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.

Whoever came up with this doesn't like women very much.

I don’t give a monkey about the fact it’s a boy in a dress - so what. I don’t give a monkeys about him having an exuberant good time. What I seriously object to is wilful destructiveness and disregard to the sister while the mother just looks on. It’s a stupid advert made all the more so cos insurance would never pay out.

What an incredibly naughty child!

He's really not. He's just doing what he has been asked to do by the people making the advert.

err, yes, we realise that the actual child is just doing as they were told, we're talking about the character he is portraying. We don't have an issue distinguishing reality from fiction, nor immersing ourselves in the story line.

Which is a terrible one. It doesn't look like a child getting carried away in a performance, even if you wanted to go with that line, it looks like a child who's planned and wilfully chosen destruction as part of his performance. Getting carried away is something anyone who's had an excitable child would be familiar with, and that is not what is portrayed at all.

@Tedimhoardingrightsosaur - I didn't read the reference to actor as referring to the actor employed by the ad agency (who as you say, is presumably following direction), but that the boy being portrayed in the ad is a budding actor who is getting carried away performing with the paint, glitter etc. (sorry, hard to explain without sounding confusing - basically, an actor is playing an "actor" and it's the latter that JL is referring to).

But I still think it's a ridiculous ad. Even if you did think as a parent watching your child destroy your property that it will all be claimed back on insurance (and with no excess to pay), does that mean you would happily sit there and let them create a situation which is going to create the hassle of making the claim, finding the replacement items etc?

Tiny dancer was a great advert. This is not the same at all.

It made me cringe tbh..... It's very try hard and just makes the kid look like an arsehole. 🙄

And they absolutely did not do this with the little girl dancing advert. She was so immersed in her very serious dancing that she didn't realise she was causing havoc. It was sweet and funny

Thanks for clarifying DadDadDad.

Actually, your name has made me remember something else. It is highly unlikely they would have portrayed a father figure sitting there and passively watching the house being trashed. Only a mummy, because that's what we're supposed to do, let them "express themselves" or the poor wee mite will end up in adult therapy, blaming you for squashing their youthful spirit or some such bollocks.

[quote EspressoDoubleShot]@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[/quote]
It wouldn't make me stop using them for their normal products but no more than usual. However, I'd cancel my home insurance when it was due for renewal as I'd probably have to fork out a mid term cancellation fee

Awful advert for all the reasons others have said already.
I absolutely can't stand the way the Mum is just sitting passively in the kitchen looking at her little darling trashing the place. Children are entitled to express themselves and to have fun but that stops when they are destroying other people's property and making a mess.

And no, I don't believe the insurance would pay out for that.
They'd start asking questions about how the accidental damage occurred and given the age of the child would probably say that he wasn't properly supervised. "Where were you when he broke the kitchen lights (or whatever else he broke)?" "Oh, I was just sitting there watching him as he was expressing himself dancing around in a dress and I didn't want to stop him in case it traumatized him for life/gave him a complex about his gender identity".

I have musical instrument insurance and the website for that gives very clear examples of what is and is not accidental damage. Cello bow, which resting on a music stand, falls on the floor at a rehearsal and breaks - accidental damage. Child drops violin case when carrying it and the violin is damaged - accidental damage.
Two children at youth orchestra play fencing with their cello bows (this was the exact example given) - not accidental damage, no pay out.

He doesn't even look like he's enjoying himself.

Boy in dress trashing house. One step to Man in dress trashing women's rights.
I'm fed up of corporates jumping on woke bullshit and not caring about the consequences to the wider community - in this case, I can't believe the number of teenagers "coming out" as trans (and in particular girls binding their breasts) and women being branded as transphobic for expressing misgivings about the way this is all going.
I have absolutely no problem with anyone wearing a dress (male or female), I do have an issue with condoning trashing a house or trashing women's rights. I won't be renewing my home insurance with JL (in the same way I won't spend money in Lush, the Body Shop etc etc) - I vote with my purse these days.

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.

I agree, all the women I know who’ve seen it are bloody angry, most of them have said “who’ll be cleaning up that mess?!” They now think JL=No respect for women.

John Lewis just isn’t what it used to be.
It and Waitrose used to be lovely stores that reliably sold decent quality goods and tended to refer to their clients as madam. Returns were easy.

Now, not so much so. Returns are more difficult. Stock, especially home stuff, looks tired and bland. And the middle class, southern English women who shop there seem to be subtly held in contempt.

@Tedimhoardingrightsosaur

Thanks for clarifying DadDadDad.

Actually, your name has made me remember something else. It is highly unlikely they would have portrayed a father figure sitting there and passively watching the house being trashed. Only a mummy, because that's what we're supposed to do, let them "express themselves" or the poor wee mite will end up in adult therapy, blaming you for squashing their youthful spirit or some such bollocks.

Up until a few years ago the advert would likely have shown a hapless dad struggling to do anything whilst "mum sorts it out".

In fact we need a JL boycott this Xmas.

Us women need to show these corporate idiots who spends the money in the household. I usually buy 90% of the Xmas presents from JL and buy 100% food form Waitrose. I’m not going to this year. I’ve had enough of this never ending shit!

The only thing that irritated me about it the blatant nod to the fashionable topic of the moment...being transgender.

Otherwise while it's a crazy advert - obviously no parent would let him trash their house that way - it didn't bother me that much. I don't see it as male entitlement, just that they've shoehorned this boy into make-up and dresses to show their liberal credentials.

The older advert with the little girl ballet dancing was better because all the damage was accidental.

@Tedimhoardingrightsosaur

Thanks for clarifying DadDadDad.

Actually, your name has made me remember something else. It is highly unlikely they would have portrayed a father figure sitting there and passively watching the house being trashed. Only a mummy, because that's what we're supposed to do, let them "express themselves" or the poor wee mite will end up in adult therapy, blaming you for squashing their youthful spirit or some such bollocks.

I'm not so sure. TV "dads" are often portrayed as a bit lame, aren't they? The stereotyped dad would probably be weakly saying "oh, I don't think you should be doing that, er... do you think that's a good idea?" while the destruction continues.

Personally, just a few seconds in, where he kicks a shoe at a lamp, I'd be standing in front of him telling him the damage will be coming out of his pocket money!

The pouting and provocative poses are, for me, truly disturbing. This is a child. He's being portrayed like a drag artist. Now I know drag is all over the TV just now and we're supposed to agree its all "good clean fun"....I don't see it like that and I despise a company who will portray a child I'm such a serialised way. Is this JLP or PIE????

How's the house stayed immaculate so far???

Also, can we claim on insurance for deliberate damage???

Ffs can I write SEXUALISED ????? Frigging autocorrect

I thought it was a parody advert. Everything exaggerated for comedic effect. Including the sex stereotypes of destructive hyper boy vs. good passive girl.

@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.

This.

I can's see either of my girls not reacting badly to such provocation or growing up Dsis and I with DBrother in similar situation.

I wonder if that's why DS speculated they might be afraid of the boy - as such a passive mother and sister make no sense in our family or friends families and how else do you explain it and the wilful destruction.

It has got people talking but John Lewis and incredibly bad customer service are linked in my brain so probably not their target home insurance person.

The only issue I have is that he's a fucking brat.

Would John Lewis pick up all the pieces if I just sit back with a cup of tea and watch my kids willfully fubar the house? Or do they have to be smashing down gender stereotypes while they do it? I feel like I need answers before I form an opinion.