What is missing from your smug pronouncement is the historical context, about which I've commented here many times, but I'll do it again: 

Women in Jesus' day were treated as chattel by their husbands, who literally owned them. When their husbands discarded them for a younger model (as our president has done twice) these women were left to fend for themselves, which often meant begging or prostitution. Jesus wanted the men to honor their contracts in order to save women from certain ruin. Nowadays we have something called alimony, and while courts may not always treat divorced women completely fairly, in most cases they are not left destitute, and women these days also have a say in whether their marriage will be dissolved or not, a choice that women living in first century Palestine were never given.

In terms of historical contexts, you're comparing apples with oranges. Jesus would have almost certainly taken those considerations into account. Or at least, I believe he would have.