As a child, I cherished the pages of Highlights magazine, so when my son brought home a subscription form, I was eager to share that experience with him. However, it quickly became clear that the magazine has not evolved much since the 1980s, particularly in its understanding of what constitutes a family.
In 2016, same-sex marriage is legal across the United States, and same-sex couples can adopt children in every state. Thus, I was taken aback by Highlights’ response to a request for better representation of LGBTQ families in their publication. The backlash was immediate and warranted. Highlights soon recognized the absurdity in suggesting that a gay couple needed to figure out how to include their children in their audience.
In response to the outcry, Highlights issued a statement on their website, acknowledging their initial reaction did not align with their values. They expressed their commitment to evolving and being more inclusive, stating, “We want to reiterate that we believe all families matter. We know that there are many ways to build a family, and that love is the essential ‘ingredient.’“
This was a positive step toward inclusivity. Their first reaction, however, was disheartening. It implied they were more concerned about losing a segment of their audience than about representing all families. As one mother aptly commented on their Facebook page, the lack of LGBTQ representation had gone unnoticed until they revealed their hesitation to include families like hers. She articulated the discomfort of potentially supporting a brand that does not embrace equality.
This situation provides an educational opportunity for parents to discuss diverse family structures with their children. Explaining that families come in many forms can easily be addressed with simple conversations. If a child sees a story featuring two moms, a parent can respond, “Yes, some families have two moms,” reinforcing the idea of love as the foundation of family.
Now, as I consider whether to continue my son’s Highlights subscription, the decision will ultimately be up to him. I dread the thought of him having to choose between a magazine he enjoys and supporting a brand that perpetuates inequality.
Highlights needs to understand that if they choose to cater to bigotry, they will have to accept the consequences. Their commitment to inclusion will ultimately dictate whether they retain diverse subscribers. Even if my subscription is just $30, I refuse to support a publication that chooses exclusion over representation.
For further information on home insemination, check out the impregnator at home insemination kit. If you’re looking for expert insights, Advocacy Day 2015 offers valuable perspectives on this topic. Additionally, Johns Hopkins Medicine serves as an excellent resource for anyone interested in pregnancy and home insemination.
In summary, Highlights magazine’s recent handling of diversity in family representation highlights the need for brands to evolve and embrace inclusivity. As society progresses, so must the media, ensuring that all families feel seen and valued.