Dump Highlights magazine now

  • Thread starter Thread starter Piney_Woods
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Piney_Woods

Guest
I read via Rod Dreher’s column at The American Conservative that a lesbian was raising sand with Highlights magazine for not featuring same-sex couples as heads of families. At first Highlights responded by saying “parents know best” when and how to approach this topic , but that, of course, would not do in this day and age. I wrote to the magazine for clarification, and here is the response I received (in short, Highlights caved):

"Dear ___,
Thank you for your message, and I’m sorry that we were slow to respond.

Although I see that you have already canceled your subscription, I thought it still important to answer your questions about what Highlights means when we say we plan to be more fully reflective of all families, including families with same-sex parents.

As you know, Highlights publications focus on kids. We are general interest magazines, and we publish fiction and nonfiction of all types, as well as games, puzzles, jokes, and crafts. Our target audience is kids under the age of 12, most under the age of 8 or 9.

The themes we cover in our magazines are broad and universal—relatable to children trying to navigate childhood. Because children are our focus, we rarely show a full family in our illustrations, instead focusing on showing the child the reader relates to. When a parent is shown or integrated in a story, it is frequently just one parent because a good 800-word children’s story cannot support too many different characters.

When we do show families in the magazines, we make it a point to include diversity. We strive to be diverse in every way. The goal, however, is not to specifically call attention to diversity but instead to help kids understand that while differences exist, we are all actually more alike than different. For instance, from time to time we show families headed up by a grandparent or single parents. We show adoptive families, blended families, multi-generational families, and multi-racial families. In the future, we will depict same-sex families in our magazines in a manner consistent to the way all diverse families are depicted. This is in support of our mission to help children become their best selves and understand that all families, including theirs, are important.

We’re sorry to lose you as a subscriber, but I hope this email helps to clarify our position.

Sincerely,
Christine Cully "

(Sorry for cross-posting this; I wasn’t sure which forum was most applicable for this topic).
 
Piney_Woods said:
I read via Rod Dreher’s column at The American Conservative that a lesbian was raising sand with Highlights magazine for not featuring same-sex couples as heads of families. At first Highlights responded by saying “parents know best” when and how to approach this topic , but that, of course, would not do in this day and age. I wrote to the magazine for clarification, and here is the response I received (in short, Highlights caved):

"Dear ___,
Thank you for your message, and I’m sorry that we were slow to respond.

Although I see that you have already canceled your subscription, I thought it still important to answer your questions about what Highlights means when we say we plan to be more fully reflective of all families, including families with same-sex parents.

As you know, Highlights publications focus on kids. We are general interest magazines, and we publish fiction and nonfiction of all types, as well as games, puzzles, jokes, and crafts. Our target audience is kids under the age of 12, most under the age of 8 or 9.

The themes we cover in our magazines are broad and universal—relatable to children trying to navigate childhood. Because children are our focus, we rarely show a full family in our illustrations, instead focusing on showing the child the reader relates to. When a parent is shown or integrated in a story, it is frequently just one parent because a good 800-word children’s story cannot support too many different characters.

When we do show families in the magazines, we make it a point to include diversity. We strive to be diverse in every way. The goal, however, is not to specifically call attention to diversity but instead to help kids understand that while differences exist, we are all actually more alike than different. For instance, from time to time we show families headed up by a grandparent or single parents. We show adoptive families, blended families, multi-generational families, and multi-racial families. In the future, we will depict same-sex families in our magazines in a manner consistent to the way all diverse families are depicted. This is in support of our mission to help children become their best selves and understand that all families, including theirs, are important.

We’re sorry to lose you as a subscriber, but I hope this email helps to clarify our position.

Sincerely,
Christine Cully "

(Sorry for cross-posting this; I wasn’t sure which forum was most applicable for this topic).
Click to expand...
Many thanks for sharing that. Bye-bye Highlights.
 
utah_rose said:
Thanks as I was considering this as a Christmas gift for my great niece
Click to expand...
That’s one reason I wanted to mention it, so that people wouldn’t start up a subscription without knowing Highlight’s new direction.
Ironically, Highlights indicated from their initial response to the complaint that they did not intend to incorporate this sort of material in the magazine. So, it would appear that they have given in to a bully, which seems to be exactly the sort of thing they might discourage in the magazine.
Complicating matters, who will come knocking next to have their (sorry, “zirs”) lifestyle represented in the pages of Highlights? Is this a harbinger of the impending use of gender neutral pronouns? How long before they start featuring children experiencing gender dysphoria?
If anyone knows a Catholic doctor, dentist, etc., please let them know about this change at Highlights magazine.
 
I understand your concerns, but there is something I am trying to figure out. You can choose your magazine subscriptions, but not your neighbors or your child’s classmates. If there is a same-sex couple with a small child in your neighborhood or at your school, will you pretend they don’t exist? No, I suspect you would have to acknowledge the existence of that family. You could speak with your child on your own terms to help him/her understand it in a Christian way. Now what difference does it make to your child’s moral upbringing if that realization and your explanation are prompted by a magazine or other media?

I am not trolling. I am just trying to figure out what is best way to bring up a child in the real world, and it’s not obvious to me.
 
It says that Highlights will show same-sex families the same way that they show other families. But before that, they say that they very seldom show a whole family together. This may just be a politically correct way of trying to offend no one.

I would certainly not let this bother me unless they actually printed something about a same-sex family and saw what it actually looked like. As someone said, children will actually meet same-sex families at school.

I think Highlights is an excellent magazine, and I will keep subscribing as long as my grandchildren still want it.
 
Highlights is still a thing.? I thought that would go the way of the dodo. I guess I just don’t pay attention at the dentist office anymore.
 
Beryllos said:
I understand your concerns, but there is something I am trying to figure out. You can choose your magazine subscriptions, but not your neighbors or your child’s classmates. If there is a same-sex couple with a small child in your neighborhood or at your school, will you pretend they don’t exist? No, I suspect you would have to acknowledge the existence of that family. You could speak with your child on your own terms to help him/her understand it in a Christian way. Now what difference does it make to your child’s moral upbringing if that realization and your explanation are prompted by a magazine or other media?

I am not trolling. I am just trying to figure out what is best way to bring up a child in the real world, and it’s not obvious to me.
Click to expand...
I’m trying to think of the right way to phrase this. For me, the big difference is that a child who reads the magazine probably has some affection for it, and even a degree of trust for things they read in the magazine (the way so many of us felt about Mr. Rogers when we were young). When the magazine presents something in a positive light, especially something a child is unfamiliar with, there is, therefore, a degree of authority behind it. When the child sees it presented in such a way, and then, hopefully, asks a parent about it, and that parent (my wife or I, in this case) have to explain to our child why we disagree with s-s marriage, we’re having to undo whatever has been done. Now the child has to decide who is wrong, Highlights or mom and dad. Are we teaching our child to hate anyone? By no means. Are we sheltering our child? You bet! In a time when, according to studies, children in our country, on the average, have their first exposure to pornography at age 11 (and I think that’s being optimistic), yes, we are very careful what our child is exposed to, and it’s a crying shame that Highlights has decided to submit to the pressure to enter in to this sort of social engineering.
To sum up what I’m saying, I think there’s a difference between learning about things from parents and then having the knowledge to question those things when you see them presented elsewhere, and learning about things elsewhere and then questioning your parents’ opinions on them based on what you’ve already been told. And we’ve not told our daughter anything about homosexuality; I won’t have her mind polluted with it at this age. And my wife and I don’t live under a rock in this area, not by a long stretch; we have had and still have friends who carry the cross of same-sex attraction.
 
I will continue to subscribe to all three age-appropriate versions of Highlights magazine. Unless the stories become about same-sex parenting, depictions of families in a cartoon photo does not really bother me.

Maybe Tex and Indy’s parents aren’t really married? Maybe the mom in the nursery rhyme photo has a secret Tinder account?

Very little can be gathered from the illustrations. The stores are really focused on the perspective of the child.
 
Listener said:
It says that Highlights will show same-sex families the same way that they show other families. But before that, they say that they very seldom show a whole family together. This may just be a politically correct way of trying to offend no one.

I would certainly not let this bother me unless they actually printed something about a same-sex family and saw what it actually looked like. As someone said, children will actually meet same-sex families at school.

I think Highlights is an excellent magazine, and I will keep subscribing as long as my grandchildren still want it.
Click to expand...
It’s certainly your prerogative. I think Highlights was a pretty good, fun magazine.
I don’t know that I believe what Highlights says anymore, since they initially said, (and I quote) “We believe that parents know best when their family is ready to open conversation around the topic of same-sex families.” Then the hounds were upon them and their position rapidly “evolved.” Nobody wants to end up like Memories Pizza or, worse, Sweet Cakes by Melissa.
Perhaps they will just attempt to placate the witch hunters with an illustration or two. Or, perhaps, there will be a story that casually mentions a child at school having two moms/dads. Maybe it will come up next Mother’s/Father’s Day. Then Highlights will have necessitated that conversation for your family, whether you and/or your kids are ready or not.
I imagine kids will also encounter other kids at school whose families have an alcoholic or abusive or, as someone pointed out elsewhere, incarcerated parent. It doesn’t need to be dealt with in Highlights. I grew up in a dysfunctional family, and I don’t think it would have helped to have seen any of my hellish family dramas played out in the pages of a brightly-colored magazine for children.
 
I would dump them simply out of principle since they are obviously run by pandering leftists who for some reason, like Target, pick a fight and side with the miniscule minority of readers versus the vast majority. There are other magazines I can give money to that aren’t run by shills for progressive nonsense.

Either way, it is only a matter of time before I suspect they admit that Goofus was a a clutsy, rude heterosexual male, and Gallant was the gay brother.
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
I would dump them simply out of principle since they are obviously run by pandering leftists who for some reason, like Target, pick a fight and side with the miniscule minority of readers versus the vast majority. There are other magazines I can give money to that aren’t run by shills for progressive nonsense.

Either way, it is only a matter of time before I suspect they admit that Goofus was a a clutsy, rude heterosexual male, and Gallant was the gay brother.
Click to expand...
Bottom line…end subscription and request money returned if the magazine changes.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
You owe highlights a thank you for saving you from being the great aunt that gives really bad gifts…;)😛
Click to expand...
In all fairness…when I called about my subscriptions I was told that no changes have been officially made nor are there any real changes on the table.
I’ll remember to come back to this thread if I see changes.

Highlights belongs to a family of companies including Zaner-Bloser, Boyds Mills and Stenhouse. Highlights is a steady and aggressive advertiser and I’m sure that it can’t afford to lose a large contingency of subscribers.

I still can’t forget what happened to Barilla pasta and sauces back in 2014…not too long ago. That same force is ever in the thick of life waiting to blacken anyone that doesn’t conform to gay ways.
 
Beautiful said:
In all fairness…when I called about my subscriptions I was told that no changes have been officially made nor are there any real changes on the table.
I’ll remember to come back to this thread if I see changes.

Highlights belongs to a family of companies including Zaner-Bloser, Boyds Mills and Stenhouse. Highlights is a steady and aggressive advertiser and I’m sure that it can’t afford to lose a large contingency of subscribers.

I still can’t forget what happened to Barilla pasta and sauces back in 2014…not too long ago. That same force is ever in the thick of life waiting to blacken anyone that doesn’t conform to gay ways.
Click to expand...
A followup on Barilla…money.cnn.com/2014/11/19/news/companies/barilla-lgbt/

Supposedly Barilla went from worst to first with gay rights. This inclusion stuff is something parents must carefully monitor and manage indefinitely.
 
Piney_Woods said:
I’m trying to think of the right way to phrase this. For me, the big difference is that a child who reads the magazine probably has some affection for it, and even a degree of trust for things they read in the magazine (the way so many of us felt about Mr. Rogers when we were young). When the magazine presents something in a positive light, especially something a child is unfamiliar with, there is, therefore, a degree of authority behind it. When the child sees it presented in such a way, and then, hopefully, asks a parent about it, and that parent (my wife or I, in this case) have to explain to our child why we disagree with s-s marriage, we’re having to undo whatever has been done. Now the child has to decide who is wrong, Highlights or mom and dad. Are we teaching our child to hate anyone? By no means. Are we sheltering our child? You bet! In a time when, according to studies, children in our country, on the average, have their first exposure to pornography at age 11 (and I think that’s being optimistic), yes, we are very careful what our child is exposed to, and it’s a crying shame that Highlights has decided to submit to the pressure to enter in to this sort of social engineering.
To sum up what I’m saying, I think there’s a difference between learning about things from parents and then having the knowledge to question those things when you see them presented elsewhere, and learning about things elsewhere and then questioning your parents’ opinions on them based on what you’ve already been told. And we’ve not told our daughter anything about homosexuality; I won’t have her mind polluted with it at this age. And my wife and I don’t live under a rock in this area, not by a long stretch; we have had and still have friends who carry the cross of same-sex attraction.
Click to expand...
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for explaining.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top