What is it like to be broke after being a billionaire?
quora.com
quora.com
This is a very real issue that happens, and honestly something conveniently overlooked in the "Fuck male privilege" of the current times.
How is a 50/50 split after a divorce anything to do with privilege?
The author, btw, attributes his going broke to:
"My team screwed up some basic arithmetic that led to my financial fall." ... "You might be wondering what an idiot I am for hiring such bad personnel who couldn't even add up some basic budgets and realize there was an issue." ... "But as to the specific person (the manager) who actually was responsible for managing and supervising budgets, I have absolutely no anger towards. He is my son."
It sounds more like you can attribute it to nepotism. Though even there the author says:
"It was definitely not his fault."
I'm willing to bet that that half of a fortune is not being put into as many economically active projects as the part he'd kept is.
In any case, it's irrelevant to how "privilege" plays a role, which was your point.
How is a 50/50 split from a divorce some sign of "Fuck male privilege"? Based on the information given, what should the split have been to be equitable?
We know nothing of the circumstances for any other ratio to make sense. Was the seed money hers? Did they flip a coin to decide who was going to run the company and who was going to raise the kids? Was there a prenuptial agreement saying there would be a 50/50 split on a divorce?
Instead, you seem to be reading something in the story based not only on what appears to be pure conjecture, but counter to how the author apportions blame. You continue the conjecture by positing that had the author had more personal money to dump on the problem, then it would have been better. But we don't know that. Was he willing to fire his son? Was his business idea any good? Or would it simply have been more money down the drain?
Nor do we know what his wife has done with the money.
It is strongly hinted (at least in my reading) that the money required to cover the fuckups could've been at least partially covered by the author's pre-divorce wealth; had they written something like "even without the divorce I couldn't have fixed the troubles we were in" then it would've been much clearer.
Do you agree with me that everyone has the right to a no-fault divorce?
If so, then it doesn't really matter what might have happened had there been no divorce. They got a divorce, end of story. If not, then who has the 'privilege' of being able to divorce?
Do you agree that a 50-50 cash split is a reasonable split after a divorce, at least when you know nothing about the details of the marriage and reason for divorce?
If so, then there's no "privilege", or sign of "Fuck male privilege." If not, then you haven't said what the non-privilege version should be.
Since people do get divorced, do you not also agree with me that it's a factor to consider in business planning?
And what's not clear about the essay? The author said, 1) the team screwed up, because 2) the owner's son didn't have enough experience, and 3) the owner didn't provide enough oversight. As the company stated to flounder, he got bad press, and lost investment interest. So he decided to risk his own money on the chance of a big win.
And note, this is after the divorce, so it's his own decision to invest his own money. If he hadn't done so, he would be worth millions. We also don't know if his wife would have agreed to the gamble if they had stayed married. He then lost the gamble. So it's not like he went broke because of the divorce, or diminished funds - it's that he made a gamble and lost.
He already said it wasn't his son's fault, even though the son was the most proximate cause to his problem. Why should he think that he needed to even add the statement that you want, when it was clearly his decisions that lead going broke, and where he places full responsibility on himself?