Perhaps.
But to act as though skipping higher Ed and career building doesn’t effectively make a spouse of 50 reasonably eligible for lifetime alimony if she is an innocent party and he got the degrees and career progress is not reasonable. It should be a possibility in some cases.
Scenario A: You stay married. He works and contributes the money. You manage the household. He retires around 62 (the average age) and stops contributing new money to the marriage. You both provide something to the marriage.
Scenario B: Divorce - you contribute nothing to him ever again, but instead of him contributing to 62 to you - which is all you would get at best in a normal situation - you think he should pay into a relationship for another 25 years on average to 87 for you while you give nothing to him for 35 years? Sorry, not buying it. I can't even understand the pretzel logic of that except greed. Contribute till retirement and no more, period. The length of time till then can be reduced or extended based on the circumstances, but forcing someone to work significantly longer than they would have if they were married and receive nothing in return is not remotely fair, no matter the circumstances.
One thing i would like to see more often is allowing re-marry without losing all of the alimony. That would help the divorced wife as well financially.