Caught between fairness and practicality, the father’s decision to reward responsibility over recklessness stirs a painful accusation of favoritism. In this quiet battle of broken devices and broken trust, love is questioned, and the fragile balance of family bonds is put to the ultimate test.

My son and daughter are both 17. I got both of them great laptops 4 years ago that should have lasted until now. My son broke his just a year after they were bought. I would’ve made him get one of the low quality laptops that their school issues, but my mom got him a new one.
He broke that one too in just 2 years. After that, I made him get one from his school. A few days ago, that one broke. I paid the school for it and decided to get him a used laptop that will be enough for school but not too expensive.
My daughter’s has worked fine until now. Last week, my 7 year old spilled water on it and it doesn’t work anymore. I’m getting her a pretty expensive new laptop because she hasn’t broken any electronics before and it wasn’t her fault.
My son saw that she’s getting a better laptop than him and he said that I’m being unfair. I told him that he’s destroyed 3 laptops in 4 years and money doesn’t grow on trees. He said that I’m picking favorites, and I love her more than him.
I said that he can get a better one with his own money when he starts working. Am I the asshole?
Conclusion
The parent is facing a conflict rooted in perceived favoritism after their son, who has a history of damaging electronics, reacted negatively to receiving a lesser replacement laptop compared to his sister. The central issue lies in the parent’s attempt to enforce financial responsibility based on past actions while the son interprets this as unfair treatment and a sign of unequal affection.
Is the parent justified in linking the quality of the replacement device directly to the son’s history of carelessness, or does differentiating the replacement based on fault unfairly prioritize the daughter’s needs and exacerbate the son’s feeling of being unloved? The core debate centers on whether repair/replacement decisions should focus solely on need or also incorporate accountability for past negligence.
Here’s how people reacted:
If the answers to the above are yes: NTA. Your daughter has proven she knows how to take care of her expensive necessary items and your son has not.
I n f o: how did each of the laptops break?
“Buy him a desktop and bolt it to his desk” At least then he cant drop it in the toilet???
Edit: I am a fool 🙁