John Lewis and it’s ‘gender relaxed’ ad

[SouthernFashionista]

Curious to hear thoughts on the new ad from John Lewis. It strikes me as sinister. Why does a small child have to send out a message of LGBTQ equality? Why is he acting like a drag queen.

@YoBeaches

Claire Pointon, customer director for John Lewis said: “We wanted to inject joy, freedom and humour into this campaign. The story we landed on fulfils this, with the idea that when you have John Lewis’ Home Insurance with the option of accidental damage cover, you don’t need to worry anymore, you can just ‘let life happen’. “The ad playfully highlights the things that could happen as Reggie dances around, freely expressing himself, from knocked vases and picture frames, to paint on the carpet and nail varnish along the bannisters.”

Why is it funny to women who primarily have to deal with poor behaviour of children at home and in school?

Why is it funny to women who have to clear up little disrespectful shits who don't understand the boundaries of their mother's possessions?

Why is it funny to girls who have to put up with siblings acting up for attention whilst they try and do something constructive?

Why is it funny to normalise destructive behaviour?

Why is it funny, to 'smash gender stereotypes' by absoluetely reinforcing the ones for females whilst pushing the priviledge of males to do whatever the fuck they like at the expensive of females?

Why is it funny to encourage kids to wilfully damage and destroy their homes so thats parents have to explain to their own children not to copy what they've just seen glorified on TV?

Why is it funny to suggest that gender non-conforming boys are attention seeking little divas who need a time out and an intervention from child services / a mental health diagnosis? 'All the things that 'could happen' if your child is gender non-conforming? Alrighty then. Pretty good idea to make sure they don't go anywhere near the lipsstick then, if thats what it unleashes...

Clearly its not intended to women who have kids, cos I don't think its funny regardless of your views on gender identity. Its just a bratty obnoxious kid.

Or maybe thats the point.

We supposed to celebrate the B-R-A-T because its aimed at the adult brats, who are yet to discover the joys of parenting and actual responsibility and expect Mummy to still run around after them well past childhood. I mean that sentiment is very 2021 in that sense...

Of course the customer director can't actually say, we are targeting over priviledged brats with more money than sense, because mothers are too cash strapped trying to keep food on the table and a roof over heads these days to give a fuck about as customers anymore.

But I think the messaging is fairly consistent and repeated over a number of years.

Ha ha. I'm rolling around.

I was going to pop in tomorrow. Will give it a miss now.

Everything everyone has said. Appalling and wrong advert on many, many levels.

And I've just realised the two colours the child smears on it's face are not just any old colours. They could have been red, yellow, purple, anything. But of all the colours the ad makers could have chosen they picked the brand colours of a well known lobby group.

Bloody hell.

@JapanJetplane

What does it have to do with LGBT? He’s a young child dressing how he wants and doing what he wants. Really weird interpretation to put on it to assume it’s making some point about gender or sexuality.

Lots of little kids pick clothes that adults would code as being for the opposite sex, because they’re not old enough to have internalised rules about clothes. It’s a pretty normal thing and nothing to be concerned about.

My 9 year old DS has at various times, grown his hair down to his arse, worn dresses and skirts, dressed up as favourite female characters, worn make-up and nail varnish to the point that I bought him his own, as I don't wear make-up and rarely paint my nails. He went through a massive Barbie and My Little Pony phase. He plans on dressing as a female character this Halloween. The afterschool activities he has liked best have leaned more toward female dominated and gender neutral with him preferring dance, figure skating, gymnastics, acrobatics, swimming and running over team sports especially anything contact. He's often the only boy in the class and he doesn't care. If he's asked about it, he just shrugs and says girls are cool. The only thing he ever does that's slightly more male dominated is coderdojo.

He's also a normal messy child. He runs around with the dog and knocks things over. He has hit my big wardrobe mirror with his hula hoop enough times that I've calculated and told him, exactly how many years of pocket money it will take him to pay for it, if he smashes it. He has done 'experiments' in the bathroom that have resulted in him drenching half my towels as he tries to clean up the flood. Spilled his cereal all over the couch through carelessness. Etc.

However, he has never, ever done a range of 'sexy' pouts, done repeated diva faints against the walls, with or without paint on his hands. He has never intentionally ruined someone else's activity by throwing things at them and deliberately knocking what they were using on the ground. He's 9. He has an innocent child's view of sex, he understands the basic mechanics of reproduction, knows some people 'fall in love with' people of the same sex and occasionally tells me he has a crush on a girl in his class. He has no real idea about 'sexiness' and doesn't try to ape ott adult sexuality.

But of all the colours the ad makers could have chosen they picked the brand colours of a well known lobby group.

Yes… strange that. And strange to have quite that green blue colour in a kids palate….

I think there is quite a few indications that this is adults who are projecting this behaviour onto kids. The sexiness of the strut, the pouts and the weak knee wall stuff and the symbolism of the colours marked on his cheeks like he is a warrior.

The adults behind this ad seem to have lost any sense that they are objectifying a child, upholding sex stereotypes in the reactions of the females in the ad and generally portraying that this is somehow acceptable behaviour, even ‘the insurers will allow it!’ is the message.

We saw it last night during Bake Off and no one in the family said a word, just looked at each other with a ‘what tf was that?’ expression.

We saw that too. DH looked at me and was very much WTF!

Cue Bake Off being put on hold and a discussion being had about how many ways the 'optics' were just plain wrong!

John Lewis nails gender ideology. Males can behave as badly as they like, as long as they dress up and parody femininity. Actual women and girls are the ones being bullied and left to deal with the mess.

Yep, they are making this kid behave like a mini adult.

A narcissistic, badly behaved adult, at that.

I also saw it during Bake Off last night before I saw this thread and couldn't quite believe what I'd just seen. We also had a wtf was that moment.

Well .... let's just see what their Christmas ad is this year...

I've just complained to JL and the ASA.

I'm really not one for over thinking stuff, think cock-ups far outweigh conspiracies and am about as far from a tin foil hatter as you can get. But I'm actually beginning to find the subliminal pushing of this ideology a little scary.

The use and prominence of these two brand colours on the child's face and in the closing shot is no more accidental than the damage caused by the child in the advert. Decisions were made, approved and signed off. Why not use red and blue? Or green and yellow? Or one of the brand colours but not the other?
Adverts are expensive. Choices are made carefully. Nothing in that advert is there by chance.

Some posters have posted some interesting views about the colours and the damage being done (symbolism for destabilisation) but been deleted.

@Helleofabore

Some posters have posted some interesting views about the colours and the damage being done (symbolism for destabilisation) but been deleted.

I didn't see those. I saw some posts had been deleted but had no idea what they were about.

Also, I know this is a small thing compared to everything else. But why were there large crockery bowls of glitter on the counter. I mean that's fucking weird. I've actually ran children's art classes and I know for a fact that would be a terrible way to use glitter for an art project. At absolute best, the glitter would get ruined by other things falling in it. But realistically, the glitter will get blown and spilled about and can't be used in any practical way. It was also a phenomenal amount of glitter. I wouldn't use that much glitter in months and months of classes with 20+ kids.

"Reggie" could just as easily have picked up two tubes of glitter and flung it everywhere. In fact more easily as in the advert, most of that glitter would just have stayed on his pain covered hands.

@KingofQueens

What's it got to do with LGBTQ+ equality? It's a boy being annoying making a mess. He's not acting like a drag queen. There's nothing sinister about it. I thought we were supposed to embrace children wearing what they like, and move away from rigid fender stereotypes?

This! The child is behaving badly/ being destructive but that's all I got from it.

John Lewis nails gender ideology. Males can behave as badly as they like, as long as they dress up and parody femininity. Actual women and girls are the ones being bullied and left to deal with the mess.

Brilliant!

Adverts are expensive. Choices are made carefully. Nothing in that advert is there by chance.
Adverts are expensive but the usual decision behind colour choices is usually something along the lines of “the ceo’s wife’s cousin loves xyz” or “because we had leftovers” or “because it was cheap”. the bigger the company, the more random (its my line of work, there is hardly ever any thought involved)

The use and prominence of these two brand colours on the child's face and in the closing shot is no more accidental than the damage caused by the child in the advert. Decisions were made, approved and signed off. Why not use red and blue? Or green and yellow? Or one of the brand colours but not the other? Adverts are expensive. Choices are made carefully. Nothing in that advert is there by chance.

Totally agree. But I think a mischievous radical feminist had some input. Why make the boy so horrific, selfish and thoughtless unless it was sending a subliminal message about the behaviour of adult equivalents?

I refuse to see how anyone could watch that advert and not see the parallels with trans activists bullying women.

Nothing in that advert is there by chance.

At the end he is literally using the colours from the trans flag as war paint on his face.

Definitely no accident.

it's so so wrong in absolutely everyway. The sexualisation of a child and the wanton destruction of property while the female sit and watch. How could John Lewis get it so wrong.

Just seen this. It's a dreadful advert. I'd sum it up as boys will be boys the drag edition.

I think pp are spot on when they say imagine this advert set in anything other than a white, middle class home. Luxury nonsense.

But why were there large crockery bowls of glitter on the counter. I mean that's fucking weird

Agreed- I was puzzled by that.

The colours in the paintbox were red, blue, yellow, orange, pink and teal. Those six colours were chosen as were their places in a palette grabbed by the child. I'll let someone better at maths than me work out the random probability of a teal and pink combination.

I really hope Sappho is right.