Sissy, Pansy, and Sex

“Sissy” and “Pansy” are, of course, derogatory ways to refer to effeminate men or women (93, 97).  But these words also serve to systemically reinforce a hetero-normative hyper-masculine social structure in which gender is as linear and dichotomous as the sun and moon.  To a large extent, “pussy” having replaced “sissy,” goes one step further and not only equates femininity with weakness, but actually explicitly refers to the female anatomy.  

So, I looked up "pansy" in the Urban Dictionary.  I consulted this reference site because I wanted to know exactly what colloquial language was used to denote "pansy" or if it was indelibly linked with femininity.  Here's the first definition:

1.  A sissy, fag, fairy, or one that is generally unmanly.

4.  someones whos THE bitch in a relationship. someone who gets walked all over. One who is of a feminine nature. Has Girly qualities.

5.  someone very pathetic and wimpy, generally used as an insult against both sexes. often confused with fag, sissyand other rather small-minded terms for a homosexual man. 

For more depressing information about how retrograde our society still is about gender politics and issues of sexuality, see: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pansy.  

I thought it was odd that a budding feminist like her could call her father a “sissy” and refer to him and his interest in gardening in the following way:  “if there was ever a bigger pansy than my father, it was marcel proust” (90, 93).  But then, she said that she “had become a connoisseur of masculinity by an early age” (95).  Does she think that because her father is more domestically inclined that that necessarily gives her a right to label him as effeminate? Moreover, she explicitly says that “butch” is “the opposite of sissy” (96, 97).  I suppose I just don’t understand why a man who takes an interest in stereotypically feminine hobbies is automatically labeled effeminate.  I understand that, yes, he is gay.  But gay and woman are not synonymous.  

The internet seems to think that only women garden.  When I typed in gardening into the search engine, the first 5 pages had pictures of women--for the most part.  Gardening's cool and all, but I don't think we should associate hobbies with genders, because when people break the assumed "norm," they're called "effeminate." http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.davidcookidol.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/gardening.jpg

This picture was in one of the frames where she was talking about the snake and how it was as a "phallus" but at the same time is an ancient feminine symbol.  In this picture the snake completes a circle, which takes the "duality" of masculinity and femininty out of the timeless symbol of the snake http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://api.ning.com/files

“It’s imprecise and insufficient, defining the homosexual as a person whose gender expression is at odds with his or her sex” (97).  Yes, I can imagine how this would be trying.  Looking in the mirror and not knowing with what you identify, your character, your anatomy, your mind, your sexuality.  Ach.  Now I can imagine why the father perhaps didn’t want his daughter to be gay. Negotiating these complicated personal and ontological questions in addition to dealing with being 86ed as a lesbian seems tough.

In this same vein, seeing masculinity and femininity in dichotomous terms, I was intrigued by the mention of masculinity as associated with power.  She says: “and despite the tyrannical power with which he held his sway, it was clear to me that my father was a big sissy.” (97)  Here, again, she draws a linear dichotomous scheme of power and gender:  either you have power or you are a sissy.  But if “sissy” is tantamount to “woman,” or effeminate, then she has internalized the perverted idea that being a woman inherently means you are less powerful.  Does she identify with masculinity because she associates masculinity with power—like in this example?    

Another question, according to Wilde, "the only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it." (170)  This seems oddly counter-intuitive.  Don't you want to conquer your fears?   Well if not counterintuitive, then not pious?  As virtuous people, we are taught to avoid being tempted, not embrace it.  


Finally, I have to follow up on a thought I had during discussion last week.  I cannot stand the mother.  And I cannot quite figure out what most bothers me about her.  But I feel like she has a veil in front of her eyes when it comes to her daughter.  She does not seem interested in her issues.  When her daughter repeatedly tries to approach her about a subject that is somewhat uncomfortable for young girls, she shifts gears, refocusing on her marriage, her life.  I agree that she has a lot on her plate--what with the play and her thesis and her husband drama--but she can make choices in her life.  She can change her situation to where she is happy and present enough to talk to her daughter.  But then, I almost have to blame myself for thinking the way the author does, that we set the bar lower for fathers.  I still cannot figure out why.