It’s an interesting paradox the way in which homosociality & hegemonic masculinity operate to place 👩 on a moral pedestal so that even the idea of abstinence is not a
two-way street, but rather very male dominated. 👩 are normalized to be celibate, while the masculine project of heterosexuality is constrained by abstinence, but 👨
still protect and regulate 👩s sexuality. 👨 dually occupy the role of protector and predator. Are 👩 always in male possession? This seems to be constantly perpetuated, even
maintaining heterosexuality through discourse rather than practice; reaffirming hegemonic masculinity becomes discursive.
👩 – Women
👨 – Men
🏾💪 works as a means of accessing 🏼💪 ideals ➕ when it is 🗺 onto the 🏾🏘 it’s transformed into a 🚫🏼👦 because it is so 🏻🏽🏿 in the U.S. This is largely in part due to the fact that 🏾👦 can’t actually access 🏼💪 in embodying a marginalized identity. 🏾💪 as a controlling 🖼 is subordinated ➕ 📛 ➕ since the 🏾👦 interviewed didn’t use the term Mora opts out of using it in the analysis due to it’s 🏻🏽🏿 context. Although 🏾💪 ➕ 🏼💪 have parallel definitions ➕ their constructions are the same 🏾💪 exists independently while replicating 🏼💪 ideals which makes it the 🚫🏼👦 it is. But because 🏾💪 is so inherently 🏻🏽🏿 does that make it more of a protest identity? How can we contrast that 💡 to the 💡 of it being marginalized? How could 🏾💪 be the 🏼💪 in a localized manner? Does Mora’s conscious choice to not use 🏾💪 work as a way to keep 🏾💪 from being the 🚫🏼👦 the interviewed 🏾👦 shape themselves around?
🏼💪 -Hegemonic Masculinity(/ies)
🚫🏼👦 -Marginalized Masculinity(/ies)
🏾🏘 -Latino Community
🏾👦 -Latino Boy(s)