Male entitlement in the John Lewis ad

[MardyBra]

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/john-lewis-advert-boy-backlash-b1938929.html

Lots to deconstruct in this.
I have no problem with an exuberant boy in a dress (although I feel JL are trying very hard to show their target market how woke they are).

But the wilful destruction of the home his mum has put a lot of time and effort into offends my feminist (and middle-class!) sensibilities.

JL says it’s a ‘young actor getting carried away with his dramatic performance”, not “wilfully damaging his home”.’ He looks a bit old to be at the crayonning on the wall stage still.

@november90

As an insurance advisor who used to underwrite the John Lewis policy (so I have a lot of experience of their typical clientele!!!!), all I can think is that advert has made alot of advisors day very difficult in declined and explaining accidental damage claims 🙊🙊🙊🙊🙊🙊🙊

So the advert is effectively misrepresenting their insurance, i.e. getting people to pay out of something which isn’t covered.

Are they implying that letting an out of control self entitled brat damage their parents home will be covered on insurance?

Or are they going to have to stop the advert, like Deliveroo (or whoever it was) did, when they implied that a group of 10 people could all have food from different restaurants in one simple delivery?

Either way, it’s a very annoying ad. Not just because of the affected wokeness, but also the bloody behaviour of that obnoxious child.

I think the important think about insurance adverts seems to be recognition, given how little opera-singers, dogs and meerkats have to Go Compare, Churchill and Compare the Market.

I hadn't realised it was advertising insurance until this post, so it obviously didn't really work on me at all. It just annoyed me to the point I switched off what it was advertising.

What a load of shit. Poor show JL!

Give it 10 years and JL will be advertising their "Bail Insurance..... for those times when your kids stop trashing your house and trash somebody else's"

Just imagining having bowls of glitter on the counters, for the children to chuck around the dining room at random. Grrrrrr

When I saw the ad, I genuinely thought it might have been for a charity or support network helping families of children with special needs. Rather taken aback to see it was for John Lewis insurance.

Bring back Bear and Hare.

I have a massive problem with the portrayal of a boy as "taking up space" while a girl sits quietly "being good". It is a sexist trope.

This. So annoying and true.

I swear I will never ever buy JL Insurance as a result. Although if they stick to their normal business I will buy other stuff.

If DS2 knocked over DDs paints like that I'd have a full scale war on my hands. She wouldn't just sit and let him do it.

What do we think the Xmas ad will be after this ?

The advert has got people talking about it, that was the whole point. Newspaper coverage, Mumsnet. So a massive success from the advertiser's point of view.

Why were the mother and daughter so passive

At least with ‘tiny dancer’ it was a girl trying to dance not just wreck the place

The mum decorated & styled the house did she?because that’s women’s domain,right? You’ve marched straight into a sexist stereotype there

If we are addressing other sexist stereotypes , advert has them in buckets
The eye rolling, tsk! Boys…what are they like?
Passive wee women. Girl nicely playing
Out there boy, dominant but indulged after all he’s male

I have no problem with an exuberant boy in a dress (although I feel JL are trying very hard to show their target market how woke they are).

Agree. It just smacks of bandwagon jumping to me.

And I'm not entirely sure that their house insurance would actually pay out for half that sort of damage anyway.

Difficult one though - I read this morning that it was sexist because it showed to boy as being boisterously expressive and full of physical energy while the girl sat there quietly and calmly, being 'good.'

On the other hand, it is the opposite of sexist because it allows the boy to express himself wearing non-gender conforming clothes and mimicking feminine body language and behaviours.

But if it had been a girl doing all that twirling and glitter throwing in a tutu that could also have drawn criticism for being sexist and pandering to stereotypes so I suppose they can't win really.

I am getting a little sick of feeling not very subtly preached to on some aspect of identity politics every time I turn on the TV though.

@GoodnightGrandma

I just see a spoilt brat wrecking the house. I will turn it off if I see it just because of that.

Exactly what I was thinking. I would go mad if I caught one of my kids wreking my house like that on purpose, not just sitting there with a wtf look on my face. Also who claims their insurance for some paint on the walls and a broken vase and lamp? Stupid advert all round.

Having said that,job done for JL and ad agency. We are all talking it’s getting noticed

The point is that JL are suggesting this sort of behaviour should be tolerated, even celebrated, and the aftermath should be covered by insurance with no punishment for the child. When in fact this sort of behaviour in the real world would lead to severe punishment and the insurance wouldn’t pay out.

These were points made on another thread:

Why a boy in a dress? If it had been a boy in a football kit and muddy boots "expressing himself" would that have been seen as cute?

What about class? If it had been a child in a council flat trashing the place while his overworked, underpaid mum looks on passively, would that be cute?

What about the sister? Why is it ok for the dancing boy to express himself in a way that destroys what she's doing? What sort of message is that for male/female dynamics?

What about kids who live in violent, chaotic households, who may have witnessed adults "expressing themselves" by trashing the place, while they have to sit back quietly and passively, and the only other adult in the room does similarly and does nothing to help them? What message is there for that poor kid?

Why is the child being sexualised with makeup, pouting, hip thrusting and preening? The Tiny Dancer had none of that.

You could see it as a win for JL as we are talking about it but it's offensive enough that it has actually put me off JL. It's not very clever to piss off the mothers in the run up to Christmas. Study after study will tell them it's women buying the Christmas presents. Twats.

Smacks of luxury beliefs to me.

You have to be well-cushioned to afford the premiums for that sort of damage, and to be able look on at your child 'expressing themselves' all over it as a bit exuberant.

I viewed it as a spoilt boy wrecking the house and his mum is going to have to pick up the pieces - whether that’s through cleaning or (laughably) trying to submit an insurance for failing to control her brat.

I agree with PP who are saying it shows wilful, obvious damage on the boys part.

It’s a massive disparity between this advert and the one with the girl dancing, where she was clearly dancing away, in her own world, having a lovely time, and accidentally knocks a vase over, you can quite imagine her being quite shocked that she’s knocked it over.
If they’d have done the same thing with the boy in a dress, I’d have loved the advert, but to show him purposefully damaging stuff is awful.

I loved the Tiny Dancer one because all her damage was accidental with her heavy-footedness. This kid is wrecking his home.

@MardyBra

And how does this count as accidental damage until their insurance policy?

Actually. Someone needs to ring and quote

So if my son runs around drawing on the walls and breaking stuff on purpose.

Am I covered? Otherwise it’s false advertising.