Marianismo: Wikipedia Article


  1. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

The primary focus of the article seemed to relate to the Catholic-centric nature of Marianismo, but its opening sentence did not address its effect on Latin American countries nor where it was located. The contents of the article was relevant, but it strayed from the important aspects.

  1. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article is clearly written by a white person as the Latin origins are largely ignored and treated as an afterthought rather than the center of the concept of “Marianismo” nor does it cover how or when the this impacted history. This article does not address the cisgender nature of the “great woman” and “great man” dichotomy. This lack of acknowledgement leaves a gap for the queer community.

The article uses generalizations such as “In Latin countries, it is frowned on women to appear in public without a man.” Such a statement groups all of Latin American countries together despite stark differences.

Despite addressing the queer community of MSM (men who have sex with men), the article does not include women who have sex with women in this context. It only addresses the women as a product of men’s actions, rather than those who have their own lives outside of men.

  1. Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or under-represented?

As stated in the previous question, the viewpoint of the man supersedes all other perspectives as the women are rarely mentioned without the direct support of a man. A brief three- sentence portion addresses the feminist perspective but does not touch nearly enough on the scope of Marianismo.

  1. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The links work, however, the very first source I clicked on yielded little evidence used in the article. The article was more of a criticism of how the machismo/marianismo archetypes confine gender roles. The article briefly address this dichotomy but largely ignores it.

The claims of the article are largely biased and ignore women. Those who composed the article did not seem to have women in mind; in fact, they blatantly ignored them. Most of the sources did not portray the women as victims but addressed them in a neutral manner.  The wikipedians did not do the same and showed women only as men’s subordinates.

  1.  Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

The references are reliable, however the editors did not interpret the information correctly. It primarily comes from scholars but some organizations have also been referenced. These articles are often written from the lens of a gender justice and Latinix standpoint in addressing the psychology/protection of endangered women. The bias is not noted but can be seen in the writing.

  1. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

The feminist history should be expanded upon to include more than a couple sentences, particularly because this is an aspect that is still directly impacting Latinix people in the present day.

In addition to the feminist aspect, Marianismo should be analyzed through a queer lens as the spread of HIV contaminated many Latina women.

It should be analyzed based on how it impacts different Latin American countries as there are various cultural implications depending where the concept of Marianismo is being studied.

  1.  Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

Two students expressed interest in expanding on the page for a class but it seems there was not the expansion they intended. Both students are no longer working on the project.

  1. How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

It is apart of Catholicism, Gender studies, Mexico, and Women’s history. It is rated to be of low-importance.

  1. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we’ve talked about it in class?

Wikipedia does not acknowledge its shortcomings or potential ways in which media has skewed the bias. We have not addressed the gender issues at length in class but looking at the syllabus I know we will!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *