The post you are reporting:
There are many alternative families who do a great job, and fair play to them. There have been some socially engineered financial attempts to acknowledge a new trend in alternative families. Social engineering is a part of the job of government, let's not be naive: Mrs T socially engineered the unions downfall, the increased stigma on single mothers, etc etc etc etc ad nauseum mainly through financial incentives and disincentives. That's what governments do. However, traditional, standard two parent families cannot be downgraded, despite efforts by the media to tell us otherwise, and the reason is simple: most people like them. While acknowledging the many alternatives to two-parent families, at bottom, the majority of people are drawn to the traditional model, attempt to create it, and are shattered if it fails. Even people in the alternative models use the traditional model as a basis - I have gay friends in two-parent relationships modelled exactly on traditional lines. If we are to move away from blaming successive governments for the failure of families, perhaps we would be better employed in seeking to support the families in existence and encouraging, not stigmatising, those who do the difficult and trivialised job of bringing up children. Rewarding jobs that are rooted in "care" for instance, rewarding families who pull together and raise children well in whatever manner succeeds for them.
Today, we are in the position of having to have 2 parents working because of the social engineering of the past which eroded social housing, caused poor family support by forcing people to move around after work (+ the bosses) rather than socially engineering work around communities (+ the workers), and ignored community and family need in favour of capitalist business need and dogma. Fact. we can try to mend that rip in the fabric of our society, but it won't happen by whinging or scoring points - it will happen by recognising the wound and treating it.
