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.

The only thing that irritated me about it the blatant nod to the fashionable topic of the moment...being transgender
Where does it indicate that the child is trans? All I see is a boy being gender non conforming. He’s still a boy.

If you feel strongly then perhaps try and get the message across with a trending strapline -

John Lewis - Providing paedohphile-friendly content on mainstream TV. They're customers too.

The longer version could be - We are owned by our partners. We don't give profits to shareholders. Instead, we use the money to pay people to film children who pout and wear make up then pay other people to broadcast it on mainstream TV. Yes, we were surprised that was legal too. Actually, now you think about it, perhaps having shareholders who could complain might not be a bad idea sometimes.

Yes, but even lame dad being lame but attempting to sort it out - or indeed indifferent dad who sits there scratching his bollocks and watching TV while things happen around him to which he is oblivious - are very different to the mother in this ad, who is sat there and actively watching the damage as it unfolds, whilst passively doing nothing at all to intervene. It's beyond lame, it's permissive, resigned, afraid even.

@Marelle

The only thing that irritated me about it the blatant nod to the fashionable topic of the moment...being transgender Where does it indicate that the child is trans? All I see is a boy being gender non conforming. He’s still a boy.

Look at all the subliminal messaging. The rainbow on the kitchen wall. Smearing his face with the trans colours - blue and pink. The resemblance to Desmond Is Amazing.

The child is not being gender non conforming though is he?

He’s wearing a dress but he being boys will be boys type boy. Boys are tough & tumble.

His sister is being passive & ‘nice’. Confirming to a female stereotype.

It’s a destructive brat of a male with 2 passive cowed females.

That’s really bloody annoying. The dancing girl one from a few years ago was really charming. This is just horrible.

Am cross with JL at the moment anyway, as they closed my nearest store, completely ruining one of my very favourite things to do (go there and drift about looking at lovely things and buying stuff). I know it’s not the end of the world, but they have made my life a little bit more shit than it already was. They are very near the top of my ‘Wankers of 2021’ list.

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.

@MardyBra It's not middle class particularly- I'm sure no woman of any class would want more work. The little boy is likely to be from a middle class home.

What's with the mother and sister just sitting there and looking? Not saying "Oi sunshine, cut it out NOW" or even "why are you crayonning on the walls like a toddler"?

The dress thing is completely irrelevant to the fact it's about a child trashing the house.

We need the house decorating from top to bottom, carpets everything, tempted to tape the advert, open the craft boxes, and tell the DC to go for it!

It's absolutely awful. Made me feel motion sick to watch it. Suggests that a boy in a dress somehow has to be something of a performer or somehow 'out there' rather than just a normal boy. Really disrespectful to his parents, if I had young kids I would not want them seeing that as it gives a really unhelpful message. 0/10 from me and nothing to do with a boy in a dress (which kind of suits him even though it's too big - might be nice to see a boy just in a dress which he wears rather than dressing up in his mum's).

@Marelle

The only thing that irritated me about it the blatant nod to the fashionable topic of the moment...being transgender Where does it indicate that the child is trans? All I see is a boy being gender non conforming. He’s still a boy.

Agree, no suggestion he's trans at all and very silly to suggest he is. I don't see him as gender non-conforming either though. I think society has moved on (in the most part) from the idea that boys don't like to dress up in dresses and put on make-up. My son certainly did at that age and he is very clear that he is a boy and that what he wears and likes has got nothing to do with that fact. This is just a boy....being a boy.

I think what we should do choose a given day and all ring John Lewis Insurance to try to take out a policy against wilful property damage by our sons when they are a busy being “awesome trailblazers of the woke” and “speaking their truth.”

We will be needing specific clauses for wilfully smashed pictures, vases / other items and no excess for paint deliberately poured on carpets or smeared on walls and furniture.

Let’s see what they say to that.

For me, the thing that sets this apart from the Tiny Dancer one (which I also didn't find particularly inspiring but didn't make me stare wide eyed) is the age of the child and the passivity of the mum (especially over the paints and the stove top), though the initial pan of the utterly trashed parent's bedroom was a huge step up in intent and destruction from anything in the Tiny Dancer ad.

What an absolute disaster of an advert

Certainly persuaded me never to buy anything from John Lewis

Everything that is wrong with the 'elite' Guardian reading Middle class in one minute straight

In fact, if I had JL Home Insurance I would be calling them today and telling them U need the make a claim for damages and paint all over the house because my kids are “free spirits.”

Says a lot really doesn't it - male performing sexualised "feminine" posturing gets away with what the hell he likes, however destructive, whilst the females just have to sit there and accept it all passively.

A parody for our times me thinks.

I read a comment from JL that supposedly the boy doesn't realise the impact of what he is doing . Well fuck that. He is quite old enough to know that tipping your sister's paint over the carpet deliberately is wrong regardless of insurance.

@Marelle

The only thing that irritated me about it the blatant nod to the fashionable topic of the moment...being transgender Where does it indicate that the child is trans? All I see is a boy being gender non conforming. He’s still a boy.

I am not saying that boy is specifically identified as trans, but the sentiment behind this ad is quite clear, especially given the current climate and how much attention is currently on this topic.

@WineAway

The child is not being gender non conforming though is he?

He’s wearing a dress but he being boys will be boys type boy. Boys are tough & tumble.

His sister is being passive & ‘nice’. Confirming to a female stereotype.

It’s a destructive brat of a male with 2 passive cowed females.

^ Exactly this

On JL's Youtube, in answer to the questions:

Are JL saying their home insurance covers wilful damage by a family member? According to their own t&c’s this kind of damage is excluded.

and

Does JL insurance really cover you for willful damage???? Horrendous advert

and

He deliberately kicks his shoes towards the lights. Is that really covered?!

The stock JL answer is:

^With our Accidental Damage Home Insurance add-ons for buildings or contents, you’re covered for a range of home disasters including unintentional breakages caused by children. More detail here: www.johnlewisfinance.com/insurance/home-insurance/accidental-damage-insurance.html^

They don't seem to understand their own advert.

My viewing of it was that this wasn't intended to show a concerted drive of destruction but was rather making a ballet of all the petty acts of destruction that happen separately

I didn't see the mum as a passive observer, we only saw her for a second, she might be just out of shot about to rugby tackle the little glittering shit off the table

The dress itself I have no issue, the strutting though is pretty off key

I read someone comment that if you imagine it set in a run down council house it has very different connotations.

If you watch this advert and imagine a girl in the place of the boy, doing the same poses, pouts, etc, it would rightly be piled on for sexualising children. So why is it different if it’s a boy in a dress?

I do see a slippery slope of normalising sexualising young boys with the amount of teen/pre teen ‘drag queens.’

You’ve just got to read this link to see the problems.
www.gaystarnews.com/article/mom-disturbed-pedophile-lust-drag-queen-son/

All I see is an annoying brat willfully destroying a lovely family home because he chooses to, without any challenge to this behaviour.

@flowersmakeitbetter

It's hugely irritating.

I've already told Waitrose (in a customer satisfaction survey) that they need to concentrate on selling me groceries and forget all the woke shite. It's all getting a bit tiring.........

So true. Even Dreamies came decorated with a rainbow flag and a pledge of allegiance a while back. My cat isn't interested in the flag and he pledges allegiance to no one. So I bought another brand.

Not exuberance, just a brat wilfully destroying things, would JL insurance really pay out if you sent them that clip as evidence of damage.?