First of all, men almost never get it because men rarely sacrifice their lifelong earning potential for the sake of the marriage. Combine that rarity with the other factors that make spousal support pretty uncommon, and yeah, men rarely get it.
That isn't "a prejudical", that's just the the way the rules of equity work out in most situations.
As for men getting "continually...screwed over in matrimonial actions"?
BS. First of all, if anyone is proposing a screwing over in the OP, it is the OP seeking to screw his stbx (although considering the vastly disparate storeis the op has told, I'm gonna assume that anything from that quarter is untrue, and is an example for discussion purposes rather rather than a real life situation).
Second of all, I wonder what evidence you have to backup your assertion that it's "a prejudical" and that men are "continually screwed over in matrimonial actions"? Statistically, women are far more likely to end up sunk in poverty following a divorce. Women are far more likely to become victims of violent crime during and following a divorce. Despite these inequities that are imposed by nature, the laws of every state in the union have changed in the past several decades to imposed an individualized evaluation process for determining the equities of each case. This allows both men and women to adapt the system to their individual needs and situations. Sounds to me like you are defining "screwed over" to mean "not able to walk away without consequences".
Personally, I've never been able to walk away from anything without consequences. Not sure why a marriage should be an exception to that rule.
Contrary to your opinions and statistics, there are a number of items you failed to address.
Women are still more likely to be considered by the courts to be the better parent to have primary residential custody. This is clearly documented in a number of studies and publications.
There are a clear majority of states which offer no-fault marriages, but there are striking discrepancies of the awards to each party. There still is an overall culture within the judiciary that treats men as the responsible party (fiscally and otherwise) when a marriage fails. To wit:
-There are more demands made of the male, that includes all, or nearly all, the male gender's take home income, all in the name of "maintaining the lifestyle of which the family is accustomed".
-Judicial orders from motions to modify support, are more likely to raise, than to lower. And even when lowering is granted, it is often only temporary.
-Despite legislation in many states that articulates the percentages of overall income to be taken, the courts routinely ignore this. Why? Because they can, just as the courts very often ignore Stare Decisis.
"Screwed over" defined: How many times have anyone heard of the now scorned ex-wife/gf, deciding to emotionally batter their ex-male counterpart, and makes up a story of how they are an unsuitable father. How often does the court take steps to "err on the side of caution" and order supervised visitations, if visitations are permitted at all? How many times do those females go unpunished for their lies? Answer: Almost all the time.
Getting "screwed over" is also defined by the domestic partner who states a falsehood of how they were physically or emotionally threatened by the male partner. This is in the attempt to secure a judicial order that invokes Lautenberg, and the ineligibility of said person to possess firearms ever again, often forever removing that person from employment, love of hunting or target shooting.
I can live with consequences. But even Susan B. Anthony objected to the inherent unfairness to men too.
