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.

[quote ArabellaScott]Research on gendered toys/retail from 'let toys be toys' (2016)

'Our mystery shoppers looked at stores across the UK to see how toys were presented. They found only two stores using ‘Boys Toys’ and ‘Girls Toys’ signs. We’ve gone from 50% of the shops we visited in 2012 having these signs to virtually none.'

www.lettoysbetoys.org.uk/research/2016-research/[/quote]
The may not say Boys/Girls but the implication is still clear. Your average Smyths has it's regular aisles and it's two pink aisles. I remember when my son was around 3 and a half he used to go to those aisles to see the girl toys. I argued that they weren't girl toys. He said 'yes they are, all the boxes have pictures of girls on them!' And he was right.

I was so stumped by his observation that I peevishly asked him why he wanted to look at them so. He said girls are cool and he liked toys of them. So to his perspective they were toys of girls as opposed to toys for girls.

[quote APerson44]@MargaritaPie Yes I just checked and John Lewis are a Stonewall partner. It's so ironic that huge capitalist organisations are pushing identity politics for a socialist (perhaps even communist) agenda, which would see everyone eqully poor on a living wage and destroy the systems that allow people to purchase assets in their stores.

Sex matters are writing to many organisations, some are pulling out and others aren't. Trans persons already have rights in the UK in the form of the GRC. They may get a diagnosis of Gender dysphoria and legally change sex after 2 years living socially as the other gender! This is all gender self ID, a money maker for Stonewall and highly political.

You wouldn't allow any other condition to self identify and give them legal rights ie I'm Autistic today give me disability allowance, so why gender? It's all going too far and different 'marginalised groups' are stepping on each others toes to the expensive of our children.

Children shouldn't be involved on any of this, It's s indoctrination.[/quote]
Well, they're embracing the cheap and easy bit of that policy, correctly surmising that Stonewall won't be let loose on the world economic order any time soon

There used to be a lot of talk about courting the Pink Pound - that feels a bit old fashioned now that we'd assume any business would welcome gay customers, and now that it's more common for gay couples to have kids and attendant expenses. But I wonder if current execs and publicists are of the age where that was the next big thing, and now projecting that to the LGBT or trans pound?

I saw JLP responded to a FB query about the wanton destruction in the ad saying they do cover children acting like selfish vortexes of chaos. Which would explain why their quotes are so high. I'm GC and would try to let children dress however they want but I did side-eye the boy allowed to be a little shit while the sister is quiet and "nice". IMO it's as bad as a "helpless man" failing at parenting trope.

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p09yjp0d
Episode 1 and 2 of this podcast explain why big companies like JL are vying for Stonewall's approval. Stonewall give a special marque if they tick the right boxes. A bit like Investor in People etc. Eye opening podcast

Toy shops in the UK haven't had "boys" and "girls" sections for decades

Do you mean there aren't separate aisles/sections/shelves for 'girls' stuff' or just that it's not actually labelled that way?

There is still a wall of pink and blue, and the labels have gone in my DS lifetime (he's 9).

I'm on episode 3 of that podcast. It's fascinating, eye opening and very disturbing. Highly recommend it.

I think the Emperor's new clothes are finally being exposed, but sadly JL are so far behind the curve that they've distributed this advert at exactly the wrong time - just when people are starting to see the real issues.

Coincidently we went to a shopping centre with a big JL yesterday. I had to kill some time in it while my husband bought my birthday present in another shop. Lots of lovely things, but I left after 15 minutes and read my book on a seat outside. I do like JL a lot, but this advert has definitely soured the experience for me. I'm determined to vote with my feet, rather than just pay lip service to my disapproval of their tone deaf marketing.

@lazylinguist

Toy shops in the UK haven't had "boys" and "girls" sections for decades

Do you mean there aren't separate aisles/sections/shelves for 'girls' stuff' or just that it's not actually labelled that way?

It is not labelled that way.

There are not separate sections for "girls stuff". Similar items are grouped together- same as in any shop.

Whether you (general you) want to apply your own label is your (general your) problem.

Thanks @shallIswim, I'm listening to it now.

@scarpa
Absolutely no idea how to gauge the age of young children to be fair so... you got me there!

And yet you’re posting on … [checks notes] … Mumsnet?

Still think you're reaching and then some to call the way the kid is dancing 'sexualised'. Looks to me like a kid posing like they've seen someone famous do on TV/in a film, not a safeguarding concern

Um. What sort of film or TV programme? Appropriate for a nine year old? Or do you still think he’s 5?

And unless I happen to know the worst-behaved children in the world, chucking stuff about and is (unpleasant but) fairly normal, even at 8 or 9 - "Can you not kick your football about inside the house / You've broken the lamp and this is the secone time you've been warned" would be a perfectly normal thing for my SIL to say to her kids. Naughty, yes, but not spectacularly unusual

Have you actually watched the JL ad? It’s not like what you describe there and it’s not normal.

And unless I happen to know the worst-behaved children in the world, chucking stuff about and is (unpleasant but) fairly normal, even at 8 or 9 - "Can you not kick your football about inside the house / You've broken the lamp and this is the secone time you've been warned" would be a perfectly normal thing for my SIL to say to her kids. Naughty, yes, but not spectacularly unusual

As MidsomerMurmurs points out the advert is nothing like this.

Whether you (general you) want to apply your own label is your (general your) problem.

So if a shop has two aisles full of pink stuff, dolls and unicorns, while all the other aisles are unisex and toys traditionally preferred by boys, that is pure coincidence, the shop didn't do it on purpose and the division is just in the eye of the beholder? Or maybe they did do it on purpose, but the pink, dolls and unicorns aisles are for a different 'style' of toys but definitely not marketed at girls, nope, of course not?

Still think you're reaching and then some to call the way the kid is dancing 'sexualised'. Looks to me like a kid posing like they've seen someone famous do on TV/in a film, not a safeguarding concern

And to just reiterate, it is important to remember that JL have released an ad with a child behaving in this fashion as ‘entertainment’ for others.

So, JL is involved in sexualising this particular child on national TV.

And we still have posters who can’t see the sexualisation in those moves and the facial expressions.

And here is a hint: it doesn’t matter which character, or actual human, this boy was mimicking, the overall impression is that the child is copying ‘sexy’ poses and it is put up as an entertaining ad for JL insurance.

Final pose/gaze on the sofa I find particularly disturbingly provocative

To be fair, I took a screen shot from that final pose and zero’ed in on that child’s face. It is an expression of uncertainty and discomfort, particularly around the eyes, at the point I grabbed it.

Ugh it’s just awful. Makes me uneasy and a bit ill. Linking JL with spoilt brats and mothers that can’t cope/ don’t care. As I’m the mother, I’m not impressed!

I can't help wondering how much of the boy's facial expression is down to crap acting / too much concentration on the pouting and wall slapping.

Even if that is the case, surely when the advert was watched back they would have noticed that the boy's expression did not match what they wanted to convey.

If the child actor was in any way discomforted filming that, it's against all industry safeguarding guidelines.

This isn't gender relaxed at all. This is just applying the stereotypes of one gender to another.

@lazylinguist

Whether you (general you) want to apply your own label is your (general your) problem.

So if a shop has two aisles full of pink stuff, dolls and unicorns, while all the other aisles are unisex and toys traditionally preferred by boys, that is pure coincidence, the shop didn't do it on purpose and the division is just in the eye of the beholder? Or maybe they did do it on purpose, but the pink, dolls and unicorns aisles are for a different 'style' of toys but definitely not marketed at girls, nope, of course not?

Oh don't be so ridiculous. All shops put the same type of articles together. Do you go into Waterstone's and complain that military history and art and design and fashion are in separate categories rather than simply alphabetical by author?

It's your own narrow minded attitude you should be looking at.

Yes quite possibly. They should really consider the wider implications too. It has been taken down now I believe?

@APerson44

Yes quite possibly. They should really consider the wider implications too. It has been taken down now I believe?

Has it? I can't find that info online.

@APerson44

Yes quite possibly. They should really consider the wider implications too. It has been taken down now I believe?

I can't see any mention of it being taken down but it's playing out badly on Twitter and YouTube

I know the ASA will have to investigate it because there have been complaints on a number of grounds.

It's not uncommon for a business to voluntarily withdraw an advert while its under investigation by the ASA.

(I used to be involved in a campaign that regularly used complaints to the ASA as a way of leaning on certain unethical companies. The ASA did uphold more complaints than not. They were very thorough, even after a single complaint had been made. You do have to have proper grounds though.)

I saw there had been 130 complaints. One of them was mine. I said nothing about the dress, the colours or any potential messaging or agenda, but just that the child is clearly old enough to understand what he is doing; the damage is not accidental; at the point he tips over the paints he is clearly not just caught up in the moment- it was a very deliberate decision to destroy the paints; and the lack of the mother doing anything to protect her daughter.