The Myth of Equality: Perspectives on, Experiences with, and Practices of Machismo in a Private Guatemalan High School

The Myth of Equality:

Perspectives on, Experiences with, and Practices of

Machismo in a Private Guatemalan High School

Sveva van den Berg 12295620 MSc thesis

International Development Studies

Graduate School of Social Sciences Universiteit van Amsterdam

Supervisor:

Dr. Julienne Weegels

Second reader:

2

Abstract

Of all Latin-American countries, Guatemala only leaves Belize behind in the Gender Gap Index of 2018, demonstrating the severe gender-based disparities (World Economic Forum, 2018). Yet while some studies show that the dominant gender norms in Guatemala are still strongly defined by machismo, others argue that machismo as a traditional system might be becoming less influential in defining masculinity (Gibbons, 2015). Therefore, I decided to research the way young adolescents interact with these dominant gender norms. To this date, no research regarding machismo and masculinity has been conducted with Guatemala’s higher economic class. To examine the notion that machismo is for the ‘underdeveloped’ or the poor, this research was conducted at a prestigious private high school in Guatemala City. Besides the regular education for students from affluent families, this school welcomes students from lower economic classes in the afternoon. My research focused on students from both economic classes. Researching the influence of the intersections gender and economic class on adolescents’ perspectives on, experiences with, and practices of machismo, I conducted participatory focus group discussions, interviews with students and their mentors, and executed participatory observations for a period of two months as a teacher assistant in English classes. I found that in general, only subordinate individuals recognize the structures that oppress them, while those with privilege are (willfully) blind to their own privilege. The participants of this research defined machismo as the superiority of men in society and there is a high awareness of the negative connotation of the concept. Consequently, students and employees do not want to be associated with it and hence adopt a more socially accepted discourse that denies the existence of machismo. This discourse forms an explanatory framework that ignores own practices of machismo. Performances of (micro-)machismo at the school however proves this discourse to be a myth of equality. Hereby, my research contradicts the notion that machismo is for the poor, rural or uneducated (Ramirez, 2008; Pine, 2008) as it is also practiced at a prestigious private school.

3

Acknowledgements

Firstly, I would like to thank the direction and the research department of Colegio San Ignacio for welcoming me at the school and for the opportunity to do a critical independent research. I am very grateful for all the practical help I got during my time at the school and for all the effort during COVID-19 lock-down measures to continue my research. I furthermore want to thank all students, mentors, and teachers for participating in my research and for making me feel welcome at the school the minute I walked in.

I also deeply want to thank my supervisor Dr. Julienne Weegels for her continuous and critical feedback, her suggestions to improve my research and text, and the time she spent thinking with me and guiding me through all steps in the research and writing process.

I furthermore thank Jorge A. Elgueta for his time and effort in translating all my audios in perfect English transcripts. Without him, much data would have been lost. The comments you wrote helped me to get a deeper understanding of cultural nuances and contextual meanings.

Finally, a great thank you goes to Isabela Sagastuy Linares, who made this research possible by introducing me to the school. You were my local supervisor, ‘gatekeeper’, critical partner, occasional translator, my roommate, but above all my friend. Thank you and your family for your generosity during my time in Guatemala.

4

Table of contents

3. Research context and methodology ... 15

4. Discourse and practices at school ... 26

5. Students’ perspectives on masculinity ... 36

6. Experiences and practices of machismo ... 48

7. Conclusions ... 58

Appendices ... 62

5

List of figures

Figure 1: Conceptual model. ... 13

Figure 2: Operationalization table... 14

Figure 3: Visualization of the Guatemalan education system. ... 16

Figure 4: Photos of the two men after the focus group discussions. ... 20

Figure 5: Focus group discussion participants. ... 36

Figure 5: Visualization of the stereotypical man as defined by all students. ... 38

Figure 6: Visualization of the ideal man as defined by all students. ... 39

Figure 7: Similar characteristics of Guatemalan men mentioned across intersections. ... 40

6

1. Introduction

“To them [boys] ignoring feelings means they are above everyone else, because if they express their feelings, they lower themselves to the level of girls, and they do not want that.”

“Asking for a fight or challenging someone for a fight after school is also machismo. It is like saying you can only prove you are a man by fighting, because there is this idea that men fight. If a man does not fight and does not wanna hurt anyone, they say he is a girl because us girls are delicate and sweet, but men are tougher.”

Female student, 13 years old

Many Latin-American societies are characterized by machismo (Boyle, 2018; Festa & Shirazian, 2018; Contreras Similox, 2018). Lancaster (1992) defines machismo as a “field of productive relations” that structures “relations between men, women, and children […] in certain standard ways” (p. 20). Machismo is often associated with hypermasculinity (Fragoso & Kashubeck, 2000), possessiveness over women and aggression (García, 2013), abuse (Boyle, 2018), and violence and incompetence of men to disclose emotions (Gibbons & Luna, 2015). In the opening quotes one of my participants confirms and illustrates these associations. She describes certain societal expectations of boys and girls and argues how men and boys generally consider themselves higher in the social hierarchy than women and girls. This research sought to examine the influence of the intersections gender and economic class on adolescents’ perspectives on, experiences with, and practices of machismo at a prestigious private high school in Guatemala City.

While some studies indeed show that the dominant gender norms in Guatemala are defined by machismo (e.g. Festa & Shirazian, 2018) and that this perpetuates gender inequalities (Beasley, 2019), others argue that machismo as a traditional system might be becoming less influential in defining masculinity (Gibbson, 2015). For instance, research by the Pan American Social Marketing Organization (PASMO, 2007) in Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Panama revealed that 18 to 40-year-old men look up to responsible, honest, hard-working, and loyal men who take care of their life. It is therefore argued that “traditional machismo may be losing strength as the central organizing concept for true manhood” (Gibbons & Luna, 2015: 12). In contrast, Castañeda (2002) argues that machismo is not fading away but is only becoming less visible.

7

More recently, Salazar and Anton (2018) analyzed the attachment of Guatemalan adolescents in a public school to the societal dominant masculinity. Questionnaires demonstrated that adolescents reproduce and reflect dominant societal gender norms regarding masculinity. This gives an insight into perspectives on masculinity but does not elaborate on the way students experience these dominant gender norms. Salazar and Anton recommended further research to focus on this area and to include not only men or boys but also women and girls. I did precisely this.

My research took place at a prestigious private high school in Guatemala City. This school does not yet have any specific policies on gender equality, and they noted to lack information on the ways machismo manifests within the school. Aside from an academic need, there is then also a practical need to understand the way machismo works ‘on the ground’ in order to make adequate school policies. Thus far, however, most research regarding masculinity in Guatemala has focused on adults or adolescents of lower economic classes and/or at public schools, often following the notion that machismo is for the ‘underdeveloped’ or the poor (Ramirez, 2008). A private school environment provides insights into gender norms, including practices of and ideas on masculinity, of individuals in higher economic classes. To my knowledge, no research has targeted pupils of a higher economic class to date. This lack of attention for the experiences of machismo among adolescents and the influence of economic class on these is both the societal and academic research gap that my thesis seeks to fill. As such, this thesis seeks to answer the central question: How is machismo articulated at a private

Guatemalan high school, and how do teenage boys and girls relate to it?

This thesis begins with a theoretical framework, which encompasses three key concepts central to this research: machismo, (hegemonic) masculinity, and the intersectional approach. A description of the research context follows. Thereafter, I reflect on my methodological choices and my positionality. Subsequently, three empirical chapters follow. They elaborate on 1) the way mentors view machismo in society and their work and how machismo is dealt with at the school, 2) students’ expectations of and perspectives on masculinity, and 3) their experiences and practices of machismo within and outside the school. Finally, conclusions are drawn and discussed. The main finding that arises from this research is that machismo is constantly linked to the poor, underdeveloped, and uneducated. Hence, an explanatory framework is created and adopted as a façade to hide the practices of machismo of ‘the wealthy’ at the school. This way, a critical view on own practices of machismo is discouraged. Finally, gendered, societal inequalities between economic classes are structurally perpetuated at the school.

8

2. Theoretical framework

As noted, machismo is defined as a relational system that determines relations between individuals in standard ways that imply inequalities between and among the genders (Lancaster, 1992). Using this definition, machismo is a gender system that defines how men relate to women but also how men relate to men and how women relate to women. Thus, all relations between individuals are influenced by these societal gender norms (Castañeda, 2002). On the level of perception, “machismo consists of shifting images of a dominant ideal of manhood and gives shape to the power relations” (Stobbe, 2005: 110). Machismo and power are thus heavily intertwined.

There are, however, other academic perspectives on what machismo means. Basham (1976) defines machismo as “the cult of the male” (p. 127). He describes the machista man as “a man who knows more than he tells, who conquers and who, above all, never evinces fear” and who only “may express his inner convictions by resorting to physical force” (Basham, 1976: 127). By rather explicitly defining what the traits of a machista man are, this forms a static perspective on machismo. A critique on such a view on machismo comes from Martini (2002). He argues that the use of machismo as a concept contributes to the reification and essentialization of the topic by labeling men as machista without recognizing ambiguities within them which thus denies that their identities are more than merely a stereotype. Like Castañeda (2002) and Lancaster (1992), he calls for a more multidimensional approach to machismo. A relational and multidimensional approach to machismo allows the concept to be adaptable to other social structures. Seeing machismo as dynamic, rather than static, acknowledges its more invisible side. This allows the examination of whether machismo is disappearing or, as Castañeda (2002) argues, it is becoming less visible.

Méndez (1996) introduces micro-machismo as the most subtle expression of the gender system. He defines micro-machismo as the almost invisible practice of male domination and violence, consisting of a wide range of interpersonal maneuvers, such as jokes, that prioritize masculine behavior in everyday life. Stobbe (2005) argues that machismo is internalized to a degree that it “structures power processes quite implicitly” (p. 111). This internalization process is different for everybody and hence, there are many ways of reproducing and reshaping machismo, active or unconscious. Micro-machismos are one form of this. Mendéz (1996) classifies micro-machismo as the ‘secret weapon’ of men to maintain power when straightforward machismo is less accepted in society. It is a powerful instrument to reinforce the social order as it pretends to be ‘natural’ while it is based on tradition. This takes place both in private and public spheres (Montes-López & Groves, 2019). Micro-machismos have “devastating” (Méndez, 1996: 5) effects when repeated. They are often not recognized by neither men nor women (Apablaza, Saldaño & Barahona, 2016). However, micro-machismos are most challenging to detect for men because of three reasons: 1) it requires them to critically asses the way they

9

dominate women, 2) it needs questioning of their own identity, and 3) it demands them to reveal the ‘secret weapon’ for which they can be seen as a betrayer. For men, Méndez (1996) argues, it is easier to point to other men that are visibly machista instead of looking at their own, subtle expressions of machismo. In sum, micro-machismo is machismo in a new wrapping (Apablaza et al., 2016). People are (becoming) aware of the negative connotation attached to machismo and thus deny being machista, while their language and actions are still noticeably defined by the gender system (Castañeda, 2002). When words and actions are considered as separate entities, both the discursive and performative level of machismo can be investigated.

Méndez’s description of micro-machismo specifically considers men as executors. However, machismo can arguably only exist if the whole society is familiarized with these gender norms (Castañeda, 2002). This way, also women can perform (micro-)machismo and men can be victims of it, in particular those who might be considered ‘lesser’ men. This side of machismo receives little attention in academic literature. Machismo punishes everything feminine, resulting in (among other things) a reluctance of men to cry (Contreras Similox, 2018) or to disclose emotions with one another (Fragoso & Kashubeck, 2000). In Guatemala, a man is seen as tough and as someone who cannot express his emotions (Contreras Similox, 2018). When men do show their emotions, they may be “ridiculed by peers and others in the community as being ‘sissies’ or not ‘real men’; in this way, societal expectations may restrict their ability to see themselves as caring, non-violent and responsible partners” (Ricardo, Nascimento, Fonseca & Segundo, 2010: 3). The inability of men to disclose their emotions can cause domestic violence (Gibbons & Luna, 2015), depression (Fragoso & Kashubeck, 2000), and addiction (Contreras Similox, 2018). The relational definition of machismo used in this thesis allows to see all power disparities and includes everyone in society in the (potential) reinforcement of machismo – men and women alike.

In a society where machismo prevails, men constantly compete with one another in the hierarchy of masculinity. If they fail to show their masculinity, they are considered ‘less of a man’ (Ricardo et al., 2010). Masculinity can be defined in many ways. Gutmann (1997) identifies four ways in which masculinity can be conceptualized. Firstly, it can be seen as “anything that men think and do” (Gutmann, 1997: 386). The second trend is similar but differs from the first by stating that masculinity is “anything that men think and do to be man” [emphasis added] (Gutmann, 1997: 386). The third view on masculinity argues that, either naturally or by description of others, some men are considered “more manly” than other men (Gutmann, 1997: 386). The final perception considers masculinity as the opposite of femininity. A definition by Connell (1995) combines different aspects of Gutmann’s four trends by stating that masculinity is “a configuration of practice around the position of men in the

10

structure of gender relations” (para. 9). This definition highlights the actions of people, the social relations and bodies that define them, and the large-scale structures that revolve around them.

The development of masculinity begins early in life and often takes place unconsciously (Salazar & Anton, 2018). This gender socialization is said to be influenced by stereotypes, ideologies, and “parental attitudes, beliefs, and imposition of rules” (Gibbons & Luna, 2015: 8). Additionally, language, values, and actions and behaviors of peers are important factors in defining masculinities (Salazar & Anton, 2018). Research in Central-America indicated three similarities between men that promote gender equal forms of masculinity, showing 1) they were all part of an alternative male peer group in which gender equal behavior was promoted, 2) they all had negative experiences with traditional notions of manhood (e.g. their father left them), and 3) they all had a role model that broke with stereotypical gender roles (Ricardo et al., 2010). This shows the importance of peers, family, and role models in the socialization of gender equal masculinity. Furthermore, schools (Connell, 2001), mass media, and employers are defined as important (f)actors that pressure boys to behave conform masculine roles (Connell, 1995). Boys internalize the norms they see and are taught and reproduce them.

Connell (1995) however argues that this “conventional story” is “drastically incomplete” (para. 14). She states that this line of thinking ignores the agency of boys and that it overlooks the individual process in which masculinity is formed. Most importantly, she disagrees with the idea that all boys and men are socialized into one single form of masculinity (Connell, 1995). She therefore calls for the recognition of the diversity in masculinities and femininities. Hence, she talks of masculinities instead of masculinity. With this, she breaks with homogenous ideas of masculinity (Gutmann, 1997) and understanding masculinity to be plural “has enabled an understanding of male identities that are both historically led and locally determined through the control and regulation of contextually normative meanings” (Haywood & Mac an Ghaill, 2012: 579). Moreover, it enables to examine the relations between masculinities and femininities (Batres, Ortiz & Chivalán, 2011). Seeing the diversity in masculinities allows this research to examine the heterogeneity of Guatemalan men and the cultural interpretation of the dominant ideal of masculinity.

Connell argues that one form of masculinity is dominant over other masculinities and femininities. This dominant masculinity is the hegemonic masculinity. More specifically, the hegemonic masculinity can be defined as the general structure of practices that embody the contemporary preferred response to legitimize patriarchy, which guarantees men’s dominant position and women’s subordinate position in society (Connell, 1997). However, due to the advantages that the hegemonic masculinity brings to those in it, the dominant position is constantly challenged (Connell, 1995). The interpretation and execution of hegemonic masculinity depend on the cultural context. This implies that there is no fixed character for the hegemonic man and that this differs across place and time (Connell, 1997). In the

11

Latin-American context, machismo can be defined as the set of hegemonic masculinities that are inherently connected to manhood and power (Stobbe, 2005).

Hegemonic masculinity can only prevail in relation to subordinate masculinities and femininities and thus is always surrounded by other masculinities (Connell, 1995). These forms of subordinate masculinities are also locally defined and may be subordinate in one specific context but hegemonic in another (Haywood & Mac an Ghaill, 2012). However, in general femininities tend to be considered subordinate to masculinities (Ortiz-Hernández & Granados-Cosme, 2005). This is apparent in the way that boys are taught be strong and to never show their emotions in order to avoid being judged as a girl, who represents weakness, and thus potentially homosexuality (Salazar & Anton, 2018).

While generally men are the ones that benefit from the hegemonic masculinity, not all men gain equally. Specific groups of men are excluded from the privileges that come with the hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995). This hierarchy of masculinities and femininities is not natural but actively disciplined (by both men and women), often through the subordination of ‘lesser’ men (Salazar & Anton, 2018). Hegemonic masculinity enforces its domination by “physicality and muscularity, aggression and violence, misogyny, homophobia and heterosexuality” (Haywood & Mac an Ghaill, 2012: 579). An example of active disciplining of masculinities is the subordination of homosexual men to heterosexual men (Demetriou, 2001). Pascoe (2011) explains how calling someone a ‘fag’ increases one’s own masculinity while reducing that of the other. The word fag is linked to feminine (and thus subordinate) behavior and can therefore be said to any person who does not behave masculine enough. Pascoe shows that calling someone a fag puts the accusing party in the hegemonic position of masculinity and the accused person in a subordinate position. This results in boys and men disciplining their behavior to avoid being called a fag (Pascoe, 2011). Thus, not all men gain equally from patriarchal systems like machismo (Connell, 2002; Castañeda, 2002).

This view on hegemonic and subordinate masculinities is highly linked to the consideration of gender as a social construct. This way, gender is performative, and one can do gender (Butler, 2011). Butler argues that gender does not necessarily have to come from sex. On the contrary, she states that “perhaps this construct called “sex” is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all” (pp. 10-11). For this reason, this thesis only refers to gender. Though masculinity is clearly linked to gender we must not forget that other intersections also play a role in defining masculinity (Batres et al., 2011). Sexuality has already been addressed as an intersection that influences the subordination of homosexuality to heterosexuality. However, also ethnicity, race, and economic class are important in analyzing masculinities (e.g. Batres et al., 2011; Connell, 1995; Connell, 1997). All these intersections constantly interact with each other (Connell, 1997). All intersections should be considered when examining one’s position of hegemony or subordination.

12

Following from this, the intersectional approach debates that many intersections of a person’s lived or ascribed identity play a role in the definition of identity and power relations. Intersectionality has been defined as “an analysis claiming that systems of race, social class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nation, and age form mutually constructing features of social organization” (Hurtado & Sinha, 2016: 32). Nash (2008) notes that this approach has become the “gold standard” (p.2) in feminist and anti-racist work. Intersectionality critiques conventional feminism’s essentialism by claiming that it ignores mutually exclusive categorizations (Nash, 2008). It debates that neither gender-only nor race-only frameworks can adequately explain inequality and calls for the recognition that inequality is caused by all social features of a person’s identity. Thus, intersectionality “underscores the ‘multidimensionality’ of marginalized subjects’ lived experiences” (Hurtado & Sinha, 2016: 2).

The intersectional approach has been critiqued on the overemphasis on the experiences of black women which, according to Nash (2008), has “obscured the question of whether all identities are intersectional or whether only multiply marginalized subjects have an intersectional identity” (p. 9). However, the approach was recently adapted to see contradictory intersections, where one (or more) intersection(s) indicates subordination and other(s) indicate dominance. This acknowledges the complexity of the bodies at stake. This has for example been done with studies concerning Latino men in the United States (Hurtado & Sinha, 2016), demonstrating that the intersectional approach can be used to examine both subordination and dominance. Essentially, this method of analysis examines how all intersections of a social construct combined foster life experiences, especially those of oppression and privilege (Gopaldas, 2013). In this research, the intersectional approach helps to acknowledge both oppressions and privileges of adolescents in a private high school.

With hegemony and subordination, privilege and oppression, the question arises to what extent people are willing and able to see their own privilege. Costa Vargas (2004) shows that in Brazil, race is denied to be a relevant or important factor in structuring society and in social life. Race, but also class and gender, are silenced as causes for inequality and instead, national pride and superiority are emphasized. “By silencing the relevance of race in social relations, the hyperconsciousness/ negation of the race dialectic obscures the role that race plays in determining one’s position in the historical structures of power and resources” (Costa Vargas, 2004: 446). Additionally, the fact that White privilege often goes unnoticed by the beneficiary shows that one may very well be ‘blind’ to their own privilege (Donnelly, Cook, Van Ausdale & Foley, 2005). Hence, sometimes privilege is difficult to notice for the person living it, but this ‘blindness’ is engrained precisely in the perpetuation of that privilege.

13

Conceptual model and operationalization table

In my conceptual model, I combine and visualize the three key concepts; machismo, hegemonic masculinity, and the intersectional approach (figure 1). It shows the interactions between machismo and the two stakeholders in my research: adolescents and the school. In their day-to-day lives, students view, live with, and ‘do’ machismo. In other words, students relate to machismo through their perspectives on, experiences with, and practices of this gender system. My research investigated the influence of the intersections of gender and economic class on these three forms of interaction. As noted, machismo defines hegemonic and subordinate masculinities and consists of dominant ideals of manhood. This is illustrated in the conceptual model by the arrow going from machismo to the ‘perspectives on and expectations of masculinities’. Also, the way that students interact with machismo influences their perspectives on and expectations of masculinities. Hegemonic masculinity is not a static given but exposed to cultural and contextual factors, so it can be influenced by students’ perspectives on, experiences with, and practices of machismo. The other way around, the perspectives on and expectations of masculinities influence the way students reinforce and reproduce or reject machismo. The school impacts the students as well and relates to machismo through its practices and discourse. The conceptual model and theoretical framework are further operationalized in figure 2.

14

Key concept Dimension Variable Indicator/question

Machismo

Perspectives on machismo

Local definition of machismo

▪ Perspectives on the different elements of machismo

▪ Ideas on machismo at school and at society at large Discourse on machismo Institutional discourse on machismo

▪ Ways in which machismo, gender equality, female empowerment, (sexual) aggression, and violence etc. are addressed by the direction of the school

Experiences with machismo

Experiences at school

▪ Students’ self-reported encounters with machismo at school

▪ Observed situation in which students encounter machismo at school Experiences

outside of school

▪ Students’ self-reported encounters with machismo in their lives outside of school

Practices of machismo

Reproduction and reinforcement

▪ Acts in line with machismo, as defined by respondents

▪ Mentors: low awareness of own gender norms and of influence this has on students’ gender norms ▪ Homophobia

Rejection ▪ Self-reported and observed (active) actions to reject machismo

▪ Mentors: high awareness of own gender norms and of influence this has on students’ gender norms

Masculinities

Perspectives on masculinities

Hegemonic masculinity

▪ Ideas on the characteristics and actions of an ideal and a stereotypical Guatemalan man (e.g. regarding family roles, disclosing emotions, violence, and views on

homosexuality) Subordinate

masculinities

▪ Men and masculinities that are spoken about in a derogatory way and that are perceived to not belong to the hegemonic masculinity

Expectations of masculinities Ideas that reinforce and reproduce traditional gender norms

▪ Traditional way of speaking about men and masculinities

▪ Observed and self-articulated expectations of students around masculinities that comply with machismo

Ideas that reject traditional gender norms

▪ Progressive way of speaking about men and masculinities

▪ Observed and self-articulated expectations of students around masculinities that contradict machismo

15

3. Research context and methodology

This research was qualitative in orientation, and I conducted focus group discussions, interviews and observations to complete it. This chapter is divided into four sections. The first section describes the research context. The second section describes the research question, units of analysis, my ontological and epistemological positioning, and my positionality at the school. The third section elaborates on the research design, consisting of data collection methods and data analysis methods. The last section reflects on methodological choices. Knowing that 48 of the 53 participants were underaged, throughout the section I clarify how I ensured the ethical principles of voluntary participation, informed consent, safety in participation, confidentiality, and trust (Bryman, 2012).

Research context

Great inequalities persist in Guatemala. Of all Latin-American countries, Guatemala leaves only Belize behind in the Gender Gap Index of 2018, demonstrating the severe gender-based disparities (World Economic Forum, 2018). Besides gender inequalities, economic inequalities also prevail. The World Bank (2020a) classifies around half of the population as poor and states that “in essence there are ‘two Guatemalas’, one […] well-off and one poor, one urban and one rural, one Ladino and one Indigenous with large gaps in both social and economic outcomes” (World Bank, 2020b: para. 5). This also translates into statistics on education. 69% of all students that attend secondary education in Guatemala are non-poor and only 4% of the poor follow tertiary education (World Bank, 2020a). Not surprisingly then, 55% of all students in secondary education attend private education (Edwards, 2002). Guatemala knows five levels of formal education: early childhood education, pre-elementary, elementary, high school, and university (Edwards, 2002). Elementary and high school can be divided into two parts, lower and upper. Figure 3 illustrates all sections of education that are present at Colegio San Ignacio, the private school where this research took place. This research focuses on adolescents in the first year of high school, primer curso (first orange block in figure 3) because in previous years, some problems occurred in allocating the scholarships for the afternoon students. This means that afternoon students from higher grades are not necessarily from a lower economic class. Last year the requirements for the scholarships got stricter. Thus, in primer curso the difference in the economic class between the morning group and the afternoon group is more representative of the differences in society.

16

The context of this research is a prestigious private Jesuit school for children of 2 to 17-year-old of affluent families, which was an only-boys school up until 2000. For privacy reasons I use the pseudonym ‘Colegio San Ignacio’ when referring to the school. San Ignacio Loyola was the founder of the Society of Jesus and he realized that schools served as a great service to the church. Nowadays, the Jesuit network counts more than 2300 schools. The mission of Colegio San Ignacio is to “look after, respect, and develop each other and ourselves”. Religion is highly valued, and all morning students start their day with a prayer. Furthermore, one day a year students have an encounter with God on which they are asked to extensively reflect afterwards.

The school property of Colegio San Ignacio is big and reminds of other private schools around the world. The pre-elementary section of Colegio San Ignacio has its own small, round building in the center of the school with its own little garden around it. This part of the school feels like a tiny safe space for the youngest students of a school that counts around 1800 students in total. On the walls of the high school section shine the photos of graduates of previous years where the photos of the first five girls to graduate from the school can be found on the poster of 2002. Anno 2020 many more girls are enrolled at the school. The school property includes a swimming pool, multiple football and basketball fields, a big aula that can be used for theater plays and prayers, an athletics stadium, a cafeteria, dance classrooms, and a bosquecito (little forest) with tables where students sit in break time. School starts at 7am. A digital system with school badges records whether all students are present. Every class at Colegio San Ignacio has a mentor that takes care of the development of the students. There is no school bell here. Instead, music is played to indicate the end of every class. Each

Figure 3: Visualization of the Guatemalan education system.

= Pre-elementary = Lower elementary = Upper elementary

= Lower high school (primer, segundo and tercer curso) = Upper high school (cuarto and quinto bachillerato)

17

section has its own tune that indicates their specific break times. In the break time of lower high school, boys play football and girls record popular international dances for their TikTok accounts. For students that do not take extra classes in the afternoon, for example in theater or English speaking proficiency, the school day ends at 2pm when a final song is played through the speakers in the hallway. However, the day at the school is not yet done. In the afternoon the school welcomes students from families with less economic resources. These students receive a scholarship so that they only pay one tenth of the tuition. The idea is that they receive the same education from the same teachers, in the same building, wearing the same uniforms. Students in the afternoon group start in the first year of high school, primer curso. I conducted research with both the ‘morning group’, consisting of more affluent pupils, and the ‘afternoon group’, consisting of students from more challenged economic backgrounds. A good friend of mine who is Guatemalan brought me in contact with Colegio San Ignacio. One of her family members works as a coordinator at the school and when I contacted her, she redirected me to the research department of the school. Whereas normally this school does not allow ‘outsiders’ inside the way that I was, an exception was made as I was recommended by my friend and her family member. In general, the school gives great importance to independent research. In order to guide independent researchers, a research department and an ethical committee were present. These task forces are dedicated to ensuring that researchers comply with the rules of the school. For this, I had to sign a few documents before I was allowed to start. Firstly, I had to agree with the safety rules of the school, such as only walking on the pedestrian crossing at the parking lot and only using the adult toilet. Secondly, I had to agree with their ethical and privacy guidelines, such as not using the real name of the school in any of my reports.

With all steps I took in my research I followed the guidelines of the school. For example, considering the age of my participants, it was essential to get informed consent not only of themselves but also of their parents. Adhering to school policy, I did this by sending a passive consent form to all parents. Parents that disagreed with participation, could email the school. If parents allowed their child to participate, they did not have to take action. In total, only one father gave notice that his child was not allowed to participate. A challenge I found with this was that not all parents of the afternoon class checked their emails regularly due to lack of electronical devices, no working internet or simply because they were not accustomed to do so. It was unclear if they agreed to their child’s participation or simply did not see the email. I dealt with this challenge by discussing with the mentor of this specific class which students had come to him to talk about the consent before I asked in class who wanted to participate. I only spoke to these students in my interviews. These students were, except for one, all female. This limited the extent of comparison I could make between the individual interviews with boys and girls.

18

Methodology and positionality

The problem statement and theoretical framework resulted in the following research questions:

How is machismo articulated at a private Guatemalan high school, and how do teenage boys and girls relate to it?

1. How is machismo locally defined, and how is it reinforced and reproduced or rejected by teachers and the direction of the school?

2. What are students’ perspectives on and expectations of masculinities, and to what extent are these informed by gender and economic class?

3. How do students see, experience, and practice machismo themselves?

This research aimed to understand how the concept of machismo operates in the daily lives of different groups of adolescents. It explored how the theoretical debate around machismo ‘works on the ground’ and tried to give an insight in how different groups of adolescents speak about it, interact with it, view it, and how they (actively) reject and reinforce it. In this, I wanted to see the similarities and differences between two economic classes. Participants were purposively sampled (Bryman, 2012) based on the grade they studied in, their gender, and their economic class. A transparency document describing the participants is attached in appendix 1.

The research questions and the unit of analysis point toward a qualitative methodology of research as its aim was to investigate the lived experiences of young people (Drew, Duncan & Sawyer, 2010). Qualitative research aims to find out the meaning participants give to particular social phenomena (Creswell, 2008), which this research did by examining how teenage boys and girls view, experience, and practice machismo.

Moreover, qualitative research is in line with my ontological and epistemological position. In doing research, I acknowledge that reality is a social construct that is always in motion and influenced by the social actors in it. This is apparent in the definition of gender and hegemonic masculinities, which are seen as social and cultural constructs instead of fixed matters. When considering ways to expose this social reality, I see that I cannot exclude myself or my influence from the research context. This constructivist ontology and interpretivist epistemology (Bryman, 2012) influenced the research set-up and naturally leads to qualitative data collection methods.

Thus, fact that I, as a young woman from The Netherlands, executed the research, influenced the results. A dilemma I encountered with this whether or not I should have openly said that I consider myself a feminist. I found out that many teachers and students understand feminism as women feeling superior to men or even women hating men. If I would have stated that I am a feminist, they could have reacted to me in a different way. My presence undoubtedly influenced the findings, but I tried to keep this to a minimum by critically reflecting on this in my fieldnotes and by discussing situations with

19

teachers to see if they interpreted it the same way. Regarding my positionality, I noticed that students were very keen to participate in my research because I was the ‘new attraction’ at the school. Students would scream “Sveva I love you!” in the hallways and many boys flirted with me, and some even asked me to be their girlfriend. I realize that this ‘popular’ reputation was mainly due to my physical appearance (light hair and eyes for Guatemalan standards), my age, and the fact that I am from Europe. This position might have resulted in students lying about the fact that parents read the consent and agreed to it. However, this did not cause big problems as in the end I was only able to do four interviews with students who came up to me or their mentor to tell me they received the letter, before I talked to them about it.

Another aspect of my positionality that influenced my interaction with the students was my (non-)religious background. Although I am not atheist, I also do not follow a religion. As noted, Colegio San Ignacio highly values religion and religious traditions. Many students were educated and raised into Catholicism. Once, after a mass-prayer with the whole school, a student asked me which religion I belonged to. When I explained to her that I am not religious, she laughed and assumed that I lacked Spanish skills to answer her question. She repeated herself and asked again. She was surprised, almost shocked, when I repeated my first answer. I felt as if she doubted whether she could still trust me because of this. The next times when I spoke about religion with students, I told them I was still searching for a religion that fitted my beliefs but that I had not yet found one.

Research methods

From February 3rd _{2020 until March 13}th _{2020 I worked at Colegio San Ignacio as a teacher assistant in} English classes. Here, I carried out participant observations. With this form of observations, the researcher “immerses him- or herself in a group for an extended period of time, observing behavior, listening to what is said in conversations both between others and with the fieldworker, and asking questions” (Bryman, 2012: 432). I participated in the students’ core activities, but I was not a full member of their group, because I was not one of students. All observations were documented in fieldnotes. Building up trust with the students and teachers was a great concern of mine in my fieldwork as I discussed sensitive topics. A challenge I encountered with building up trust was that I was scheduled to work with around 20 different groups of students every week, meaning I saw around 800 students every week. It was impossible to learn all their names, let alone get to know them all of them very well. Hence, after two weeks I changed my schedule to work with only the classes that would participate in my research.

Furthermore, eight focus group discussions, with six students each, were realized to examine students’ definitions of machismo and to get to know their perspectives on and expectations of masculinities. In

20

the focus group discussions, boys and girls and morning and afternoon students were separated. Focus group discussions in this research generated data to answer the second and third sub-question and were participatory of nature. Research methods can be modified to be more relevant for youth (Drew et al., 2010) and this research did so by introducing a ‘game’. Two body outlines were drawn on big papers and hung on the wall: one for the stereotypical Guatemalan man and one for the ideal Guatemalan man. To build them, participants wrote characteristics that they associated with one of the two men on sticky notes and pasted them on the corresponding man (see figure 4). Afterwards, every sticky note was discussed. This resulted in a visualization of what the student saw as the stereotypical and the ideal man. This provided a local definition of masculinities and machismo and an opportunity to talk about their experiences.

The participatory and relatively unstructured nature of the focus group discussions had a few advantages. Firstly, it ensured that the participants could bring up themes and topics that they related to the research topics (Bryman, 2012). Furthermore, as talking about masculinities is a sensitive topic in Guatemala, writing on sticky notes provided a more anonymous and comfortable way of starting a discussion than speaking up in a group of fellow students. This way, the participatory nature of the focus group discussion created a safe space to talk about sensitive topics. Another way I did this was by building up a trusting bond with students before planning the focus group discussions. I intentionally did not start with the focus group discussions in the first week of my fieldwork in order to get to know the students and for them to get to know me.

I ensured voluntary participation in the focus group discussions in multiple ways. Firstly and most straightforward, I simply asked in class who wanted to join me in the focus groups. My positionality (as described before) had to do a lot with the fact that most students were eager to participate in the

21

research. Peer pressure did not seem to play a role as there were also students who decided they did not want to participate. Moreover, at the beginning of every focus group and interview I stated that participation was voluntary and that it was possible to stop at any time. Regarding the safety in participation, participating in my research did not cause any physical harm and took place at a safe place, in a classroom of the school. This classroom had windows so that other teachers or students could see that I, and the participants, were complying with all the rules of the school but at the same time was closed off so that no one could hear what we were saying. This way, the room was a safe space for the students to talk openly about the topics we discussed. I also tried to increase the emotional and social safety by choosing a group of friends for every focus group. In the focus group discussions I tried to ask critical question while at the same time not push the students to answer.

Next to participant observations and focus group discussions, semi-structured interviews with students aimed to answer sub-question three. Four interviews were conducted, three with girls and one with a boy, lasting between 29 and 40 minutes. I could not conduct more interviews due to the start of lockdown-measures regarding COVID-19, an issue to which I return in the next section. In the interviews, I used five vignettes to guide the interview. These vignettes were small stories about boys of the students’ age and their interactions with others. The vignettes were based on my fieldnotes. For example, the following vignette is the anonymized story a male student told me about his family:

Juan lives with his mother and sister Maria. One day Juan returned from school and his mother says to him: “Juan, the table broke. Please fix it. You are the man of the house ”.

▪ How do you think Juan takes this?

The other four vignettes covered showing affection, disclosing emotions, violence, and homosexuality. Vignettes created some distance between the participants and the topics, establishing a comfortable start of the interviews before going in-depth about how these situations were present in their own lives. Semi-structured interviews were a suitable data collection method in this research because it let the students tell their story and clarify their perspective (Boeije, 2014). Semi-structured interviews generated data on the view of the participant (Bryman, 2012).

Finally, five semi-structured interviews were conducted with mentors of the students, of which three with morning mentors and two with afternoon mentors. The mentors were sampled because they accompany students in primer curso. The interviews with the mentors lasted between 50 and 82 minutes. The topics of the interviews were fixed, but the mentors decided where they wanted to take

22

the discussion. This set-up left room for mentors’ definition of machismo and their perspectives on gender issues in their work. The interviews with mentors provided data for the first sub-question.

Regarding the data analysis, the interviews and focus group discussions were recorded and transcribed by a translator to not lose any relevant data that I was unable to pick up due to my Spanish language skills. Someone I found willing to help me was married to a coordinator at the school. I chose to work only on the focus group discussions with him, as he might have been able to recognize the voices and stories of the mentors but not those of the students. At the end, problems arose, and he did not translate the audios. I was later able to find another translator who had no connections to the school. Before sending the audios to either translator, I made sure no information that could harm participants was mentioned in the audio. The audios were named after the type of group, such as ‘girls, morning group - 1’. Furthermore, I did not use names of students or teachers in any step of data collection and analysis.

The transcripts formed the foundation of the analysis that was done through coding. First, open coding broke down, examined, compared, conceptualized, and categorized data (Bryman, 2012: 569). I used the operationalization table and research questions to select relevant pieces of the transcripts. Second, axial coding sought connections between the codes and links between codes. Finally, selective coding was done, which is “the procedure of selecting the core category, systematically relating it to other categories, validating those relationships, and filling in categories that need further refinement and development” (Bryman, 2012: 569). I used Atlas.ti to help with the coding of focus group discussions and interviews. I also applied coding with the observations, but in this case my fieldnotes served as the source for analysis.

Methodological reflection

Due to the global pandemic COVID-19, problems arose toward the end of the data collection process, resulting in a few limitations in reaching quality criteria. The first case was detected in Guatemala mid-March 2002. After having conducted all focus groups and interviews with mentors, I started conducting the individual interviews with students. After the first four interviews, the Guatemalan president announced to close all schools. I explored all options to do the interviews online, but school policies on privacy and parental involvement when students would participate from home made this neither a feasible nor desirable option. Thus, it was impossible to conduct the remaining 16 interviews. This had a few consequences for my research.

Missing the data of the individual interviews forced me to change my research questions. In my proposal, my plan was to focus specifically on the experiences that boys have with machismo. My previous research question was: How are teenage boys influenced by machismo and how does this

23

play out in their power and emotional relations in school? This is also the reason why the vignettes contained only stories of male characters. For my renewed research questions, vignettes about boys

and girls would have been more suitable. However, this did not turn out to be a problem as the

interviewed girls saw the vignettes as an opportunity to talk about their own experiences despite the gender of the characters. Also, the new research questions concentrated more on students’ perspectives on masculinities. Multiple researches on the perspective of students on masculinity have been conducted, also in Guatemala. Nevertheless, the introduction of the intersections of gender and economic class are new and relevant to the literature. The unique research location provided an exceptional opportunity to compare students from two different economic classes. This way, my research can contribute to the debate around machismo and whether or not it is for the ‘underdeveloped’. Lastly, the four interviews with students were all with students of the afternoon as I planned to do the interviews with the morning students the week after. Consequently, the findings of the interviews could not be compared between the two economic classes. Still, it provided relevant data on the experiences of machismo of this group of students. In sum, COVID-19 forced me to leave out certain elements of my research and replace them so that the collective became more central instead of the individual.

To evaluate the quality of this thesis, the quality criteria of Lincoln and Guba (1986) are used: trustworthiness and authenticity. These two sets of criteria are more relevant to this research than the well-known reliability and validity for quantitative research, as my research is qualitative in nature. Furthermore, they are in line with my epistemology and ontology. Lincoln and Guba’s trustworthiness can be broken down into four criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Confirmability has already been discussed in the description of my positionality.

To reach credibility, data collection methods were triangulated. Observations complemented and cross-checked the data received from interviews and focus groups. Obtaining data independently of students’ opinion in observations was of utmost importance as the sensitive topic of the research could easily result in politically correct answers (Salazar & Anton, 2018). Triangulation makes it possible to identify when this happens. In my observations, I discovered contradictions in what the students and mentors told me and what I observed myself. I extensively reflect on these contradictions in the empirical chapters and conclusion. Unfortunately, it was not possible to do the individual interviews with the same students as the focus group discussions as students were not allowed to miss two classes. Interviewing the same students would have increased the credibility as then I would have been able to compare the answers students give in a group of peers and the answers they give when they are alone with me. Another aspect that increased the credibility was being present at the school every day and sharing stories and struggles with students made them feel comfortable enough to honestly

24

talk about sensitive topics. However, my positionality (on which I reflect more in the previous section) might have increased politically correct answers. Finally, data collection methods were modified upon arrival in Guatemala. I planned to do document analysis, but I found out that none of the existing school policies were still relevant. The school was critical on these policies and wanted to change them. Analyzing these outdated policies would portray an incorrect image of what Colegio San Ignacio looks like nowadays, while leaving them out did the opposite. Taking all into account, results can be accepted with a good level of certainty that it adequately describes the reality.

Being so acquainted with the school and the people in it, enabled to give a thick description of the research context, increasing the transferability. Both the introduction and the first empirical chapter entail a detailed depiction of the school system, its students and teachers, and the discourse of the direction. This description contributes to the transferability because it serves as a ‘database’ for future researchers (Bryman, 2012). The findings of this research might be generalized to other Central-American or even Latin-Central-American private schools as the school is a typical private Guatemalan school. The school system with the two economic classes is a relatively unique school set-up, however, students from the afternoon group have gained a certain level of privilege by receiving classes at this private school. This might implicate that the findings are specific to lower income-students at private schools.

In my research I took several steps to ensure the dependability by establishing a high level of transparency. Firstly, all research actions were discussed with the research department of the school. I sent my research proposal, topic-lists, and vignettes to the department for approval. Hence, the school was always informed about the research activities. Planning interviews and focus group discussions always happened in consultation with the research department. They also entered one of the focus group discussions to evaluate if I was complying with all our agreements. Evidently, the research was very transparent to the school, while remaining independent. Audios are private but will be saved at least six months in case anybody doubts the dependability of this research.

Next to trustworthiness, Lincoln and Guba (1986) determine five sub-criteria for authenticity of which I highlight two: fairness and ontological authenticity. I ensured fairness in my research by including many stakeholders. I talked to students and mentors from both the morning and the afternoon group. The fairness of this research could have been increased by also interviewing the directors and coordinators of Colegio San Ignacio. Regarding ontological authenticity, my research inspired students and teachers to talk about machismo and gender equality in daily life. One of the participants in the focus group discussion told me “I really like this research. We should talk about this more often in school”. When students understood my research was about machismo, students from different grades came up to me to talk to me about this. Finally, the fact that I was doing research on machismo inspired two teachers to start a project about (micro-)machismo and the impacts of it on

25

the daily lives of students. Together, we created a project that challenged students’ creativity and critical thinking. After pitching it to the whole grade, two groups of four students participated in this project and actively worked on identifying and addressing machismo at the school. Unfortunately, the project was cut short due to COVID-19 lock-down measures. This shows how my research relates back to the social world (Graduate School of Social Sciences, University of Amsterdam, 2020).

26

4. Discourse and practices at school

This chapter is based on my fieldnotes and the five interviews I did with mentors that accompany students in primer curso, the first year of high school. I interviewed three morning mentors and two afternoon mentors. This chapter aims to answer my first sub-question: How is machismo locally defined and how is it reinforced and reproduced or rejected by teachers and the direction of the school? This chapter is divided into four parts, the first on the local definition of machismo, the second on mentors’ gender norms and the importance they give this in their job, the third part on the discourse and practices of the direction of Colegio San Ignacio, and the final on the structural inequalities of the school system. Generally, I found that mentors’ gender norms are critical but that nevertheless machismo is constantly associated with the poor and ‘underdeveloped’. The school emphasizes female empowerment and dialogue actively. However, certain structures at the school reflect societal inequalities and feed into the idea that machismo is for those of a lower economic class.

Before going into the gender norms of the mentors, I explain their role at Colegio San Ignacio. Every high school class has a mentor, or ‘companion’ – the direct translation for acompañante. Overall, the main concern of a mentor is accompanying students in their academic, personal, spiritual, and psychological development. Here, the nuance between guiding or accompanying is important. When students come to their mentor with a problem, they are not given a solution. On the contrary, mentors encourage students to find ways to handle their problems themselves. Hence, mentors do not guide students toward a fixed end goal but accompany them in their development.

Next to informal encounters in the hallways or at breaktime, mentors have three fixed moments with ‘their’ students. First of all, mentors spend the first ten minutes of their day with their students to pray, to check in with them, and, if necessary, to give school related updates. Secondly, every Thursday students receive a seminar from their mentor in which topics related to personal and spiritual development are discussed collectively. Thirdly, mentors see their students 1-on-1 in monthly individual interviews where students get the chance to talk about how they feel.

In the accompaniment that the mentors provide, students can introduce any topic they wish to talk about. This varies much and can include study habits and academic motivation, self-esteem and self-concept, questions around sexuality, interpersonal difficulties such as bullying, family issues such as divorce and abuse, suicidal ideations, and psychological problems such as eating disorders. Additionally, afternoon mentors are confronted with complex situations that students are in at home due to their economic background. In one of the interviews, a mentor said:

27

Afternoon mentor, female: “I even had cases in which the kids get to study here

only because their dad’s boss is paying for their studies. In these cases, the parents usually do not know how to read and write, and thus someone else has to be in charge of their education.”

Talking about poverty is a topic that occurs specifically in the afternoon group. This shows that, while some topics are comparable, morning and afternoon students struggle with different problems due to their families’ economic background.

Mentors and machismo

Teachers are important actors in reproducing and reinforcing or rejecting existing societal norms and have the ability to impact students’ lives. For this, teachers have been labelled as ‘transformatory intellectuals’ (Giroux, 2003) or “the key to […] success” (Cardozo, Sawyer & Simoni, 2015: 24). In order to utilize this opportunity and have a positive impact on political and social attitudes of students, teachers need to critically reflect on what and how they teach and furthermore on their broader goals in teaching (Giroux, 2003). In order to adequately analyze the way that mentors interact with machismo, it is essential to firstly understand what they see as machismo.

Interestingly, all mentors I spoke with agreed on the definition of machismo. They see machismo as male superiority in society based on the fact that they are men. Mentors argue that machismo and power are heavily intertwined and that it cannot exist without power imbalances. One mentor defines machismo as follows:

Morning mentor, female: “I think machismo is a cultural conception in which

men think they have power over society and over every individual in it; women, children, etc.”

In order for men to be superior, someone else needs to be inferior. This is similar to the way that Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) argue that hegemonic masculinity can only exist in relation to subordinate masculinities and femininities. Mentors see machismo as a concept that is historically developed and that is embedded in Guatemalan society and culture. Hence, it cannot be “fixed overnight”. However, Guatemalan society is gradually changing into a more progressive one and mentors emphasize the difference generations, where older generations are said to be more machista. Research with Guatemalan adolescents in public schools shows that, even though Guatemalan society is heavily influenced by the individualistic West, students still hold on to Latin-American values related to the collectivist culture (Flores, Gibbons & Poelker, 2016). This proves that, despite the impact of globalization on the younger generation, there is no significant gap between generations. However,

28

mentors argue that it is becoming more and more socially accepted to talk about machismo and other topics that were taboo before, like homosexuality.

Mentors detect three ways by which society justifies the oppression of women. First, they note, men are seen as naturally superior. This natural ‘gift’ is granted at birth and is unquestionable. Second, mentors see that in society men are labelled as more skillful and capable than women. Finally, physical strength is a determinant because men are perceived as the stronger gender and women as the weaker one. This is in line with the literature on machismo in Guatemala that indicates how masculinity is linked to power while femininity is associated with weakness (González, 2012).

Another factor that contributes to the maintenance of machismo is the secretive nature of the culture. Due to the civil war in the late 1980s and the contemporary gang violence, Guatemalans have learnt to keep quiet in order to not be criminalized, so I have been explained. Even though everyone knows who are part of a gang, nobody is willing to speak up. This mindset has been passed on from generation to generation and has resulted in a secretive society, also in times of peace and in spaces without gang violence. For example, children do not talk about marital abuse, and students do not address violence or machismo at school. A mentor explains that boys keep quiet about violence at school out of fear of becoming a ‘tattletale’. He describes that students see this is as a serious insult:

Afternoon mentor, male: “Boys stay quiet, because if they talk, they are called

tattletales, and that is quite insulting to them and, if someone gets labeled a tattletale, they are excluded from all groups.”

This reminds of the way that Méndez (1996) explains men’s hesitance to expose the ‘secret weapon’ of micro-machismo. The (social) price a man has to pay when doing so is not worth speaking up. At Colegio San Ignacio, breaking the silence about machismo is punished with social exclusion. This is an underlying cause of the persistence of machismo that was specifically highlighted by the two afternoon mentors.

Mentors name multiple effects of machismo. The most often mentioned effect is the gendered division of tasks in a family. Women are forbidden to work and are ought to oversee the household whilst men must earn money to provide for the family. At the same time, mentors acknowledge that there is more to machismo and that it also has an impact on men. As such, mentors directly link the inability of men to disclose emotions to machismo. Men are not allowed to cry and are restricted from showing their feelings as it is perceived as feminine (e.g. Contreras Similox, 2018; Fragoso & Kashubeck, 2000). Thus, they restrict themselves and others to do so. Men, however, do not always have to recognize that these are effects of machismo:

Afternoon mentor, male: “Men do not notice that they are victims as well, the

29

Most mentors critique machismo directly after defining it. They do so for multiple reasons. For example, machismo is critiqued because of the values that are connotated to it:

Morning mentor, male: “I think that this thinking is very primitive. […] There

exists such great ignorance when it comes to this. Machismo is being ignorant to being human, to what it means to be human. […] It is discriminatory, ignorant, and primitive.”

This mentor sees machismo as something backwards and thus argues it is exclusively for those that are not as developed as he is and others with a similar thinking are. Even though this specific mentor does not do so explicitly, mentors generally associate machismo with lower economic classes and the rural parts of Guatemala. By saying that machismo is primitive, this segment of society is placed in a subordinate position in society.

However, most mentors show a critical stance toward machismo. They critically assess the Guatemalan culture, reflect on the ways both men and women contribute to machismo, and unpack the different forms of machismo in society and in their own lives. Four out of five mentors explain how their own family was machista when growing up. They do not only reflect on the negatively experienced effects but also on those aspects of machismo that were at that time beneficiary for them. For example, one female mentor describes how her dad used to give her everything she wanted as a little girl because of her gender. About this she says:

Morning mentor, female: “However, I think it is sexist to spoil your daughter just

because she is a daughter and not a son. It is sexist in spite of all the benefits I reaped from it; I got all the clothes I wanted, and everything I wanted really. I had to recognize that in my own story in order to address it.”

Noticing and reflecting on privileges gained from machismo shows that this mentor would be willing to give up certain benefits in order to make her family more gender equal. Méndez (1996) argues that this requires a critical stance toward one’s own identity, which he sees as more difficult than solely pointing at others for being machista. Thus, this mentor takes responsibility for fighting the negative implications of machismo.

Accompaniment and gender norms

Most mentors describe their gender norms as progressive. For example, all mentors accept homosexuality and state to freely discuss this topic with their students. In general, most mentors explain how they see men and women as different, but equal. The following quote from a male mentor illustrates this: