I can see what you suggest if the woman does maintain her career ---but what about those cases where the woman --by mutual agreement gives up a career to raise kids and the man changes his mind about being married when she's in her 40's. I've seen that happen too ---and the man figured the ex-wife should end up with nothing at all. I saw that with my sister-in-law, the husband found someone else and tried to keep the house and the kids because she couldn't afford anything because she had no job or resume. He wanted a stay-at-home wife before that point though.
If she "gave up" her career voluntarily, why is he responsible for her upkeep after they're divorced? She spent 20 years schlepping around the house while he paid for everything and she thinks he's ripping HER off??? Why should any person have to pay for the lifestyle of another? Why should I buy my ex-wife a house, a car, new clothes, trips to the casino, or anything else? Why does a man's "responsibility" to his ex extend beyond the marriage contract itself?
Mind you, we're not talking about paying for a child here. We're just talking about some women who think they can retire on the extorted largesse of some boob who was stupid enough to marry them. If they want out, let them out. But they take half the bills and half the assets. Nothing more.
In fact, this paternalism (ironic, isn't it?) does women a disservice. If their "independence" from men comes at the price of dependence on the government, they've just traded one master for another. The truly FREE woman is one can stand on her own, without a husband OR a handout. She is also the woman who can then decide if she wants to be married at all, and under what conditions, instead of being forced into a dysfunctional relationship for economic (or biological) reasons.