Parents Magazine

  • Thread starter Thread starter prayerrider
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I dont understand your point…facebook is not a news source…are you selling subscriptions?
 
Well, it is the official Facebook page for Parents Magazine, yes? Ii is being reported that this image is their next cover.
 
For those who aren’t on Facebook, the cover shows two men holding young children in a family photo.
 
Yes, exactly. Thank you. And I really don’t know whether or not Parents Magazine has ever been socially conservative. I know where they’re at now, anyway.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
People still read these magazines? I didn’t even know they were still in business.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of magazines still around, through they are not quite what they were. They tend to be a lot more advertisement heavy than in the past. I have subscriptions to a few magazines that in the past I had paid money for. Now they come for free and are apparently financed by the advertisements.

But they are more like collections of targeted advertisements with articles here and there.
 
When I was young, it seemed like a lot of magazines published what we would today call “longform articles”. Nowadays, only a handful do, and all the best longform articles can be found online, either shared through social media or sometimes on aggregate sites like Longform dot org. Sometimes I browse a magazine rack at the store, and I never see these old magazines like Parents. Mostly it’s fashion magazines where the ads are part of the experience, or housewife magazines with diets/ recipes/ almost no written content over a 6th grade reading level, or “tribute” or “special issue” magazines focusing on a dead President or dead rock star or if it’s Nat Geo, “The Human Body” or something. I think once I bought a Nat Geo special issue on “Jesus”.
 
Maybe it’s an attempt to pump up circulation. I just hope “Highlights” isn’t next, with Goofus and Gallant looking for a cake baker to celebrate their nuptials or something. Not that it would really surprise me much.
 
The child on the right looks like he’s thinking " could someone please come get me away from this guy groping my crouch ?"
 
Last edited:
I wondered at the appropriateness of that hold, the way it looks.
 
Okay. I’ve held babies that way. It’s pretty standard when they’re facing outward. I’ve also had babies who looked horrified, exhausting, desperate, etc. in family photos. Think what you might about the politics of this cover – but how the babies are held or the expressions on their faces don’t specify anything about politics.
 
It may be a typical way to hold a baby. But is it the only way?
Not that the editors care how that looks, considering the overall message of the cover.
 
prayerrider said:
It may be a typical way to hold a baby. But is it the only way?
Click to expand...
Of course not. But reading something nefarious into it would mean my husband, friends, and I have been doing something nefarious with our babies for years. And we’re all heterosexual.
 
Having never had kids, I’ll defer to your opinion on the grip. Though I do know how to grip a football. Love football. I guess that makes me a toxic male now. Collision sport and all.
 
Last edited:
Too much traditional masculinity is harmful. I think we have a thread for that somewhere here :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top