Does not really matter what sort of words you want to call it. She still gave up her earning potential for the family. These decisions are made by two people, not one. And now, as a result of that, in divorce, they are woefully uneven going forward. Alimony is there to balance those scales. Don't like it? Don't have a stay at home family.
> I think I can find men who would be happy to do chores if a woman would be supporting them with high-paying job, and essentially zero women who will agree to such arrangement.
My friend group alone includes one planned stay at home husband, so you are quite incorrect on this point.
> Staying at home without working is a bad decision
Then don't do it.
> and you certainly can't chain man over it when it doesn't work.
Why all the concern for the man here and none for the woman? She's "chained" to lower earnings for the rest of her life as a result of this.
But they are affecting one of those people more than the other. So they should factor it in.
There should be implicit thinking "if we get separated later in life, then what?"
> Don't like it? Don't have a stay at home family.
I have no trust that alimony will only be applied to stay at home mothers, and not extended to any women with any earning capability.
And that is a trust issue right there that is damaging marriage as an institution.
Was career a sacrifice or something that she was happy to get rid of in exchange to support?
I think I can find men who would be happy to do chores if a woman would be supporting them with high-paying job, and essentially zero women who will agree to such arrangement.
Staying at home without working is a bad decision and you certainly can't chain man over it when it doesn't work. Promising of life-time alimony, in some extreme cases for a wife who never had any children even, is just pushing women into making this bad decision.