It’s Not All Mary Poppins

Here Comes the Bride

George strolls around the living room wearing a fireman’s hat, a white lacey hand-knitted baby blanket draped around himself.

“Darcy! Darcy, you want to see my wedding dress? See: it’s white!” George is being a beautiful bride, and very pleased with himself he is.

“Yeah, George, it’s nice.”

“You want to have a wedding, Darcy?”

Darcy greets this with enthusiasm. “Okay!” He crosses the living room.

“You can be the man,” George directs him, “and I’ll be the lady.”

“I’m not a man!” Darcy is quite firm on this. Well, we have one child already with some gender confusion. Why not two? George, however, isn’t ready to give up the fantasy quite so easily.

“Yes, you can be the man. You can wear my hat.” It’s close to a bribe: the bright red fireman’s hat in question has been in George’s exclusive possession for close to an hour now.

Darcy is unyielding. “No, I’m not a man. I can’t be a man, I’m not finished yet.”

“You’re not finished yet?”

“Yeah. I’m not growed up yet.” Ah. No gender confusion for this lad, then.

George tries another tactic. Born to be a negotiator, this boy. “Well, would you like to be another lady, then? You can wear the other dress!” And, after all, this is now legal in Ontario, though I am beginning to reel with the gender-bending going on: two males getting married as two females. Darcy, however, while not a negotiator, sure can hold a position.

“No. I will be a man another day, when I’m big.”

George has shot his last arrow. “Okay. Let’s play trains.”


And off they go to be engineers, the not-finished man, and the would-be bride, the latter still wearing his wedding dress and fireman’s hat.

September 29, 2005 - Posted by | Darcy, George, individuality, Mischief, quirks and quirkiness, random and odd, the cuteness!, the things they say!


  1. That’s a riot! And all in such innocence.

    I don’t think that the princesses have done this. They’re pretty firm on being princesses and not princes. And not because we place any restrictions on their play (other than volume levels!).

    Comment by Simon P. Chappell | September 29, 2005 | Reply

  2. Perhaps George is a “metrosexual?”

    Comment by MIM | September 30, 2005 | Reply

  3. Simon: I was amused. I don’t recall ever wanting to be a boy, either, though it may have been different had I been raised in a home where there were things girls weren’t allowed to do simply by virtue of not being boys. (Which was certainly the experience of friends of mine, who resented and envied their more privileged brothers.) Thank goodness that stuff is more and more a thing of the past!

    mim: Metrosexual!! LOL

    Just to be sure of my terms, I looked it up on Salon and wikipedia, and I’d have to say, no. Fastidiousness doesn’t seem to be a requisite, and though he’s definitely self-absorbed, he’s neither vain nor fashion-conscious. Unless an insistence on spiderman briefs, and a tendency to wear boxers counts!

    Comment by Mary P. | September 30, 2005 | Reply

  4. This puts me in mind of my dear baby brother who used to carry my Cabage Patch baby around with it’s head under his armpit “feeding the baby” and proclaiming that when he grew up he was going to be a mommy.

    Comment by Haley | September 30, 2005 | Reply

  5. Sigh… I remember that. He was three, and it was sooooo cute! The Cabbage Patch baby, which you had so very originally christened “Baby Cabbage”. “Baby Cabbage”, lol. You were pretty cute, too, come to that!

    Comment by Mary P. | October 1, 2005 | Reply

  6. They’re too much! My son would love playing with Darcy! I made the big mistake of calling him “little man” just once the other day. He calmly explained to me that #1: he is NOT “little” BUT #2: he is far from a grown-up so I should never call him “man.”
    My 4-year-old English major then did let me call him “cutie” ONCE and then insisted I “just use his REAL NAME from now on.”

    Comment by LoryKC | October 2, 2005 | Reply

  7. Lory: These literal-minded kids, I tell ya…

    I’ve always reserved the right to call my kids pet names. If they don’t like them, toooo bad. 🙂 I won’t be robbed of a favoured sign of affection. I don’t do it in front of their friends, of course, and they’ve pretty much vanished by their teens, but at four? If I wanna call you “bean”, or “MissMoo”, “snert”, or even “little man”, you’re stuck with it, kiddo, cuz I love you and you’re stuck with me! And they are allowed to have pet names for me, if they like, fair being fair. (As long as they’re nice, not rude!)

    Comment by Mary P. | October 2, 2005 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: