Most of the ones who are either expect [...] or haven't yet realised [...]

Evidence? (I have noticed that on past occasions when you've made confident pronouncements -- in some cases, ones that seemed to imply being in possession of quantitative data -- you've been curiously reluctant to disclose the evidence that supports them.)

In practice the husband is the one who is providing most of said assets.

Sometimes, at least nominally. But ...

Imagine a family in which the husband works full-time at a difficult, hard-working, high-status, high-income job, and the wife looks after the house and the children. (The neo-reactionaries' ideal, right?) At least part of what's happening here is that the wife is foregoing money-earning opportunities in favour of work that doesn't receive any direct financial compensation, and by doing so she enables her husband to focus on that tough job of his. All else being equal, he will have more time and energy for work if he doesn't have to do the cooking and laundry and childcare. And that is likely to lead to better success at work, promotions, and higher income.

Now, of course the income from that is nominally his, not hers. And if you choose to say that everything that comes in from his employer, and any gains on investments made with that money, are "his assets", then indeed you'll see what happens in a divorce as "confiscation of his assets". But I think that's a superficial view.