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".
Martinism
The term "Martinism" applies to both this particular doctrine and the teachings of the reorganized "Martinist Order" founded in 1886 by Augustin Chaboseau and Gérard Encausse (aka Papus). It was not used at the tradition's inception in the 18th century. This confusing disambiguation has been a problem since the late 18th century, where the term "Martinism" was already used interchangeably between the teachings of Louis-Claude de Saint-Martin and Martinez de Pasqually, and the works of the first being attributed to the latter. Regular transmission of Martinism to Augustin Chaboseau and Gérard Encausse still has to be documented.