"Hombres sí/Hombres nó": Fashioning Masculinity in Early 20th Century Puerto Rico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In early twentieth-century Puerto Rico-a society in transition-Puerto Ricans were confronted with a modernity not totally under their control, but which they both desired and feared.In this "colonial modernity," Puerto Ricans debated its impact, especially on gender notions, through fashion texts and images.Most of those revolved around women, their behavior, and even their physical body.However, as this paper argues, men in early twentieth-century Puerto Rico were interpellated by fashion discourses, too.From the pages of Puerto Rican periodicals, a combination of foreign and locally produced texts and images advised Puerto Ricans to be well-groomed, to care for their appearance, while, at the same time, urged them to be careful, to avoid too much finesse.Although sources are rather slim, it is possible to trace at least two clashing representations of masculinity, to distinguish fashionable models available for the Puerto Rican "modern" man, and to point out the role of consumption.This paper, first, examines how fashion advertisements, for both foreign and locally produced goods, and texts that addressed men as fashion subjects-exposed their preoccupations with their appearance, and constituted them as consumers.Second, the paper analyzes these texts and images to reveal contending conceptions of masculinity in which a "modern" masculinity is presented as weak.And, finally, this article uses the "hombres sí/hombres nó" polemic and the case of the transvestite "Mario Sacristán/María Quesada," who for many years lived dressed as a woman to contend that, for this generation of Puerto Ricans, "masculinity" was an empty sign which fashion helped to fill in the transitional and colonial contexts of the period.The paper also tangentially contributes to the ongoing questioning of the "great male renunciation" hypothesis in fashion studies.The inquiry is done using insights from discourse, visual, and textual analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".