It's much more so an act of trust for only one side of the deal, and for the other side it creates a ton of misaligned incentives.
That places all the burden of uncertainty on one partner. Will they just walk if their partner decides to be unfaithful? Their entire life hinges on them.
Not marrying is fantastic if you do not intent to rear children and just both keep up with your jobs, but otherwise...
1) Most married women with husbands who would be worth something in a divorce don’t stay home.
2) Why do you assume she gave something up? Suppose she wanted to be a stay at home mom for ten years, then took a job in marketing at a tech company making decent money, but not as much as him?
3) Divorce laws often say she is entitled to the lifestyle she was used to. This is crap. Two households now, both can’t live “how they’re used to”. Why does she get to? Btw, he’s used to sex every night, the court doesn’t grant him that.
4) The consequence of women having access to the broad workforce is expectation to participate in it. I don’t get a choice, why should she? She can stay home for a short amount of time and then go back to work. This way she’s can’t complain she’s dependent on him, so she should feel free right?
What people fail to understand is when there is little advantage in something because of poor treatment by the courts or whatever, people will stop participating. Women got divorced in droves when it became legal. It was their right. They walked away from it. Now men are often seeing little advantage and are walking away.
Wow that's a very deluded view, no one has a right to sex, married or not.
1) Exactly
2) Someone who does not participate in the workforce for 10+ years is giving up some career advancement and therefore lifetime income. Potentially quite a lot.