The wording of the judgment is brutal. An appeal court judge has effectively told the ex-wife of a wealthy veterinary surgeon to “get a job, love” (my abbreviation). It is imperative, said the judge, “that the wife go out to work and support herself”. Tracey Wright, a 51-year-old former legal secretary, riding instructor and mother of two, has lost her appeal against a family court ruling to reduce the maintenance she receives in future from her former husband. The case is seen as a landmark ruling for ex-partners of wealthy spouses. The gravy train has come off the rails.

Just as well. This is a case that really forces you to work out what kind of feminist you are. There’s a school of thought that would argue the wife’s interests should be protected because “she’s a woman and she has rights”. That is one kind of feminism, looking after “women’s interests”. But it can be read the opposite way. Treating a person as a special-case victim (in a situation where no crime has been committed), is the opposite of feminism. This isn’t even about individual cases, which basically deal with the apportioning of cash and assets between two individuals who have become too angry and disillusioned to decide on these things between themselves. No, it’s about a point of principle. And this is where this case has wider ramifications.

The only time this theme gets discussed in public is when it concerns the settlement of a wealthy couple. Tracey Wright came away from her divorce with a £450,000 mortgage-free house, stabling for her horse and children’s ponies (I know) and £75,000 a year in maintenance and school fees. The husband’s responsibility to his children (both over the age of 10) remains unchanged. Instead, the ruling concerns the £33,200 per annum for the ex-wife’s personal upkeep, which the he is seeking to reduce. Let’s pause on that word “upkeep”. Dictionary definition: “Financial or material support of a person or animal.” The wife is not a horse that needs stabling. Nor is she a person in Austen’s England.

This case provides an opportunity to say what’s obvious: it’s wrong to expect someone else to support you for life when the terms of the relationship change. I would go further and say that it’s not a great idea (or a feminist one) to enter into a relationship on those terms in the first place. Behind closed doors, however, these trade-offs happen on a smaller scale all the time. The personal is political and there is nothing more personal than the conscious or unconscious financial and professional bargaining that goes on within a marriage. These transactions are intimate and private, usually hidden to the outside world and sometimes even to ourselves.

Over the years, with many parents (men and women – newsflash, men are parents too), I’ve had conversations about contraception, vasectomy, adultery, sexually transmitted diseases and whether it’s a good idea to re-enact scenes from Fifty Shades of Grey. (Verdict: please do what you want but I don’t want to know about it.) But I would not advise trying to discuss the particulars of housekeeping money, who pays the childcare bills or what you might do financially if the other person walks away. That is a taboo. It shouldn’t be.

In her book The Feminine Mistake, the US writer Leslie Bennetts makes a persuasive case for the folly of giving up your earning potential long-term. She argues that anyone is foolish to risk what she calls “economic abandonment” and advises avoiding the “get a job, love” situation by never losing sight of your professional self in the first place, even if you do take career breaks for the sake of family. Or do what most normal families do and resign yourself to the fact that you won’t work because you want a full-time parent at home – but you will just have a hell of a lot less money.

It’s one thing for parents to make trade-offs – personal, political, financial – as a short-term option. It’s quite another to expect those trade-offs to last for life, even when a relationship fails. I can envisage – but not advocate – a situation where a woman devotes herself to her husband’s career and the family, sacrificing her own earning power. Or vice versa, when a man sacrifices himself for his wife. Equal opportunities tomfoolery, please. But to do this, like many decisions in life, is a huge gamble. And you can’t expect a court of law to guarantee your winnings. Instead, go to a jobs website and put “riding instructor” in the search box.