to motivate the idea that what counts as sex should not be determined by looking inwards at genitalia or other anatomical features.
In addition to arguing against identity politics and for gender performativity, Butler holds that distinguishing biological sex from social gender is unintelligible.
For her, both are socially constructed: Antony ; Gatens ; Grosz ; Prokhovnik Butler makes two different claims in the passage cited: To unpack her view, consider the two claims in turn. Prima facie, this implausibly implies that female and male bodies do not have independent existence and that if gendering activities ceased, so would physical bodies. This is not Butler's claim; rather, her position is that bodies viewed as the material foundations on which gender is constructed, are themselves constructed as if they provide such material foundations Butler For Butler, sexed bodies never exist outside social meanings and how we understand gender shapes how we understand sex Sexed bodies are not empty matter on which gender is constructed and sex categories are not picked out on the basis of objective features of the world.
Instead, our sexed bodies are themselves discursively constructed: Sex assignment calling someone female or male is normative Butler1. In fact, the doctor is performing an illocutionary speech act see the entry on Speech Acts. In effect, the doctor's utterance makes infants into girls or boys.
We, then, engage in activities that make it seem as if sexes naturally come in two and that being female or male is an objective feature of the world, rather than being a consequence of certain constitutive acts that is, rather than being performative. And this is what Butler means in saying that physical bodies never exist outside cultural and social meanings, and that sex is as socially constructed as gender.
She does not deny that physical bodies exist. But, she takes our understanding of this existence to be a product of social conditioning: For a helpful introduction to Butler's views, see Salih For Butler, sex assignment is always in some sense oppressive.
Again, this appears to be because of Butler's general suspicion of classification: Conducting a feminist genealogy of the body or examining why sexed bodies are thought to come naturally as female and malethen, should ground feminist practice Butler28—9.
Doing so enables feminists to identity how sexed bodies are socially constructed in order to resist such construction. Stone takes this to mean that sex is gender but goes on to question it arguing that the social construction of both sex and gender does not make sex identical to gender.
According to Stone, it would be more accurate for Butler to say that claims about sex imply gender norms. To some extent the claim describes certain facts.
But, it also implies that females are not expected to do much heavy lifting and that they would probably not be good at it. So, claims about sex are not identical to claims about gender; rather, they imply claims about gender norms Stone For a start, it is thought to reflect politically problematic dualistic thinking that undercuts feminist aims: Grosz ; Prokhovnik The thought is that in oppositions like these, one term is always superior to the other and that the devalued term is usually associated with women Lloyd For instance, human subjectivity and agency are identified with the mind but since women are usually identified with their bodies, they are devalued as human subjects and agents.
This is said to be evident for instance in job interviews. Men are treated as gender-neutral persons and not asked whether they are planning to take time off to have a family.
By contrast, that women face such queries illustrates that they are associated more closely than men with bodily features to do with procreation Prokhovnik The opposition between mind and body, then, is thought to map onto the opposition between men and women. The idea is that gender maps onto mind, sex onto body. That is, the s distinction understood sex as fixed by biology without any cultural or historical dimensions. This understanding, however, ignores lived experiences and embodiment as aspects of womanhood and manhood by separating sex from gender and insisting that womanhood is to do with the latter.
Rather, embodiment must be included in one's theory that tries to figure out what it is to be a woman or a man. First, claiming that gender is socially constructed implies that the existence of women and men is a mind-dependent matter.
“At-Risk” Latina Girls Speak Out: Traditional Gender Roles, Sexuality, and Relationship Dynamics
This suggests that we can do away with women and men simply by altering some social practices, conventions or conditions on which gender depends whatever those are.
However, ordinary social agents find this unintuitive given that ordinarily sex and gender are not distinguished. Second, claiming that gender is a product of oppressive social forces suggests that doing away with women and men should be feminism's political goal. But this harbours ontologically undesirable commitments since many ordinary social agents view their gender to be a source of positive value.
So, feminism seems to want to do away with something that should not be done away with, which is unlikely to motivate social agents to act in ways that aim at gender justice.
Given these problems, Mikkola argues that feminists should give up the distinction on practical political grounds. Feminism is the movement to end the oppression women as a group face. But, how should the category of women be understood if feminists accept the above arguments that gender construction is not uniform, that a sharp distinction between biological sex and social gender is false or at least not useful, and that various features associated with women play a role in what it is to be a woman, none of which are individually necessary and jointly sufficient like a variety of social roles, positions, behaviours, traits, bodily features and experiences?
Feminists must be able to address cultural and social differences in gender construction if feminism is to be a genuinely inclusive movement and be careful not to posit commonalities that mask important ways in which women qua women differ. These concerns among others have generated a situation where as Linda Alcoff puts it feminists aim to speak and make political demands in the name of women, at the same time rejecting the idea that there is a unified category of women If feminist critiques of the category women are successful, then what if anything binds women together, what is it to be a woman, and what kinds of demands can feminists make on behalf of women?
Many have found the fragmentation of the category of women problematic for political reasons e. For instance, Young holds that accounts like Spelman's reduce the category of women to a gerrymandered collection of individuals with nothing to bind them together Black women differ from white women but members of both groups also differ from one another with respect to nationality, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation and economic position; that is, wealthy white women differ from working-class white women due to their economic and class positions.
These sub-groups are themselves diverse: So if we accept Spelman's position, we risk ending up with individual women and nothing to bind them together. And this is problematic: Some, then, take the articulation of an inclusive category of women to be the prerequisite for effective feminist politics and a rich literature has emerged that aims to conceptualise women as a group or a collective e.
Articulations of this category can be divided into those that are: Below we will review some influential gender nominalist and gender realist positions. Before doing so, it is worth noting that not everyone is convinced that attempts to articulate an inclusive category of women can succeed or that worries about what it is to be a woman are in need of being resolved. Instead, Mikkola argues for giving up the quest, which in any case she argues poses no serious political obstacles.
In order to make the category women intelligible, she argues that women make up a series: Young holds that women are not bound together by a shared feature or experience or set of features and experiences since she takes Spelman's particularity argument to have established definitely that no such feature exists13; see also: Frye ; Heyes Instead, women's category is unified by certain practico-inert realities or the ways in which women's lives and their actions are oriented around certain objects and everyday realities Young23—4.
For example, bus commuters make up a series unified through their individual actions being organised around the same practico-inert objects of the bus and the practice of public transport.
Women make up a series unified through women's lives and actions being organised around certain practico-inert objects and realities that position them as women. Young identifies two broad groups of such practico-inert objects and realities. First, phenomena associated with female bodies physical factsbiological processes that take place in female bodies menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth and social rules associated with these biological processes social rules of menstruation, for instance.
Second, gender-coded objects and practices: So, women make up a series since their lives and actions are organised around female bodies and certain gender-coded objects. Although Young's proposal purports to be a response to Spelman's worries, Stone has questioned whether it is, after all, susceptible to the particularity argument: Stoljar too is persuaded by the thought that women qua women do not share anything unitary. This prompts her to argue for resemblance nominalism.
This is the view that a certain kind of resemblance relation holds between entities of a particular type for more on resemblance nominalism, see Armstrong39— Stoljar relies more on Price's resemblance nominalism whereby x is a member of some type F only if x resembles some paradigm or exemplar of F sufficiently closely Price For instance, the type of red entities is unified by some chosen red paradigms so that only those entities that sufficiently resemble the paradigms count as red.
The type or category of women, then, is unified by some chosen woman paradigms so that those who sufficiently resemble the woman paradigms count as women Stoljar Semantic considerations about the concept woman suggest to Stoljar that resemblance nominalism should be endorsed Stoljar It seems unlikely that the concept is applied on the basis of some single social feature all and only women possess.
More specifically, they pick out the following clusters of features: For Stoljar, attributions of womanhood are to do with a variety of traits and experiences: Nonetheless, she holds that since the concept woman applies to at least some MTF trans persons, one can be a woman without being female Stoljar The cluster concept woman does not, however, straightforwardly provide the criterion for picking out the category of women.
Rather, the four clusters of features that the concept picks out help single out woman paradigms that in turn help single out the category of women. First, any individual who possesses a feature from at least three of the four clusters mentioned will count as an exemplar of the category. That is, what delimits membership in the category of women is that one resembles sufficiently a woman paradigm.
More specifically, Haslanger argues that gender is a matter of occupying either a subordinate or a privileged social position. In some articles, Haslanger is arguing for a revisionary analysis of the concept woman b; a; b. Elsewhere she suggests that her analysis may not be that revisionary after all ; Consider the former argument first.
Haslanger's analysis is, in her terms, ameliorative: In particular, they need gender terms to identify, explain and talk about persistent social inequalities between males and females. Haslanger's analysis of gender begins with the recognition that females and males differ in two respects: And this generates persistent sexist injustices. With this in mind, Haslanger specifies how she understands genders: S is a woman iff [by definition] S is systematically subordinated along some dimension economic, political, legal, social, etc.
S is a man iff [by definition] S is systematically privileged along some dimension economic, political, legal, social, etc. Haslanger's ameliorative analysis is counterintuitive in that females who are not sex-marked for oppression, do not count as women. At least arguably, the Queen of England is not oppressed on sex-marked grounds and so, would not count as a woman on Haslanger's definition. And, similarly, all males who are not privileged would not count as men. This might suggest that Haslanger's analysis should be rejected in that it does not capture what language users have in mind when applying gender terms.
However, Haslanger argues that this is not a reason to reject the definitions, which she takes to be revisionary: In response, Mikkola has argued that revisionary analyses of gender concepts, like Haslanger's, are both politically unhelpful and philosophically unnecessary. Note also that Haslanger's proposal is eliminativist: If sexist oppression were to cease, women and men would no longer exist although there would still be males and females.
Not all feminists endorse such an eliminativist view though. Stone holds that Haslanger does not leave any room for positively revaluing what it is to be a woman: StoneBut according to Stone this is not only undesirable — one should be able to challenge subordination without having to challenge one's status as a woman. It is also false: Feminism faces the following worries among others: He thus proposes that women make up a natural kind with a historical essence: In order to exemplify this relational property, an individual must be a reproduction of ancestral women, in which case she must have undergone the ontogenetic processes through which a historical gender system replicates women.
BachIn short, one is not a woman due to shared surface properties with other women like occupying a subordinate social position. Rather, one is a woman because one has the right history: More worryingly, trans women will count as men contrary to their self-identification.
Both Bettcher and Jenkins consider the importance of gender self-identification. Rather than trans women having to defend their self-identifying claims, these claims should be taken at face value right from the start. In addition to her revisionary argument, Haslanger has suggested that her ameliorative analysis of woman may not be as revisionary as it first seems Although successful in their reference fixing, ordinary language users do not always know precisely what they are talking about.
Although her gender terminology is not intuitive, this could simply be because oppressive ideologies mislead us about the meanings of our gender terms. Our everyday gender terminology might mean something utterly different from what we think it means; and we could be entirely ignorant of this.
Perhaps Haslanger's analysis, then, has captured our everyday gender vocabulary revealing to us the terms that we actually employ: If this is so, Haslanger's gender terminology is not radically revisionist. This would require showing that the gender terminology we in fact employ is Haslanger's proposed gender terminology. But discovering the grounds on which we apply everyday gender terms is extremely difficult precisely because they are applied in various and idiosyncratic ways Saul Haslanger, then, needs to do more in order to show that her analysis is non-revisionary.
Her motivation and starting point is the following: Uniessentialism attempts to understand and articulate this. However, Witt's work departs in important respects from the earlier so-called essentialist or gender realist positions discussed in Section 2: Witt does not posit some essential property of womanhood of the kind discussed above, which failed to take women's differences into account.
Further, uniessentialism differs significantly from those position developed in response to the problem of how we should conceive of women's social kind. It is not about solving the standard dispute between gender nominalists and gender realists, or about articulating some supposedly shared property that binds women together and provides a theoretical ground for feminist political solidarity.
Rather, uniessentialism aims to make good the widely held belief that gender is constitutive of who we are. Traditionally philosophers distinguish between kind and individual essentialisms: Negative depictions of machismo in popular literature[ edit ] Throughout popular literature, the term has continued to be associated with negative characteristics, such as sexismmisogynychauvinismhypermasculinityand hegemonic masculinity.
Authors from a various disciplines typified macho men as domineering through intimidation, seducing and controlling women and children through violence and intimidation. In the play and film adaptationStanley epitomizes the tough, alpha-male hypermasculine archetypesocially and physically dominating and imposing his will upon his wife and her sister, Blanche Dubois.
Bound up with Stanley's aggressive and occasionally misogynistic views is a strong sense of pride and honor which leads to his hatred of Blanche. In the play A View from the Bridge by Arthur Millerone of the main characters, Eddie, is a classic type who displays machismo. He wants to be the best of the men around him and when beaten, becomes very agitated and increasingly irrational. The negative stereotypes depicted in American literature are not representative of all the different layers of machismo.
Some societies and academics place traditional gender roles social norms for certain communities, while admiration or convention for others as the most important component of machismo. The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. March Learn how and when to remove this template message Machismo has been influenced and supported by many different factors. The Catholic religion plays a vital role to many within the Spanish community.
For this reason the male dominated world that is often referenced in the Bible is seen among the people. Examples can be found throughout the Bible showing how women should be submissive to their husbands: Chile[ edit ] This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. March Learn how and when to remove this template message The revolution of copper mining sets the tone of traditional masculinity.
Women's presence in social settings is not prominent, so men's dominance and inevitable homosocial interactions create kinship and brotherhood. Exploitation of masculinity through the context of miners is prominent and embodied by Chilean males. The Nahuatl dictionary also states that the word macho means "enlightened one", or "one who had been made to learn".
Puerto Rican machismo and American cultural influences of gender equality. S Puerto Rico tends to take on the same progressive movements as U. In regards to equality and what separates men and women, gender roles determine what is socially acceptable in different geographical areas.
In Puerto Rico the machismo culture has or had a strong presence. Men were to work outside the home, manage the finances, and make the decisions. Women were to be subordinate to their husbands and be the homemakers. Women would often would have to be dependent on men for everything. Growing up boys are taught to the machismo code girls are taught the marianismo code. Machismo is a term originating in the early s and 40s best defined as having masculinity and Pride. Machismo is a factor challenged among different groups due to how an ideal man is expected to be portrayed which builds pressure.
Mentally men may feel the need to take up more opportunities to meet expectations, such as supporting the home, or maintaining employment leading to stress. This may also take a toll as physically well straining to be strong and overexerting the body, or the opposite of putting on weight by not having the desired physique and feeling inferior.
This is further expressed through Puerto Ricans Americans outside the island. While Puerto Ricans may be motivated by the progressive of the mainland they base their movements off of their situations in Puerto Rico. Beginning in the s the employment rate for women began to rise as the employment rate fell due to the island's industrialization. Also, during the s to s the field of the white collar women emerged furthering the rise in women employment.
However, women were not released from their homemaker duties because they had a job. In fact, women were now expected to contribute to the household's finances and be the homemaker. This caused a shift in what was acceptable in households. Men used to be able to come and go as they pleased as the women were dependent on them, however, after contributing to the household, acquiring more education, and being the homemaker women became more independent and conscious.
They no longer tolerated unfaithful men, controlling men, and violent men. This caused great inner conflict with the idea of the machismo culture. Young Puerto Rican women are expected to stay at home reproductively, as well as for the cultural reasons of productively being at home. There are rules made by Latin families that young women should not be influenced by the dangers of outside, for the portrayal of young women to be sexualized or vulnerable.
They are raised with these strict rules because some women experience pregnancy at a young age, and are not familiar to care for both themselves nor the responsibilities of a new child. Young women may even lack support from their own household families, and are blamed for not being properly educated.
Puerto Rican families influenced by American culture; may express to bend traditional rules. These families do what they believe is best for their family, and further educate about sexual education and learn while virginity is valued until marriage. Puerto Rico is known for its strong Christian community along with having a smaller Jewish and Muslim community as well. Due to changing times and influence from America the LGBTQ has been a strong movement for equality, which in Puerto Rico has not always been accepted; and even harmed in the process due to difference.
A new term to differentiate gender is Latinx, and Latine a variant used to pronounce easily throughout Latin America is a gender neutral form of addressing someone compared to the familiar male Latino or female Latina. Minorities are treated differently in Puerto Rico despite the blending of three races. Puerto Ricans face racism amongst themselves in their community and at work solely based on their color of their skin.
People with even the slightest pigment were not considered white, and segregation exist within the island; where minorities may live in different regions of the island with others of color.
When the Spanish came, their use of the word macho was strictly masculine. Therefore, after the Spanish invasion a new word, idea and concept was born: It was always a positive term.
Therefore, in Mexico, the use of the word macho may provoke confusion if it is not used precisely or in context. Machismo comes from the assertion of male dominance in everyday life. Examples of this would be men dominating their wives, controlling their children, and demanding the utmost respect from others in the household.
Machismo has become deeply woven in Cuban society and have created barriers for women to reach full equality. The reason for this is the patriarchy that runs high in Cuban society. Cuba's patriarchal society stems from the fact that Spain has had a history of using brutal war tactics and humiliation as a means to keep and establish their power.
Tomas de Torquemada, who ruled as a grand inquisitor under King Ferdinand and Queen Elizabeth of Spainused degrading and humiliating forms of torture to get information out of prisoners. Men like Torquemada create the domino effect throughout history of repressive and toxic masculinity that has plagued Cuban society. Machismo is also a modernized ideology from Islamic and African cultures of structured hierarchy of only male chief, sub-chiefs. Grajales was the embodiment of male power and dominance.
Due to the long list of past male Cuban leaders like Fidel Castro. Even though he represented a revolution, he was still a powerful and dominating man who ruled over the people.