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.

@Wazzzzzzzup

This is how i imagine families with the "i let them express themselves. Wouldn't want to kurb their character... Like all the others" 😁 It's shite ad

I met a family like that when we were homing educating ours. Couldn't ignore child if they interrupted you, couldn't stop them doing damage. Mother told me if he climbed on the roof she'd be cheering him on but she'd never tell him no. I asked if she'd cheer him on when the police took him away for shoplifting (another thing she wouldn't stop him doing.)

I didn't fit in with that group and I don't think they were sorry when I didn't go again.

@MMM2

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

Yes my thoughts were "What a brat" didn't seem relevant that it was a boy in a dress, being a brat was the issue.

If you watch this advert and imagine a girl in the place of the boy...

Yes, absolutely.

Horribly annoying ad, but "male entitlement" isn't the first thing to pop into my head. I think it would be just as completely obnoxious if it had a girl behaving that way.

@OneTC

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

You see the mum for longer than a second. She's in it in the background from 43 seconds as he smears the kitchen cupboards with paint. He then knocks a pan that knocks over a beaker next to a laptop at 44 seconds. The laptop is right in front of the mother. We then get a direct shot as her head turns to follow him. Then you can clearly see her again at 49 seconds twisted in her chair looking back at the boy as he's dancing on the dining table throwing glitter everywhere. He would not have made it onto the table in my house. He certainly would not have gone on to jump on the sofa covered in crap at the end.

@DiamondBright

Would they actually pay out for deliberate damage?

No. But they will have to now. So we can all get our houses redocorated at their expense. Not sure if the inclusivity message really works for me. Cost, customer care, effeciency are my criteria. If they put something into local communities that adds. That's it rrall

My kids did a lot of damage... DD still does - I guess I need to switch to JL and get them to pay for the next thing she breaks? Or get them to paint the walls again?

Hmmm - if that's what they are saying - then I'm all for it.

According to John Lewis on twitter it was a playful depiction of accidental damage.

Excuse me? I have eyes.

The damage would have run into the thousands, especially the carpet!

I could never imagine claiming insurance for this. Son was playful and caused considerable damage to the house. Can you pay out?

@Tigerwhocameforsupper

It’s a boy in a dress trashing his home. Doesn’t hit the right note for me at all.

I get what they were aiming for… child gets carried away and causes damage. However this just looks like a kid on a deliberate rampage and is over the top.

It does look very deliberate.

He isn't ver-excited, or imaginatively involved and unaware of what he is doing, or in a strop, or upset, or throwing a wobbler - he quite cooly, it seems, sets out to disrupt and destroy.

Not a good message.

@shakehandswithdanger

Horribly annoying ad, but "male entitlement" isn't the first thing to pop into my head. I think it would be just as completely obnoxious if it had a girl behaving that way.

I remember a "friend" of DDs trashing DDs bedroom when they were about 10. Heard crashes and DD shouting and ran upstairs. Girl had demanded something of DDs and DD said no she just flipped screaming that it wasn't fair. Everything went flying, curtains pulled down, lamp broken.

I can confirm that it is just as obnoxious if a girl does it even if she didn't do as much damage.

The conclusion on whether this would be covered by the insurance appears to hinge on whether this was intentional damage or not.

If a one year-old put their hands in some paint and crawled across the carpet that seems pretty clearly unintentional, but a boy aged 7 or 8(?) would surely know that kicking a shoe at a light, throwing heavy objects across a room or smearing paint etc could cause some kind of mess that could be costly to fix or clean?

Jesus, spoilt brat alert, and what, the mum has to then schlep around cleaning all that crap up? Terrible advert.

You can be charged with murder and certainly criminal damage from the age of 10 in this country.

Strip everything else out and it's false advertising.

John Lewis are saying their accidental damage home insurance add-on will pay out if a child wilfully smashes the house up while it's parent encourages such behaviour.

Let's say a fourteen year old likes to "express themselves" by smoking weed, getting pissed on cheap cider and kicking the doors and windows in.

Mm mm mm...lovely insurance pay out.

I bloody doubt it very much.

Or is unhindered destruction okay if you're doing it because you're *fabulous". Will they pay out then. Yeah, err, no, don't think so.

Complaint to the advertising standards body about that, maybe.

If it had been flamboyant, just a rip off of tiny dancer, then maybe better

But thinking about a boy just casually wrecking the place and his sister’s stuff makes me really irritated

I've just watched it again and whilst he did create a big mess the only actual damage is spilt nail varnish on the dressing table and bannister (which you have a good chance of getting off with remover), a picture frame and a broken lightbulb at the end. The girls paint is likely water soluble and after a bit of a clean is unlikely to show up on the dark rug even if you can't get it all off.

I wouldn't personally put in a claim for this.

There are two things about this ad that really irritate me.

1. Exactly what you say, male entitlement. Boy old enough to know better trashing the house while his mum and sister just watch and let him crack on

2. the fact that he's wearing his mum's frock and make up is clearly meant to poke the kind of people that consider there's anything at all problematic and / or unusual about that. To create talk. don't mind that in itself (though it's a bit cynical), but what i do mind is that anyone who thinks it's missed the mark because of point 1 is just getting lumped in as "anti-woke" or disapproving of boys in dresses.

www.gov.uk/age-of-criminal-responsibility

If I or my brother had ever behaved like that we would have been living in a tent in the garden and feeding on worms for an extended period of time...

I think the narrative can be agreed - but I think it is a massive own goal.

Highlights - Male in dress, takes what he wants, does what he wants - and the women must stay silent.

Trans activism summed up in a JL ad.

Isn’t it essentially a version of their advert where a little girl also did it a few years ago?

@Journeyofthedragons

I've just watched it again and whilst he did create a big mess the only actual damage is spilt nail varnish on the dressing table and bannister (which you have a good chance of getting off with remover), a picture frame and a broken lightbulb at the end. The girls paint is likely water soluble and after a bit of a clean is unlikely to show up on the dark rug even if you can't get it all off.

I wouldn't personally put in a claim for this.

What if it was a Turkish rug costing £20,000?

I wouldn't clean it. It would have to be sent to a specialist cleaners.

But he was playful so John Lewis will pay out. It's an expensive insurance cover anyway.

Obviously, I would have to lie to the insurance company about this.

[quote Simonjt]Isn’t it essentially a version of their advert where a little girl also did it a few years ago?

[/quote] What was wilfully broken in that advert?

What if it was a Turkish rug costing £20,000?

If you have a £20,000 rug with two young children you can afford to claim on your JL home insurance

@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.

No, no it's not.

Plenty of people, like me, have said that not only will they not be buying home insurance from JL, but that they won't be buying anything from them.

Not all attention is good attention.