James, although I don’t have children, I read your article and found myself nodding in agreement… until the final two paragraphs. What an appalling solution!

People in your proposed ‘wealthy’ bracket, as defined by you as $70,000, already pay enough tax. As someone in that category who pays my taxes and has never claimed any form of support from the government, I am sick and tired of being told I should be paying more.

Currently, my partner and I are a dual income, no kids household and while that situation may change one day, I will not support the idea that I have to provide for the needs of other people’s children.

I do support a welfare system as I believe all societies need a safety net to protect people who may, at some stage, not be able to support themselves. But raising a child is the concern of the two parents and it is not my responsibility to pay to raise that child if the parents are separated.

I'm gonna be terribly reactionary here.

"and educated mothers and fathers on the virtues of good parenting..." - somewhat idealistic. Its like the old plan of educating judges not to be sexist.

The current system still seems preferable as it places some responsibilty on the "non-resident" parent (like me) to pay some child care money rather than relying on some distant hope that somebody will try to educate me.

Your other proposal - making those in one tax bracket (and not others) financially responsible for child payments to other people's kids... Best to have an across the board income tax increase (say 1 percent) if we were going to go that way. But the electorate wouldn't buy it.

Sorry to be politically realistic

Most probably, “the best interests of the child” would be to have 2 parents, and in that way the child also has the support of 2 sets of extended family.

However wide scale divorce and separation is fast changing the face of childhood and parenthood in Australia, and indirectly, it is making so many people dependant upon government.

It appears that 1 divorce is a tragedy, but 1,000 divorces per week is a mere statistic, and while much thought has been given to child custody, little thought has been given into how to reduce the flood of divorces and separations in the first place.

About the only study into the “reasons for divorce” was carried out some years ago, http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/WP20.html and one analysis of that study found aspects of it were quite biased also http://www.cis.org.au/Media/OpEds/opeds1999/E260799.htm, but no further research has been carried out carried out to my knowledge.

So, we have a situation where symptoms are being treated but not the causes, and now the treatment for the symptoms means that people will become more government dependant, which is not that recommendable.

I would agree that many women consider their children as a type of status symbol (or as an extension of their own identity), but I tend to reject the idea that men see their jobs as being a similar status symbol. I think that many men are forced into being the primary breadwinner by the mother, but come time for divorce, the mother will want the children to reside mostly with them, and will use the father’s role as the primary breadwinner against him. See http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/28/1059244556494.html for further details.

The reluctance by so many custodial mothers for the non-custodial father to have more parenting time with his children (i.e about 60% of custodial mothers don’t want the father to have more parenting time), means that these mothers want the fathers to remain as primary breadwinners, and they want to continue in the role of primary carer. But hardly much egalitarianism there by the custodial mothers, and not exactly in the “best interests of the child” one would think

I think this article is a disgrace, and am aghast that it's been republished by Online Opinion. To find out why, see http://larvatusprodeo.redrag.net/2005/09/12/a-real-doozy-of-a-thought-bubble/, at Larvatus Prodeo.

James,

According to your logic, women bear children in order to achieve status.

Women achieve status by dressing children in shop-bought clothes, sending them to private schools, having children attend gymnastics classes and ordering a glass of froth for their children when visiting a café.

Children who have received such attention do not experience real love. They are 60% froth.

James – is this a class analysis?

Should we advise the middle class to refrain from breeding for the sake of the future of society? Are middle-class parents bad parents? Is poverty a necessary condition for good parenting?

And James, according to your logic frappacinnos will contribute to the fall of society.

Should we legislate against the frappacinno?

Afterall, we don't want children who are 60% froth. Though, James - do you have an ideas about what is the acceptable level of froth? Maybe 10% froth is OK? Maybe even 15%. Maybe parents could get a frothometre to test their children's level of froth?

James - should we also destroy the clothing industry? Should we rely soley on the public school system? Should children's exercise be banned?

Or James, should you make some effort to appeal to evidence when you are invoking your academic position to give you public words greater weight?

Wholeheartedly agree that many parents use their kids to enhance their own status, parents being, unfortunately, only human.
However, the operative word here is parents. This extraordinarily anti-women diatribe, aimed squarely at mothers, is simply beyond belief.
I love the way society allows men to be human but expects women, especially mothers, to be saintlike and lashes them viciously when they prove to be just as fallible as everyone else.
Imagine having a perfect mother, you know, one who didn't care about status, or money, or what other people thought of her. Who was never insecure or unsure or lonely. Who didn't feel any anger at her ex husband, justified or unjustified, and always, always, always put her child's needs ahead of her own. A woman who was always wise and patient and self-sacrificing. I reckon any normal human child would want to kill her, quite frankly.
Guys, get real. We're no better and no worse than you are, whether we have kids or not. If you can think of a better system than flawed human parents, either together or seperately, I'm dying to hear about it, but Mum's ain't ever going to be perfect.