Boys who like "Girly" things- Movies and Real Life

By Diane Sofia Frank

Last month (August) we had a video night for our meeting. "The Dress Code" is a totally fictional story of a cross-dressing eight-year-old Catholic boy who is also a spelling champion. Totally by coincidence, an article by George Hagen, a real life father of an eight-year-old boy who prefers "girly" things appeared in the September issue of Parents Magazine. I would have liked to have the article, which is currently circulating on some TG newsgroups, reprinted for all to read, but Parents Magazine, in a courteous reply, was unable to give permission to do so. Thus, gentle readers, my summary must needs suffice.

I wish, having suggested "The Dress Code" as a movie and vehicle for discussion that I could say better things about it. On the positive side, I remember all too well the tension of parents watching high stakes spelling bees, feeling different from boys as a child and I couldn’t help leaking a little around the eyes at young Bruno’s overcoming every obstacle to being himself. But despite having wonderful acting, my favorite Tenor-Baritone duet (from George Bizet’s "The Pearl Fishers") and the marvelous presence of Shirley MacClaine as the whiskey-drinking, cigar-smoking grandmother, the story had Hollywood size holes in the plotting, character development, dénouement, and most importantly in its take home message. I was left frustrated once the mist cleared from my eyes. I don’t think the movie would be much help to George Hagen or his son.

Mr. Hagen’s son is not, to all appearances, an otherwise normal eight-year-old boy.

"Already, he knows he's different. He's not a girl, and yet he doesn't act like a boy."

"Since our son was 2, he has favored girls' toys, girls' clothing. At first, my wife and I attributed this to his admiration for his big sister. But while she stopped wearing dresses years ago, his interest in pretty clothing has not abated: "Nice dress," he'll say earnestly to the lady next door. Occasionally, he dresses up for fun, though not as much as he used to. WE have videos of him as a 3-year old, waltzing jubilantly around the living room in a scarlet silk bridesmaid dress."

At present, the primary "girly" behavior is an interest in dolls. Unlike Bruno, there’s no broken marriage here. No father forced to give up opera so as not to appear to be a sissy, no flamboyant mother. True, in this marriage the woman works outside the home and the father works from the house as well as keeping it:

"At home, at least, he knows that he fits in. He lives in a family in which conventional gender roles are blurred. My wife is a partner in a large law firm. She works long hours, often coming home late in the evening just in time to kiss the kids goodnight. Meanwhile, I work at home, pick the kids up from school, make dinner, sew on the missing buttons, check the homework, fix the car, and wash the windows. Our lifestyle is a practical necessity. We wait anxiously for the stereotypes to catch up."

Neither parent presents a model of the "girly" behavior expressed by the boy, but both parents try to accommodate it. The father acknowledges playing dress up and various other non-gender-stereotyped behaviors as a child. The mother worries about possible transsexuality. However, the observation at present is that the boy has never expressed a wish to be a girl or dissatisfaction with being a boy. This sense of self is in powerful evidence in the closing anecdote in the article:

I was comforted the other night when my son came home from the library with an old book called Making Dolls. It seemed written especially for him. He couldn't wait to show me the illustrations of the different dolls, page by dog-eared page. To my dismay, one chapter after another began by describing what a girl would need to do the project and how she would begin. My son notices all the feminine references and pronouns and looked at me, shaking his head. "Boy, this must be an old book," he remarked. "Don't they know that boys play with dolls too?"

Playing with dolls causes this family a lot of grief. Before play dates with other boys, his room is carefully checked so those signs of his unboyish interests are not in plain view. Paper dolls are removed from display and put away in a drawer. Stuffed animals are ok, dolls are positioned so they appear to belong to his older sister. He knows from bitter experience where to draw the line, what he can and cannot get away with.

But to get back to the comparison of the movie with real life, no one is running interference for this boy because he is a champion speller, with possible divine inspiration like Bruno. He’s just an ordinary eight-year old, as nearly all of us were. Excellence in some area will not cause people to embrace our differences, because despite the many excellent qualities we all possess as human beings, those qualities aren’t readily visible like a trophy. We have our excellence inside where it takes effort to see. And that was the take home message from Bruno. If you’re excellent at something you can get away with anything.

There is no doubt that this message about excellence is true. We see it promoted countless times in American life, whether it’s the cross-dressing of former basketball star Dennis Rodman or the free pass given to top executives while they meet the stock analysts required numbers, or even RuPaul for just being so darned good at being a drag queen. No doubt we should all strive for excellence in either femme or homme modes. But is it right that only the people who achieve public excellence should be allowed self-expression and fulfillment? Of course not! So what does Bruno have to teach George or his son? Not much I’m afraid.

I liked the movie making a point of the nature of bullies: They pick targets of opportunity and far too often people in positions of authority look the other way or blame the victim. When Bruno’s Grandmother pulled the lead bully and his wolf pack off of another victim, the point is clear…the bullies pick anyone who appears vulnerable. Bruno’s particular behavior/identity/vulnerability was an excuse not a cause. On the other hand, the movie in knee jerk fashion endorsed the notion that boys have to fight to men. No one could help but cheer when Bruno, in a dress, threw down his chief persecutor. But why should that have to be? George makes a valuable point about this sort of thing:

"Here's my homegrown theory: Society's gender expectations seem to lie in two distinct zones, "masculine" behavior and "feminine" behavior, when they should in fact overlap…Really, shouldn't parents worry more about excessively masculine boys or excessively feminine girls?"

No doubt, a non-violent solution probably wouldn’t have sold well, and could have created even more resistance than the picketers at the end of the movie. Recently, some traditional-values groups have protested against anti-bullying programs as promoting a ‘gay’ agenda. (News Brief’s, Gay People’s Chronicle, August 16, 2002) This makes it very clear that some people feel it a social entitlement to harass people who are different.

I don’t have a clue what Bruno’s fate might be as he grows up. I suspect that Hollywood and the well-intentioned Shirley MacClaine don’t know what to do either. But it doesn’t matter. George Hagen’s son is a real live boy, with two thoughtful loving parents. Let’s leave them with the last word:

"Some people may wonder why we've permitted this behavior. Certainly, we know parents who would push their sons into boyish ways, who would send them to therapists, deny them anything but trucks, trains and action figures. But we also know that this can result in miserable, mixed-up children, and we do not want our son to feel ashamed of who he is. … So right now, I think all we can do is be loving, listen, encourage his interests."