Women don't get to leave without "any real consequences or repercussions" too. If the woman is richer than the man, she is obligated to pay alimony to the man. Childcare too, if the man is getting custody. So, please make sense of what you wrote in this comment. Why do you think it's right that the man who in this context is richer than the woman and has a baby with her, gets to leave the marriage without compensating the woman for her contribution behind his money making success, and without taking at least the financial responsibility of the kid?

This whole article of yours is stuck with a point that doesn't even exist in legal terms, and I don't know how the people who liked this article didn't see that. Alimony during divorce is a gender-neutral thing in your country (in mine too, but that's besides the point) and alimony is paid by the richer spouse to the poorer one based on only the estimate on how the that poorer spouse contributed behind the rich one's success, how much money the poorer one could have made if they devoted all their time and energy (that the put behind that richer spouse during the marriage) behind gaining skills and making careers for themselves, and these factors are then reduced by how much the richer spouse paid for the poorer spouse during their marriage. If there's children in the picture, the richer one is obligated to pay for the child support (because someone has to pay right, it's either the society or the government, or the beneficiary as well as the financial scapegoat of the patriarchy, which is, the richest person in the family), and that's it. There's no spite factor in play while estimating the alimony. No "financial repercussion" is added on top of that estimated alimony to punish the "rejected spouse" for breaking the marriage because they were unsatisfied with the marital sex life, or, for cheating on the poorer spouse, or, leaving the poorer spouse, the birthing parent of their child, for the stretchmark due to the process. There's no such thing. So, what do you exactly mean by "financial repercussion" here?