I think irs more that a poorly researched article found some click bait quotes and then someone clicked on the bait.
Also, your thread title said women, not some women, which is inaccurate. More accurate still would have been the phrase “a few women.”
Alimony and child support are economic issues, not gender issues.
This scenario, include the rest of @Jimmy_Chitwood’s post not included, seems to me to be a the female version of “I will rescue him and change him.” But aimed at folks needing ambitin/ economic rescusing, not emotional rescuing. Although a lot of male “failure to launch” is, at base, an emotional problem: rampant immaturity / insecurity.
Men have been trying to rescue unrescue-able needy damsels in distress since forever. Whether economically or emotionally.
As others have said, we can sort-of celebrate the problems as evidence of us climbing some ways out of early-1900s gender inequality.
Another way of looking at this is:
Rule #3: Regardless of gender / sex, marrying someone to rescue them is usually a disaster for the rescuer far more than for the rescuee. So don’t do that. Despite how easy it is to find willing rescuees.
I gladly paid child support (alimony) to my ex. I also gladly cut it off when they turned 18 (per our divorce decree). That’s when she got angry, even though she was collecting (and is still collecting, 30 years later) half of my military retirement, the math for which comes to about $300,000 and counting. Am I angry? No. I agreed to it and I live with it. It’s better than being still married to her.
But here you’re introducing the additional complication of the socioeconomic phenomenon of the “rich man’s leisured wife”. AKA “I’m wealthy enough to be able to keep a wife purely for social and decorative purposes”.
AFAICT, pretty much since modern economies and the rise of the middle class began, there has always been a (demographically very limited) subset of upper-middle non-aristocrat classes where this sort of setup prevails. In this setup, men acquire status by making lots of money through (non-manual) work, while they show off their status by, among other things, maintaining a wife who isn’t expected to do substantial work, either professionally or domestically.
I think it’s safe to say that if a man as wealthy as Johnny Carson at the age of 47 (in 1972) marries a third wife, while he already employs a cook for his meals and a maid for his housecleaning and a nanny for his childrearing, he is probably okay with the expectation that his new wife isn’t going to be doing a substantial amount of domestic tasks herself. When you marry somebody who knows full well that you already have a very successful career and a houseful of servants doing the domestic work, why would you suddenly get mad when it turns out that the new spouse expects to just let the servants to go on doing their jobs?
I don’t really see why you think that situation is a “classic example that people frown upon”. I very much doubt that most people actually think that a spouse (of whatever gender) who marries a wealthy person with a houseful of servants is expected to fire the servants and take on all the cooking and cleaning personally, in order to earn equal-partner status in the marriage.
That setup is very different, ISTM, from a situation where one spouse is running themselves ragged handling both the lion’s share of the income-earning and the lion’s share of the domestic tasks, while the other spouse isn’t contributing much of anything on either front. Especially if that’s not the situation that the non-slacker spouse expected or agreed to upon entering the marriage.
This is why people should get prenups.
Alimony and child support are TWO different things. Not the same. You may be required to pay both, but usually they have differenct calculations and terms over which they are paid.
Prenups don’t address in any way the dissolution of joint wealth/income generated during the marriage. Prenups generally address wealth/income/inheritances etc. that are relevant before the marriage.
If two people get married early in life and either person grows their business, income, investments, etc. while they are married, the other party has a claim against those assets regardless of a prenup.
So you’re basing your knowledge of how divorce and alimony works from a comedy bit Eddie Murphy did about Johnny Carson?
The purpose of alimony is to attempt to allow the lower wage earner of the divorced couple to maintain the lifestyle they had during the marriage for a defined period of time after the divorce. So if that’s allowing you to lay in a hammock on the front porch of your cabin in the Appalachian’s because you didn’t have a job, then your spouse should pay you enough to permit you to continue doing that. If your lifestyle when you were married allowed you to have a cook and housekeeper, then your spouse should pay you in alimony enough to allow you to have a cook and housekeeper.
It doesn’t matter what either party thinks is fair. It’s been established by legal precedent.
And it is. I should say “generally it is” because different states can have different rules. When I got divorced there was a formula. Yearly salary of both and length of marriage goes into one formula to determine amount and length of alimony. Yearly salary, number of children and percentage of custody goes into the amount of child support. Gender isn’t part of any equation.
As my mediator said equity is what is supposed to happen. It rarely does. That’s where the anger comes from. What equity looked like for us was me giving half of my monthly take home to her so she could live in a 4 bedroom house while I had to go live in my old room at my mothers because I couldn’t afford anything else. I do know someone who was on the other end. He made good money. She just made a lot more. He is getting quite a bit in alimony.
When your ex turned 18? How old were they when you married?
The pronoun “they” is a clue.
I used to be, but we had to switch to LED. “I am LED angry!” just doesn’t cover the same ground. We may need to go back to, “I am kerosine angry!”
In point of fact, what is ‘hard-wired’ in human beings is a sense of fairness. It is quite demonstrably evident in other mammals as well. It may be gender roles we’re talking about here, but it’s unfairness that makes people furious.
Oh, Lord, that’s the kind of stuff one reads about and is so unfair. Is there a specific time frame for this, or is it until your ex croaks or remarries?
Moderating:
You should know that lots of people now use the singular they as their personal pronoun. Just own up to leaving out the word “children” in your post, and move on.
Yeah, it wasn’t exactly well-written. Can I use “it”, or do I have to worry about offending someone? 
How about “our child/our children”? That’s what I do when I don’t want to use a pronoun for whatever reason.
I’m a flagrant pronoun abuser, mainly because it doesn’t occur to me at my age to consider the “woke” versions, even though I have a gay grandson. Old dogs and all that. Anyhoo, we apologize for our poor sentence construction and beg thy forgiveness.
At a certain number of follow-up jokes, it not occurring to you is no longer the issue.