Interesting to see that Alan Johnson, a man frequently talked up as a future Labour Leader, has launched an outspoken attack on..... marriage and the two-parent family.
In a major speech, he claimed the traditional 1950s family had encouraged prejudice against single parents. He also undermined marriage, declaring it "not for everyone". Twice-married Mr Johnson told an audience of parents the magazine image of 1950s mothers in "frilly pinnies" and fathers kitted out in shirt and tie for Sunday lunch was a damaging stereotype. The era simply concealed discrimination against lone parents and children born outside marriage. He insisted modern families were wealthier, better educated and more liberated than their counterparts 50 years ago.
The minister, making his first speech on the family since taking over as Education Secretary two months ago, went on to declare that couples did not need to be married to be good parents.
Sorry but the facts confound him. By every measurable standard, the traditional family is still the best model for all concerned. It produces happier more contented children. That is not to say others can't be happy outside the state of marriage or that those whose marriages break up should be condemned, but all this goon Johnson is doing is playing the liberal card. What a creep.
The various alternative models of family we are now seeing are primarily a creation of the welfare state and are effectively subsidised by the traditional family which Mr Johnson chooses to disparage.
My view is you can have any set-up you want once you are willing to pay for it yourself.
For the vast majority without state interference that would mean the two-parent model with all the benefits and stability it brings to a society.
Posted by: Henry94 | July 26, 2006 at 02:04 PM
Actually he is right, i am from a single parent family and I have so far turned out alright i.e. no criminal recored, good results at school etc.
"those whose marriages break up should be condemned" Thats a stupid thing to say, marriage doesnt always work and often its far better for the children if the parents spilt, rather than them arguing 24/7.
Posted by: Political Teenager | July 26, 2006 at 04:35 PM
PT
You misread him. He was speifically not saying that.
Posted by: aileen | July 26, 2006 at 04:47 PM
PT,
Re-read what I said...
!That is not to say others can't be happy outside the state of marriage or that those whose marriages break up should be condemned..."
Now think about what you have written.
I am glad to hear you are doing well and you have my best regards for your future.
Posted by: David Vance | July 26, 2006 at 04:48 PM