So what would be better?  Crowd friendly?  What would work out better for everyone?

So what would be better?  Crowd friendly?  What would work out better for everyone?

How does that parking spot vary from the rest? Why should I, an able-bodied adult with no passengers, not park there in favor of whomever it is intended to benefit?

Note that if there's an implicit regelation of me to the back of the lot, and no enforceable requirements, I'm going to park there if I feel like it. Tragedy of the Commons.

I agree the graphic is a little over-the-top-normative, but don't think we need to abandon the prefix "family-" to mean "people with little kids/babies in tow" in such a context. Family restaurants, family washrooms, family parking spots—it's obviously not a comment on your choice of persons to include in your definition of "family", just a word to indicate "kids welcome/facilitated here". Nothing more judgemental is intended. Perhaps we could use the expression "kid-friendly" (providing that doesn't offend people who've chosen to raise goats).

These particular kind of families—with little kids/babies—DO count in the context of parking proximity. The point of the close parking is to facilitate an otherwise difficult shopping experience (anyone who's tried to get little kids/babies from a car inside a shop knows any inch closer to the door is most appreciated). So if your particular definition of "family" doesn't include kids/babies, you're not the intended audience. It's not saying "those are the only families of value". It's saying "those are the families who aren't going to come back and shop here if it's too tough to do so".

Maybe it should just say "small child friendly" or "stroller or wheelchair" friendly.  After all, people traveling with small kids or those with disabilities need not be related legally or biologically, but could still benefit from preferential parking....

Reserved parking spaces are a bit of a pet peeve of mine.  My mother doesn't have any sort of disability, but her husband has one and has handicapped license plates, so she takes the placard and uses it just because she wants a close parking spot.  On the other hand, a few years ago, I had a broken ankle (a temporary condition so I didn't qualify for handicapped parking) and could barely hobble anywhere, let alone across an icy parking lot.  In that case, why do I have to park farther out than people with toddlers?  Guess what?  Once or twice I parked in "expectant mother" parking.  So what?  Special circumstances vary widely, and there's no real way to set rules in stone without people working the system or falling through the cracks.

We can pretend they are a genderqueer or trans* couple, can't we? Just because one adult is wearing a skirt/dress and the other is wearing pants does not mean they are a heterosexual couple. WE are assuming things about them.
They are paint on the ground :) Let's make nice assumptions!

That's an absurdly simplistic way of reading the text and image.  By your logic you could say, "A daughter and not a son?  Not a family."  You're right to identify that "family friendly" is perhaps the wrong word (as other commenters note, perhaps "child/kid friendly" would be better), and perhaps the image could be better as well, maybe showing a parent and then a child of the opposite gender, or an adult with a stroller, but I think it's clear that the image is presenting what a family is, and not saying (other than perhaps implicitly) what it is not.  The question should not be "look at how exclusive this image is" but rather "how could this image be changed without a loss of clarity to make it more inclusive"

In the army, Family (capitalized) is a huge deal.  My girlfriend was told one Wednesday (where they get out early to spend time with Family) that she couldn't go home, since she had no Family.  We're gay and despite DADT being repealed, it does not make any difference.  Non traditional families are made to feel really alienated.  

I would love it if you did a study on the armed forces advertising and media.  According to them the army is made of nothing but straight, mostly white males.

Along similar lines, I've always though the "Family Restrooms" were amusing. While I appreciate them now because I have small children, I also realize that the window in which we, as a family, will appreciate them is rather small... I can just see visiting my the Family Restroom in the airport with my teenage son -- he's just now 5 and pretty sure he should be able to use the men's restroom unaccompanied.

Seriously, only four or five spots are designated like this at IKEA. If you're going to become upset about a family parking spot, why not a handicapped spot? Or a "To-Go Spot" at a restaurant? Your objective at IKEA is to go in there and get what you need: whether it's inspiration or MALM furniture. If you're distracted along the way by arbitrary parking spots--you've lost sight of your mission.

The equivalent parking at my local supermarket is not labelled in words at all; the icon is a large stick-person and a small stick-person.

They're different from other spots in three ways:
1. They are connected to the entrance (ie, you don't have to cross traffic to get to the entrance).  This means that small children are less likely to walk into traffic.

2.  They are closer to the entrance, reducing the walking distance.

3. They are separated from each other by more space (effectively, the parking spaces are wider, though the actual implementation is to mark out a no-parking zone between each space).  This means that you can open the back door the full distance without scraping your neighbour's car and you can transfer kids easier into a pushchair (stroller) or pram.I do think that "family" as a term for "adult with small children" is a perfectly reasonable usage in context - but the iconography at IKEA is very heteronormative.

The second half of this little article is poorly thought out. Best friends who support each other are indeed not a family, they're best friends who support each other. This sign could have been made to be more specific, but there's too much extrapolation happening in this reading of it.

The next time anyone asks any of you to explain privilege, you can just point them to this comment thread.

A discussion of heteronormativity derailed into some rambling, semi-coherent series of hypotheticals about Objectivism and Libertarian self-hood. Amazing.

But if you include other types of family that means you're saying the "traditional" man/woman/children model is no longer important, and that you want it to go away.  At least that is what some people claim.   

Not two kids. One kid and a wheeled pac-man.

How can you be offended by such a thing to the point of posting an article about it ?
Do you have nothing better to do with your life ?
Who has the time to overreact over such trivial matters ?
It's a f-ing representation of A family, it doesn't try to represent every possible case, it tries to get a message across fairly quickly .

Maybe you should have complained the people aren't painted black, ikea and everybody else must surely be racist , homophobic anti-single moms/dads .

It's a picture that will 'talk' to everybody, when you see it you think 'It's a family' .

"it leaves little doubt as to whose families really count." Seriously, do you really need that bad to feel victimized ?Because your overreaction is an insult to every legitimate case of discrimination .

You know on the toilets there are usually representations of a man and a woman in a dress, it is VERY widely used .With your way of thinking women wearing pants are discriminated against, that's not just a symbol to make it easy to recognize men from female .