Marianismo
Evelyn Stevens' essay was very significant to this area of study. However, since its publication, her argument has been debated by other researchers and critics. Although her argument addresses marianismo in Latin America at large, many of the sources she uses mainly focus on Mexican culture, thus severely limiting her frame of reference. Also, she is criticized for implying that, despite other differences among various socioeconomic classes, the ideal woman's characteristics are ultimately the same across social classes. Her critics claim Stevens ignores socioeconomic factors, saying "her description of women as altruistic, selfless, passive, [and] morally pure" is inadequate. There have been some responses in the literature to the concept of marianismo that assert that its model of/for women's behavior is very class-based. In other words, the idea that men do all the hard work, while women remain idle, on a pedestal, is a life that rarely exists, particularly for the peasant, poor and working class women that make up the majority of Latin America women. As Gil and Vazquez remind us, "most of her [Stevens's] data came from middle class Mexican women".
Marianismo
The concept of family is considered so important to marianismo women that those who attempt to intervene in situations of partner violence in marianismos are encouraged to view autonomy and independence as very westernized concepts, and are told to instead focus on listening and aiding women in the goals they create to avoid violence, in order to avoid alienating women. Many of the goals stated by those interviewed were, rather than leaving a relationship with an abusive husband, to stop the violence, improve relationships with their partners, help their partners learn to be more supportive husbands and fathers.