Reading IntricateGirl's entry on K-Fed made me think about the double-standard in our society when it comes to marrying well. Now I agree with the gist of what she is saying: no one seriously thinks Kevin Federline has ever done anything valuable, nor will he ever. But Britney Spears isn't exactly a powerhouse talent, either. Let's face it: she got lucky and got by largely on her looks.

So what's wrong with K-Fed wanting to take a little piece of that with him when he goes?

Whenever a woman marries into money and a divorce is discussed, most everyone starts in on how she stayed with him and supported him and so on. She helped him build his career and they had nothing when they got together, etc. She deserves half for putting up with his behavior and so on.

Granted, Brit-Brit had already gotten hers before K-Fed got him some, but this has been the case in many high-profile divorces. I just can't help but think that if he were the rich one, a lot of people would be saying she deserved spousal support for "putting up with him" or whatever.

Like I said, K-Fed did something right (aside from marrying well, I mean) because he landed the girl. Granted, she's been known to marry guys at the drop of a hat, but that's neither here nor there. Britney Spears absolutely was rich before Kevin Federline came along and she will be rich after he leaves, but she married him! I mean, the headlines didn't read, "K-Fed to Wed," now did they?

I agree he's a snarky, funky, little beast, but she definitely gave him a lifestyle to which he has grown accustomed. Very accustomed; I'd say being rich suits K-Fed pretty well, wouldn't you?

So, if we're going to be fair to both sexes (nowadays, maybe I should say all the sexes?), then Brit-Brit? You gots to pay to play, baby.

(P.S., Call me!)