I think you’re letting your own bias leak here where you implicitly assume all founders are male and their spouses female :)

That’s a glib way for me to make the point, but it does feel like you are jumping to conclusions. I would argue that divorce-related acrimony between founders is still at least somewhat interesting, in the sense that it’s a valid question whether or not there are standard ways to avoid problems in such complex and unpleasant situations as divorce. No matter the gender of the people involved!

It seems like you're the one assuming it'd be a given that the woman didn't contribute. Nobody else said anything about them.

It is valid to ask if this shift from talking about the actual story to talking about invented hypotheticals, and hinting at the danger a spouse might pose to one's company, would have been as quick or as easy or as likely had the spouse in question been male.

And the reason that people always "bring gender into it" or in other cases always "bring race into it" is simple: although to you it may seem that these factors are completely unrelated, to other people the whole experience of their lives is of gender/race being forced on them as a factor. The lack of that experience on the part of a minority of the population (white men, mostly) is not equivalent to gender/race not already being "brought into it", but rather an indicator of the ways in which biases and double standards, once deeply-enough embedded into a society, cease to be seen as such and instead are assumed to just be the default neutral state of affairs.

Nobody is under any obligation to discuss that aspect of the story. It's not even what the story was about.

> shift from talking about the actual story to talking about invented hypotheticals

You're not the Discussion Police nor are you the arbiter of the actual topic of the story.

This is starting to border on thought crime, and I think it's incredibly dangerous.