For decades, the traditional arrangement was simple: the man went to work and financially supported the family, while the woman often stayed home and supported the family in a different way, raising the children, managing the household, taking them to school, activities, doctors, practices, and everything in between.
That work had real value, even though it didn’t come with a paycheck.
When a marriage ended, the law recognized that economic imbalance through things like spousal support, because one spouse had sacrificed earning potential to support the family.
Women fought for equality, equal rights, equal treatment, and equal pay. Fair enough.
But equality has to work both ways.
Today, there are fathers who make the same choice women historically made. They work part-time or earn less because they choose to be the parent who gets the kids to school, picks them up, takes them to sports, goes to the park or beach, handles appointments, and is there for the day-to-day raising of the children.
If that marriage ends and the woman is now the primary breadwinner, she may become the spouse ordered to provide support.
And if we believe the principle was legitimate when the roles were reversed, it shouldn’t suddenly become outrageous when the man is the one who sacrificed income to raise the children.
You can’t demand equality when it benefits you and reject the same principle when the circumstances are reversed.
Equality isn’t about men or women winning.
It’s about applying the same standard to both.
c 2026 Chu The Cud
All Rights Reserved
