It's not at all short-sighted. To marry bringing no marketable skills to the union is unfathomable. Choosing not to work is another matter. Having the skill to work at something is a must. It's for back-up.
Thanks for your post. You made my case even better than I did. 25 years of misery? Was he holding a gun to your head all that time? Or, was it 'for the kids?' Puh-leeze.
OTOH, he'll probably die the same: an angry, bitter man.
We put the guns to our own heads more or less. WE dont want to be failures, worry our parents, disappoint the church, hurt the kids.. sorry after we are out & look back in the prison we build for ourselves.
Getting back to the basics of your original post and not understanding the concepts behind "alimony".
There are women who worked their whole lives putting hubby through school...taking care of the home and family...losing any competitive chance in the marketplace of developing themselves financially......just to be put out to pasture for a younger model when hubby becomes successful. I'm sure these laws were put in place to prevent the first spouse and children from being totally impoverished.
I find it interesting you referred to women who made more than the man...yet still received alimony. What state was this in? I don't know many women who make more than their male counterparts....if they're on the same level scholastically.