Dhrishni Thakuria believes alimony is an outdated concept and I wholeheartedly agree with her. She has an interesting take on the historical reasons for alimony which I have not heard in quite the same way before:
Alimony has an interesting history, one that was basically a somewhat derogatory assistance for women who were seen as the “weaker sex.” The law in the United States is based on the laws found in Ecclesiastical Courts in England. Since the husband was the sole owner of all marital property, and the wife depended upon him to provide for her sustenance, the English Ecclesiastical courts consistently ruled that the husband had the duty to provide for the wife after divorce as well. Otherwise she would become, “a burden of the people.” Heaven forbid there should be any burdensome women around!
Most people who desire alimony are just looking for free money. They effectively claim they are so weak and incompetent they are unable to support themselves so need their ex-spouse to do so. And keep in mind it is usually the person who receives alimony who asked for the divorce. (Of course there are cases where long-term alimony is deserved - for example, imagine a person who has a debilitating disease and cannot work at all along with a n ex-spouse who wasted marital assets due to gambling or such, but these cases are quite rare)
Receiving alimony when you are perfectly capable of supporting yourself seems not only immoral but, given that 98%+ of the time the man is paying, quite sexist as well. The funny thing is that that men who argue against permanent alimony are taking a strong feminist position.
This reminds me of the move The Lost City with Sandra Bullock and Channing Tatum. In it, Tatum accuses Bullock of mans-planing to which Bullock states she can be mans-planing because she is a woman. Tatum replies that he is a feminist and believes a woman can do anything a man can.