Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Male entitlement in the John Lewis ad

315 replies

MardyBra · 15/10/2021 14:06

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.

OP posts:
placemats · 15/10/2021 16:45

@girlmom21

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 Grin

But in this instance would you be lying about accidental damage?
placemats · 15/10/2021 16:46

Extremely wealthy people do have expensive items in their home and also children. They are allowed to do this.

NumberTheory · 15/10/2021 16:48

I don't find the strutting and pouting particularly off putting. Lots of kids do that. They copy music videos and TV programs. I sort of find it cute - in a kids copying adults way. And I sort of don't - as I wish there was a lot less of that sort of posing and pouting by women (and drag queens) on TV. But I can't get worked up about it in the sense of "the kid's too young". He isn't doing it on stage at a bar for dollar bills. Kids do practice all sorts of sexualised actions at home when they are quite young, that's exactly the place they should be doing it.

SinisterBumFacedCat · 15/10/2021 16:49

@Stompythedinosaur

I have no issues with a boy wearing a dress or dancing around.

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.

Yes this is what bothered me too.
HebalGerbil · 15/10/2021 16:50

Another thing.

Have these advertising creative types got no original thoughts.

That child looks like a cross between the cute spectacle wearing kid from Jerry Maguire and the cross dressing cute funny little brother called booger from the Rachel McAdams/Rob Schneider film "The Hot Chick". Only the child actor playing Booger pulled it off better.

The dance act is rip off off of Maddie Zeigler in the video for Sia's Chandelier.

It also looks like they have taken their inspiration more from an episode of Drag Race than from the real lived experience of trans women. That's not very "woke" at all. That's a tad exploitative in my view.

AutumnAlmanack · 15/10/2021 16:50

Little brat - I know what I would do with him!

Journeyofthedragons · 15/10/2021 16:52

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

More fool for the parents for letting their daughter use the coffee table placed on it for painting, I could guarantee my kids would have spilt it on the floor anyway. Grin

inferiorCatSlave · 15/10/2021 16:52

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

No as there no wilful destruction in that one - and while sibling looks bemused by girl dancing dancing girl when they are coming down the stairs there isn't deliberately destroying an activity siblingis quietly engaged in.

AllFanjoAndNoSnickers · 15/10/2021 16:55

Maybe not so genius as all it does is remind me that John Lewis have lost the plot all around, and provokes me to rant about it.

What I want, in case any JL people are reading, is:

Shops in our cities. I did not want you to close the shops you closed, and I resent you for it. I am not shopping at John Lewis Online: I am shopping elsewhere because I am so fucked off with you. I don't want to buy a fridge online when I've not seen it in real life, never mind clothes. And if I'm not able to go to look at fridges, you are also missing out on all the other random stuff you previously sold to me (mothballs, ironing board covers, men's socks, gloves, teapots - just random stuff which all adds up).

Because I am fucked off with you, I will not buy your home insurance or your car insurance regardless of whatever woke shit the adverts involve about boys in dresses (especially not when they also involve mysogynistic crap about nice passive girls and their nice passive mummies). Leaving aside the wokeness, boy in a dress, etc, most parents would just think "WTF?" if they came across a child who behaved like that while the parent just sat there watching. They wouldn't think "Ooh, my insurance will cover the fact that we've never tried to discipline our child." Or is JL the only insurance provider in the world which covers deliberate damage?

I am fucked off completely and utterly with your wokeness.

I am also fucked off with your "inclusivity". I had some email marketing aimed at me, about how your bras fit all women of all sizes. Only when I looked, the only bra in my size was a "starter bra" in the schoolwear department. So stop peddling the 'inclusive' line, too, because you are not inclusive.

Most of the stuff you sell is made in China, which is a black mark against any company in my book.

I have been a die-hard JL shopper for 50 years, if you count being ferried there from birth onwards. I am now never buying anything from JL ever again unless there is absolutely no alternative. This includes white goods, as there is a local supplier whose business is booming now that you have closed our local shop. Which is at least one good thing!

I'm also fucked off with you for installing a "John Lewis" aisle in my Waitrose - a whole aisle! Wow! - because all it does is remind me of how cross I am that you closed the stores, and this in turn makes me cross about being in Waitrose and go to M&S instead. I also hate the way that you think that you can choose that the one mug I would choose to buy from your entire china department is one that says "Best Nanna" on it. Not even "Best Granny"!

I would cancel my JL credit card but as the limit was set on it pre-divorce, I'm not inclined to as I'd never get that level of credit with any alternative now. If I could, I would.

lazylinguist · 15/10/2021 16:55

Where does it indicate that the child is trans? All I see is a boy being gender non conforming. He’s still a boy.

Indeed he is, because clothes don't make you change sex, however you 'identify'. However, it would be hilariously naïve to think that John Lewis made this advert with a boy in a dress and make-up with no intention of a nod to trans issues.

Gufo · 15/10/2021 17:00

@Stompythedinosaur

I have no issues with a boy wearing a dress or dancing around.

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.
ClareBlue · 15/10/2021 17:00

The absolute worst thing for an insurance company is paying on deliberate damage. So trying to be whatever they are trying to be, has gone pear shaped. Hoisted by your own petard comes to mind.
Did they think showing a boy in a dress was ground breaking or inclusive? Actually, what were they thinking.

beigebrownblue · 15/10/2021 17:00

Just to add to the mix.

That is a middle class, upper class home depicted.

If a kid did that in a lower income home someone would call social care and accuse the parents especially the mother of child abuse and neglect.

How and why is that an acceptable scenario for anyone?

SleepingStandingUp · 15/10/2021 17:00

I think the issue for me is tho isn't an exuberant child not noticing what he's doing and he doesn't seem joyful. It's a pouty child being a brat

Balonziaga · 15/10/2021 17:03

@Rosiesmydog

It’s fucking annoying. A. Because it’s ‘woke’ B. Because the mum and sister are portrayed as passive and accepting of the boys behaviour C. Because the kid is an entitled little shit and needs proper boundaries
^this^

And

D: Because there is no way this is accidental damage that would get a pay out so they are actually mis-selling their product.

Tomatalillo · 15/10/2021 17:04

And the tag line is “let life happen” isn’t it? So it’s a definite deliberate condoning of what you see onscreen.

HeronLanyon · 15/10/2021 17:04

I just found it really unpleasant. Second time I saw it I tried to see the child as a girl to see if I felt differently. Not sure why we are immediately to assume it’s a boy anyway. Made me feel slightly differently in that it was no longer destructive boy with girl and mother ‘behaving’ and enabling it.

TacoTues · 15/10/2021 17:06

What I want to know is that if I get their insurance I can clam for everything my DC have marked?

Because I'll be getting a new sofa and carpets throughout! And I'll started letting my little darlings rub their painty hands on anything I feel like upgrading.....

Fucking stupid advert.

Balonziaga · 15/10/2021 17:07

It's a boy

John Lewis have referenced it as so in their insipid response.

I don't think an advert has annoyed me this much for a long time.

berlinbabylon · 15/10/2021 17:08

I am not worried about the "woke shite" - if a boy wants to dress as a girl, bring it on,

The trashing of the house, the trashing of his sister's paints and the zero reaction from his mother are what annoy me.

Oh and the fact that no insurance company covers deliberate damage!

I imagine the ASA will be busy...

berlinbabylon · 15/10/2021 17:09

I wonder if it would annoy me less if a girl was trashing the house, messing up her brother's paints and her dad looked on?

MarshaBradyo · 15/10/2021 17:10

@Balonziaga

It's a boy

John Lewis have referenced it as so in their insipid response.

I don't think an advert has annoyed me this much for a long time.

Ha me too
REDHERO · 15/10/2021 17:12

@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.

Strange advert. Has the woke lot taken over from the sensible lot. Yep we all know that we have to tell all boys it's ok to wear dresses and if you want to be a boy or a girl or a unicorn or whatever it's ok but why trash a home as well.

Who thought 'I know boy in a dress trashes home on purpose' is a great idea for home insurance.

TheLastLonelyBakedBeanInTheTin · 15/10/2021 17:21

I feel like they must have been watching my son and taking notes... he is an incredibly destructive naughty boy who also loves to dance, dress up and perform the musicals Blush they do exist!

Yes this advert has some misogynistic undertones and is not perfect, but adverts generally use a lot of stereotypes because people relate to them. It is incredibly effective advertising if everyone talks about it, like I'm not thinking I need to look up whether they cover for children damaging things. If they do then they are into a winner with this advert. It stays in your mind also, because as the people who clear it up it stays with the parent as it makes you have a strong emotional reaction to the chaos and destruction and prospect of cleaning it all up.

dianebrewster · 15/10/2021 17:23

@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 🙊🙊🙊🙊🙊🙊🙊
I've been banging on about this very thing on twitter - I worked in Insurance for a while (PI and D&O mainly) so know how tightly underwriters define the circumstances of losses they cover - I was gobsmacked at the thought that an underwriter would cover this "class" of activity as accidental damage! Covéa don't seem to be quick to back JLP up and agree it would be covered! I'm guessing there will be "meetings" taking place about this!