John Lewis and it’s ‘gender relaxed’ ad

I also saw it during Bake Off last night before I saw this thread and couldn't quite believe what I'd just seen. We also had a wtf was that moment.

Yep, they are making this kid behave like a mini adult.

A narcissistic, badly behaved adult, at that.

John Lewis nails gender ideology. Males can behave as badly as they like, as long as they dress up and parody femininity. Actual women and girls are the ones being bullied and left to deal with the mess.

We saw that too. DH looked at me and was very much WTF!

Cue Bake Off being put on hold and a discussion being had about how many ways the 'optics' were just plain wrong!

I think there is quite a few indications that this is adults who are projecting this behaviour onto kids. The sexiness of the strut, the pouts and the weak knee wall stuff and the symbolism of the colours marked on his cheeks like he is a warrior.

The adults behind this ad seem to have lost any sense that they are objectifying a child, upholding sex stereotypes in the reactions of the females in the ad and generally portraying that this is somehow acceptable behaviour, even ‘the insurers will allow it!’ is the message.

We saw it last night during Bake Off and no one in the family said a word, just looked at each other with a ‘what tf was that?’ expression.

But of all the colours the ad makers could have chosen they picked the brand colours of a well known lobby group.

Yes… strange that. And strange to have quite that green blue colour in a kids palate….

He's also a normal messy child. He runs around with the dog and knocks things over. He has hit my big wardrobe mirror with his hula hoop enough times that I've calculated and told him, exactly how many years of pocket money it will take him to pay for it, if he smashes it. He has done 'experiments' in the bathroom that have resulted in him drenching half my towels as he tries to clean up the flood. Spilled his cereal all over the couch through carelessness. Etc.

However, he has never, ever done a range of 'sexy' pouts, done repeated diva faints against the walls, with or without paint on his hands. He has never intentionally ruined someone else's activity by throwing things at them and deliberately knocking what they were using on the ground. He's 9. He has an innocent child's view of sex, he understands the basic mechanics of reproduction, knows some people 'fall in love with' people of the same sex and occasionally tells me he has a crush on a girl in his class. He has no real idea about 'sexiness' and doesn't try to ape ott adult sexuality.

Everything everyone has said. Appalling and wrong advert on many, many levels.

And I've just realised the two colours the child smears on it's face are not just any old colours. They could have been red, yellow, purple, anything. But of all the colours the ad makers could have chosen they picked the brand colours of a well known lobby group.

Bloody hell.

Why is it funny to women who have to clear up little disrespectful shits who don't understand the boundaries of their mother's possessions?

Why is it funny to girls who have to put up with siblings acting up for attention whilst they try and do something constructive?

Why is it funny to normalise destructive behaviour?

Why is it funny, to 'smash gender stereotypes' by absoluetely reinforcing the ones for females whilst pushing the priviledge of males to do whatever the fuck they like at the expensive of females?

Why is it funny to encourage kids to wilfully damage and destroy their homes so thats parents have to explain to their own children not to copy what they've just seen glorified on TV?

Why is it funny to suggest that gender non-conforming boys are attention seeking little divas who need a time out and an intervention from child services / a mental health diagnosis? 'All the things that 'could happen' if your child is gender non-conforming? Alrighty then. Pretty good idea to make sure they don't go anywhere near the lipsstick then, if thats what it unleashes...

Clearly its not intended to women who have kids, cos I don't think its funny regardless of your views on gender identity. Its just a bratty obnoxious kid.

Or maybe thats the point.

We supposed to celebrate the B-R-A-T because its aimed at the adult brats, who are yet to discover the joys of parenting and actual responsibility and expect Mummy to still run around after them well past childhood. I mean that sentiment is very 2021 in that sense...

Of course the customer director can't actually say, we are targeting over priviledged brats with more money than sense, because mothers are too cash strapped trying to keep food on the table and a roof over heads these days to give a fuck about as customers anymore.

But I think the messaging is fairly consistent and repeated over a number of years.

Ha ha. I'm rolling around.

I was going to pop in tomorrow. Will give it a miss now.

So John Lewis will cover a kid intentionally tipping paint on the floor?!

So accidental damage caused by children… yet little in this ad depicts ‘accidental’, certainly not upending paints on the carpet, or throwing an umbrella or the weak knees, pouty pose against the wall with paint and make up all over the hands.

Had the boy been dancing past the paints and knocked them and then stood on them, maybe. But they really have portrayed the ultimate stereotyped ‘diva’ behaviour and it comes across intentional not accidental.

This is nothing like the 2015 ad of the girl twirling mindlessly grabbing imaginary partners that are curtains and plants.

How are they allowed to put out an advert with a kid trashing the joint while watched by his mother and then say they cover accidental damage???

I just saw it.

He throws an umbrella at his sister.

He tips her paints on the floor.

And nothing happens to him.

WTF, John Lewis?

The problem is that on SM the homophobes and Transphobes (actual ones) and the “anti woke “ brigade are clouding the very real issue of how a child deliberately trashes a house and the implication that JL would pay an insurance claim in those circumstances.
Anyone not applauding the ad is deemed to have an issue with a boy wearing a dress.

Would the same "joyful" and "expressive" message have been implied if the boy was not wearing female clothing? Are we being directed to the "stunning" and "brave" trope?

www.adweek.com/creativity/john-lewis-joyful-ad-lets-a-boy-embrace-his-inner-stevie-nicks/

I assume this is all copied from a John Lewis press release because the reviewer doesn’t appear to have watched either advertisement.

The implication is also that the child has gone through the mother’s things and trashed her bedroom.

I really don’t understand the message they are trying to send.

Treatment of women (all women) has been front page news for months - here we have a bratty child trashing the house and their sisters pasttime whilst down trodden DM looks on exasperated.

Where have their ad writers been. Obviously not cleaning lipstick off the walls, carpets etc - it stains.

Obviously haven't had to get carpets replaced, house redecorated recently as it is a hassle anyone would choose to avoid especially as you can't get tradesmen for love nor money these days

"Go with John Lewis Insurance - our premiums are high because we pay out for brat tantrums, but only if you're suitably middle class"

I really don’t think this advert is having the effect John Lewis want. Ppl think the kid is an entitled horrific brat that needs a good session in the time out corner regardless of what he’s wearing

My comment on the YouTube video about him being an obnoxious spoilt brat has been removed. Hmm.