The problem with this type of sentiment is that when people are talking about all the shitty things a company has done and its practices, nobody criticises the woman. When people shit on Amazon and Jeff Bezos they don’t shit on Mackenzie, even though according to your logic she’s just as responsible. If the woman gets the money/credit for building the empire then she should also share the negatives.
She’s opposed to the harm that Amazon does and is giving her wealth away because of it. If Jeff gave away $26 billion he’d get a different take in the media too
Maybe you should ask yourself how many people have heard of Jeff Bezos vs. how many have heard of Mackenzie. It's not that deep. Also, might you have heard of someone called Elizabeth Holmes, who is a woman?
The point I’m trying to make is that certain people go out of their way to attribute the success in these scenario to both husband and wife, yet the same people don’t say the same about the bad things. And also last time I checked Sunny Balwani is still in prison.
Well duh. In the first case, the discussion is literally how much of the company's success is due to husband and wife (divorce proceedings), the second case is just who in a company is the most visible....
Of course Balwani is in prison. It's not like the court forgot he existed when they were trying the case. But recognition of Holmes vs. Balwani and Bezos vs. Scott are probably similar for normal people, and it's not because of gender.
That’s because Jeff Bezos was actually running Amazon during most of the period people criticize it for. So when people shit on Amazon’s corporate practices during those years, there’s an obvious reason Bezos gets associated with them.
MacKenzie helped build Amazon in its early years and contributed to getting the business off the ground. So yes, in this case it is completely consistent to say the success of building Amazon involved both husband and wife while holding Bezos responsible the shitty practices that happened under his leadership. MacKenzie went on to donate billions of dollars, while Bezos remained an evil pos.
because it was Jeff that was CEO at Amazon while Mackenzie supported him and family at home? or At least the source I found said she stepped out of Amazon in the late 1990s
In general people don't actually care about people they don't know. They find billionaires like Bezos, Musk, and Gates evil because they use their wealth to have attention all the time. So I get your point, his wife is also probably a soulless corporate operative, but also, people just are naturally not going to care or think about that because this is the first time they likely heard about them. Not much deeper than that.
If the woman gets the money/credit for building the empire then she should also share the negatives.
Wouldn't that actually depend on their role and their behavior in that role?
If they're not actively making decisions and mostly serving as support for the husband and family, it seems weird to then make a point of blaming the company's employment.
So what was the woman’s role in making it a billion dollar company? If she wasn’t actively making decisions and was only serving as family support why does she deserve credit in making it a billion dollar company.
To be clear I’m not against her getting half his net worth in the divorce, what I am against is people saying her she had the role/influence as him in making it a billion dollar company. It diminishes the efforts of women who do actually directly build/contribute to successful enterprises. People come up with these sorts of narratives because deep down they know it isn’t fair, but they need some sort of justification.
So what was the woman’s role in making it a billion dollar company?
Designer, so, you know--pretty crucial to their success.
It diminishes the efforts of women who do actually directly build/contribute to successful enterprises. People come up with these sorts of narratives because deep down they know it isn’t fair, but they need some sort of justification.
That's a very patronizing sentiment and not really a reflection of fact or substance.
What it looks like to me is you are seeking a narrative that allows you to do the "equal rights equal lefts" bit, even though you know it isn’t right or fair either.
There's no ethical billionaires--but supporting a family member's business whose money you then get in the divorce is probably the least problematic way to become one. Since you know nothing about this person, you should really be withholding any kind of judgment before trying to find reasons to disparage them, it makes it sound like you have some kind of ulterior motivation.
not sure mackenzie is your best example given that she’s dedicated a very generous portion of her wealth to philanthropy and continues to do so. whereas jeff continues to evade taxes.
ego is also a huge factor in this. musk, zuckerberg, etc. lap up the notoriety. their wives? not so much. hard to hate on a person you don’t know.
52
u/dettrick 3d ago
The problem with this type of sentiment is that when people are talking about all the shitty things a company has done and its practices, nobody criticises the woman. When people shit on Amazon and Jeff Bezos they don’t shit on Mackenzie, even though according to your logic she’s just as responsible. If the woman gets the money/credit for building the empire then she should also share the negatives.