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.

@Gardenlass

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.

Only if people buy their product.

There's some suggestion that JL will pay out for any damage caused by children. If they do indeed pay out in the circumstance shown in this ad, then they are opening the floodgates for mass insurance fraud. Want a new living room suite? Let your "exuberant" child loose do do his worse. If they don't in fact pay out in circumstances of wilful and deliberate damage, carried out in full view of a parent who does nothing to intervene - well then that's a matter for advertising standards. Anyone tempted to buy JL's product better read the small print - these products are created by the usual nasty ole insurance companies who will do their best to fuck you over if you try to claim, not cuddly old JL, which is just the selling front.

“ 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.”

Regarding feminine behaviour and clothes, I think it’s really interesting how he is dressed and behaves compared to the girl in Tiny Dancer. I don’t think he’s behaving or dressed like a typical girl at all.

I think we can all agree that Stevie Nicks - Edge Of Seventeen is a banger though.

Kelly, can you handle this?
Michelle, can you handle this?
Beyoncé, can you handle this?
I don't think they can handle this?

Can someone try claiming on their John Lewis home insurance that you need to replace a rug and a couple of vases because your son was expressing his identity? Let us know how that goes...

JL says it’s a ‘young actor getting carried away with his dramatic performance”, not “wilfully damaging his home”.’

I feel sorry for him because he's going to have to clean it all off again, you can almost see his mother revving up.

And yes I really want to know exactly what that insurance policy covers. It seemed too unlikely it would pay out and since the John Lewis USP is "reliable" that makes me doubt them, not just for insurance but for everything.

@Journeyofthedragons

I think we can all agree that Stevie Nicks - Edge Of Seventeen is a banger though.

Kelly, can you handle this?
Michelle, can you handle this?
Beyoncé, can you handle this?
I don't think they can handle this?

When I first saw the add, I thought they were about to play Bootylicious. That would have sent the pseudo paedo needle off the scale.

Aaargh, this is awful. Passive, helpless mother doing boring, quiet stuff. Ditto sister. Boy sashaying around at will being an attention hoover, with an undercurrent of violence and entitlement in his actions thrown into the toxic mix!

They did this exact advert a few years ago with a female child To ‘tiny dancer’

Yay, another suggestion that boys who dance must be feminine. Just what we need.

@HerRoyalWitchyness

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.

Yes it would be ww3 in my house if my ds did that to my dd!

Anyway I've just watched the advert and I thought it was just awful

The comparison with Tiny Dancer is interesting, the boy in this ad wilfully damages things and e.g. tips over his sister's paints whereas the girl does not deliberately damage anything and her brother watches her bemused. I think the ad tells us a lot about male entitlement though.

JL says it’s a ‘young actor getting carried away with his dramatic performance”, not “wilfully damaging his home”.’

Which is disgusting, because they are throwing the child actor under the bus. The director, editor, advertising creatives who came up with the concept are to blame for this, not some kid, who would not have chosen his costume, the set, the surrounding circumstances of the situation depicted (the set, the mum/daughter reactions) or had a say in overruling any one of the adults involved in this ad.

@EspressoDoubleShot

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

And many will be not considering/cancelling their home contents insurance with them.

When I first saw the add, I thought they were about to play Bootylicious. That would have sent the pseudo paedo needle off the scale.

😅

Not a good look IMO. Kid rampaging isn't going to be covered by insurance. Its on the woke bandwagon with a boy being over the top, in a dress etc. The fact that they think it's okay to have a boy trashing the house while the 'wimmin' look on, including trashing his sisters paints tells us all about the state of society.

FFS. It's about enjoying life. It is about the feeling of freedom from worry that being insured engenders. It is about not needing to care and living for the moment because you can.

@DownToTheSeaAgain

FFS. It's about enjoying life. It is about the feeling of freedom from worry that being insured engenders. It is about not needing to care and living for the moment because you can.

I thought the bit where he tipped his sister's paint over seemed really spiteful...unless I'm missing something

FFS. It's about enjoying life.
I guarantee that if my child did that he would not be enjoying his life for a VERY long time!

@MardyBra

The JL insurance premiums must be sky high if they pay out for this type of shit.

^^ This is what I thought!

I don't want to be subsidising parents who won't stop their kids from trashing the house.

Also YY to the comment the Indy quoted:
“The John Lewis advert of a young boy being the centre of attention for trashing everything while his sister obediently sits and paints in a corner is sexism encapsulated in 60 seconds.” With an added - and girl puts up with boy wrecking her activity knowing it's pointless to complain.

@Holly60

Are you ASSUMING it was his mother who decorated the home??? Oops

Well, she's the only adult in the ad and I can't imagine it was decorated by the boy! We know his decorating style. Could have been the sister of course (assuming the girl in the ad is his sister).

Woke, pouty, almost 'sexualised' in parts. Male wrecking his sister's quiet pastime. JL wouldn't cover this claim anyway as it's all deliberate damage

Those are my thoughts.

It's about enjoying life

Because of course its impossible to do that unless you are trashing someone else's stuff.

@butterpuffed would this compel you to cancel a policy or refuse to use JL?
For JL and Ad agency it’s a Kerching! The ad has lit up Twitter, generated viewings

@Cinderss

They did this exact advert a few years ago with a female child To ‘tiny dancer’

No they didn't. The girl in Tiny Dancer is dancing in her own world, and at times accidentally - not deliberately - knocks or grabs certain objects. Nothing is actually damaged. There's a father at the beginning, but they are not seen passively sitting there watching a destructive scene. There's a sibling, but she does not interfere in his activity and destroy it. She is not sexualised, she's doing ballet moves, not strutting, pouting and hip thrusting.

I especially dislike the pout-and-strut. Very obviously sexualised behaviour.

And draping himself over the countertype. Very distasteful