As a child, I cherished the pages of Highlights magazine. When my son brought home a subscription form from school, I eagerly signed up. However, it seems that while the magazine has remained beloved since my youth, its grasp on the evolving definition of family has lagged behind.
Fast forward to 2016—same-sex marriage is legal across all 50 states, and same-sex couples can adopt children in every corner of the country. So, when I read Highlights Magazine’s dismissive response to a customer advocating for LGBTQ family representation, I was stunned.
The public outcry was immediate and justified. Highlights soon recognized the absurdity of suggesting to a gay couple that they “figure out how to include their children.” They took steps to rectify their misstep, issuing an apology on their website: “In recent days, Highlights for Children has received numerous comments regarding our representation of LGBTQ families. Our initial response didn’t align with our values, and we apologize. We assure you that we are listening closely to your feedback.” This is a step in the right direction.
Their statement continued, “Our mission remains unchanged: to help kids grow into their best selves—curious, creative, confident, and caring. Yet, we acknowledge that our evolution may not be keeping pace with the needs of our audience.” Yes, it’s clear that the evolution has been too slow.
They emphasized, “All families matter,” recognizing the diverse ways families are formed and the fundamental role that love plays. They also committed to better reflecting all family types in future issues. Thank you, Highlights. This is how a brand should respond to calls for inclusivity—by listening and adapting.
Initially, their response seemed to echo a concern about alienating certain segments of their audience, implying that they would contemplate inclusion only in “developmentally appropriate ways.” A comment from a concerned parent on their Facebook page encapsulated the sentiment: “I didn’t realize that Highlights omits families like mine until now. If you’re hesitating because some families don’t want to see us, it makes me uncomfortable supporting you.”
This is a pivotal chance for Highlights to guide parents on discussing diverse families with their children. It’s simple: if a child asks about a story featuring a girl with two moms, the parent can affirm, “Yes, some families have two moms.” It’s about fostering understanding and acceptance, rather than teaching kids that different families are “weird” or “wrong.”
Now, I face a tough choice: share this situation with my daughter and let her decide whether to continue her Highlights subscription. I dread the possibility that she may have to choose between enjoying a beloved magazine and supporting fairness and equality.
Let’s be clear, Highlights. If you lose customers due to bigotry, that’s a burden you must bear if you wish to stand with all families. You cannot cater to both sides of this issue; you must choose inclusivity over exclusion. Your promise of growth and representation is what we’ll be watching closely. Even if my subscription is only thirty dollars, I refuse to financially support a publication that chooses not to represent many families who deserve recognition.
For more insights on parenting and family diversity, consider checking out this blog post on the importance of inclusive representation. If you’re interested in at-home insemination, Cryobaby offers reliable kits that could help you on your journey. And if you’re looking for valuable pregnancy resources, visit this helpful site.
In summary, the Highlights Magazine situation serves as a reminder of the importance of representation and inclusivity in children’s media. It’s time for brands to evolve alongside society to ensure every family feels seen and valued.
Leave a Reply