In every image presented to the viewer, there are at least three points of view to consider. First of all, there is the POV of the person(s) in the image. In this case, there is a beautiful young mother and her happy little boy. They seem to enjoy the pink toenails very much. Second, there is the POV of the viewer of the image. In this case, all of us bring our own prejudices and values to what we view. Most of us see what we want to see in such an image. Some of us get a little thrill of satisfaction at seeing a boy who likes polished pink toenails; others, a jolt of dismay at seeing a mom who likes boys with polished pink toenails.
But there is a third POV in the image, and that is the POV of the advertiser who commissioned it and employed the artist who created it. What does the advertiser want us to get from this? Advertisers want to sell products, in this case, clothing. What sets their clothing apart? Quality and style seem to be much of a muchness; there's not much here to differentiate this clothing from other manufacturers' wares. So, like McDonald's selling its fun ambience rather than its food (since its food is pretty bad, actually), or Bud Light selling expectations of a party rather than its taste (since its beer is bad, even as American macro-lagers go), this clothing manufacturer is selling a set of values. People who identify with those values will be motivated to buy these clothes rather than somebody else's clothes, but it can be argued that they aren't buying clothes so much as a set of values.
By the way, the POV of the advertiser subsumes the POV of the persons in the image. The woman and the boy in any given advertisement are probably NOT mother and son (though I gather they are, here). They may not always be as carefree and happy as you see them; it's their job to look that way, and they were chosen (and paid) for their ability to smile like that on command, over and over, until the photo shoot is done. So, rather than consider the connection between the people in the image that you imagine yourself in relation with, to understand the image you have to consider the connection between yourself and the advertiser. Who are these people? What are they selling (besides clothes)? What does it say about our society that they think these values will get people to buy those products? Is that a good thing? These are things worth thinking about.
As I've said before, I have no problem with boys getting their toenails painted, per se. It's part of growing up to check out gender markers before settling into a set of choices that fit one personally as well as make one comfortable in one's social setting. But when I see people rushing in to attack or defend what the people in the image are doing -- without asking what the advertiser who put the image together is doing -- I'm flummoxed.
Back when I was young, all my liberal friends prided themselves on being tough-minded and cynical. They saw through things. They questioned authority. They didn't trust big corporations (which the advertiser certainly is). But my younger liberal friends of today seem very different. Their innocent lack of sophistication continues to amaze me. Some manufacturer hires somebody to create an image to hook them, and they gulp down the lure uncritically. The conservatives who criticize the values in the image may not always be right, but at least they are aware that they are not alone with the beautiful mom and her happy son and their pink nail polish. There are others in the room, with other motives. Caveat emptor.