Who Are These Parenting Magazines Even For?
We recently bought a humidifier that came with a free subscription to a popular parenting magazine. And although I’m even wary of the phrase “popular parenting,” I’m partial to free stuff so I filled out the complimentary post card and sent it in.
My first free edition arrived and I could immediately tell this magazine was going to be chock-full of pop culture fads and trendy sensibilities. I was not incorrect.
The first advertisement is a full page spread for makeup. I assume the reader-base skews female. But I can’t think of a better product to juxtapose to motherhood or a worse way for an exhausted new mother to be introduced to the magazine. How you look is given way too much focus in this magazine.
Also, I don’t know if the magazine publisher has a vested interest in its readers being in debt, but the Bahamas resort and luxury car ads suggest that’s the case. Or the general readership is far wealthier than this reader. And since I found very little in the magazine to relate to as a parent (either in the ads or content) perhaps I really don’t fit the target demographic. I am a parent, right?
There were also a lot of assumptions evident in the content which were not always true to my life: you have less than three kids, your kid(s) goes to public school, you’re looking for ways to sneak exercise into your day, both spouses work, every parent is racking their brain for snack ideas, there are more pets than fathers (they outnumbered dads in photos 3 to 1), and emojis are an acceptable way to communicate.
In the 100+ pages there was not a singular representation of a traditionally masculine father. There were some dads sprinkled about the pages, but for some reason these dads were never doing any traditionally masculine activities. They baked, did laundry, wore baby carriers, and cleaned the house. Which of course are things men do, however I can’t find a single study showing fathers come anywhere close to doing the majority of household chores, so at best this is wishful thinking.
At worst it’s an advertising ploy to capitalize on the current state of gender politics. But really at worst-worst it’s a slight to the women who are actually doing the brunt of these chores. I guess the magazine had gotten the recent memo from the American Psychological Association that says traditional masculinity in and of itself is bad and didn't want its readers to think it in any way recognized fathers in a distinct way. Even a stereotypical father mowing the grass would have been nice.
So I can’t say I came away from the my first issue feeling like it was worth my time. But hey, at least it didn’t cost me anything. Well, at least not in a monetary sense.
My first free edition arrived and I could immediately tell this magazine was going to be chock-full of pop culture fads and trendy sensibilities. I was not incorrect.
The first advertisement is a full page spread for makeup. I assume the reader-base skews female. But I can’t think of a better product to juxtapose to motherhood or a worse way for an exhausted new mother to be introduced to the magazine. How you look is given way too much focus in this magazine.
Also, I don’t know if the magazine publisher has a vested interest in its readers being in debt, but the Bahamas resort and luxury car ads suggest that’s the case. Or the general readership is far wealthier than this reader. And since I found very little in the magazine to relate to as a parent (either in the ads or content) perhaps I really don’t fit the target demographic. I am a parent, right?
There were also a lot of assumptions evident in the content which were not always true to my life: you have less than three kids, your kid(s) goes to public school, you’re looking for ways to sneak exercise into your day, both spouses work, every parent is racking their brain for snack ideas, there are more pets than fathers (they outnumbered dads in photos 3 to 1), and emojis are an acceptable way to communicate.
In the 100+ pages there was not a singular representation of a traditionally masculine father. There were some dads sprinkled about the pages, but for some reason these dads were never doing any traditionally masculine activities. They baked, did laundry, wore baby carriers, and cleaned the house. Which of course are things men do, however I can’t find a single study showing fathers come anywhere close to doing the majority of household chores, so at best this is wishful thinking.
At worst it’s an advertising ploy to capitalize on the current state of gender politics. But really at worst-worst it’s a slight to the women who are actually doing the brunt of these chores. I guess the magazine had gotten the recent memo from the American Psychological Association that says traditional masculinity in and of itself is bad and didn't want its readers to think it in any way recognized fathers in a distinct way. Even a stereotypical father mowing the grass would have been nice.
So I can’t say I came away from the my first issue feeling like it was worth my time. But hey, at least it didn’t cost me anything. Well, at least not in a monetary sense.