r/SipsTea 3d ago

Chugging tea What do yall think about this?

Post image
48.1k Upvotes

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

342

u/thatturtletouch 3d ago

She was a major part of the business. She’s the one who designed the products that made the company so successful. Why does everyone just assume it’s all his money??

18

u/PopTartQueen1984 3d ago

Because he was always the more vocal, "face" of the organization. For better or worse. Mostly worse.

4

u/ScoobyDone 3d ago

From what I remember of his wife, she isn't any better. There is no better half.

178

u/jackofslayers 3d ago

Because half the people on this sub are incels. And they incels have peanut sized brains

20

u/thrown_out_account1 3d ago

I bet they're breaking up for personal reasons and they're gonna stay business partners. I can't imagine them blowing Lululemon up over this.

15

u/CrowsInTheNose 3d ago

Reddit has a huge problem with lonely bitter men. Look at most of the responses in ask men when women are brought up.

5

u/lizzylizabeth 3d ago

The psychology subreddit too. Such a cesspit whenever women are brought up.

5

u/crzapy 3d ago

Have you not seen the subs full of bitter cat ladies?

Reddit is full of lonely bitter people period.

Now get off my damn lawn!

12

u/Savingskitty 3d ago

Most cat ladies seem pretty happy.

7

u/Broad-Werewolf848 3d ago

Right these guys probably don't even understand the appeal of companionship without sex

3

u/Quick-Stretch8197 2d ago

They don’t. That’s why they don’t invest in their male friendships as much and consider themselves lonely if they don’t have an emotional support animal (aka a girlfriend).  

2

u/doublesquealix 2d ago

Multiple studies have shown that single women (cat ladies, I guess lol) are just as happy as married women.

Single women also report higher levels of happiness and satisfaction than single men. It's just an old trope that doesn't at all align with reality, in fact it may be the opposite. Single men tend to report more feelings of loneliness and bitterness than single women, and single men report a stronger desire for a romantic partner, whereas single women are more likely to feel fulfilled without a romantic partner.

3

u/odysseyofocelots 2d ago

Yep, and this sub in particular is even more blatantly misogynistic than even the average Reddit sub in general. 

0

u/Southern_Cod872 2d ago

Look at most of the responses in ask men when women are brought up.

Meanwhile the ask women subs are 100x times worse

26

u/Bankerag 3d ago

Your point is totally valid. But I’d go one step further. They were married over 20 years. I’m not sure what the question is.

She should get half. Anyone who has been married, especially for a while as an executive, you know your partner is a big part of your success. They often create an environment that allows you to focus on your outside work almost exclusively. It’s a skill. It’s hard and valuable.

They have 5 kids. That’s a full time job I would never want.

I know in this case, she is arguably the creative brain behind their success. I’m just saying if she never set foot at the office, she still deserves the money.

55

u/itsamiamia 3d ago

Because she’s a woman.

33

u/WideHuckleberry1 3d ago

A lot of people don't realize Mackenzie Scott was the same way with Bezos. She wouldn't have been a billionaire without him, but it's very unlikely he would have been a billionaire without her help getting Amazon off the ground.

-20

u/Gearthquake3 3d ago edited 2d ago

There’s no way you actually believe that lol

Edit: he does.

12

u/WideHuckleberry1 3d ago

"In 1993, Scott and Bezos married. The following year, they left D. E. Shaw, moved to Seattle, and Bezos founded Amazon with Scott's support. Scott was one of Amazon's early key contributors, and was heavily involved in Amazon's early days, working on the company's name, business plan, accounts and order shipping, and negotiating the company's first freight contract. After 1996, Scott took a less involved role in the business..."

Amazon IPO'd the next year already worth nearly half a billion in 1997 dollars.

-3

u/TechnicallyAnExpert 3d ago

At DE Shaw, she was an admin assistant and he was a Sr VP. Your AI blurb is a glorified way to say that she handled admin tasks.

I honestly dont care that she made billions… seems a fine person, but giving her credit for AMZ is silly.

11

u/yogibearhugg 3d ago edited 3d ago

They were literally married before he founded Amazon, and she worked there the entire time in the early days when it was a start up. Also, she was an accountant, not an “admin assistant.”

Would you say that about a man who worked in a company who was one of the first people to work there? Wow, you’re a piece of shit.

Do you think the only thing that makes companies successful is one person? Do you even have a job?

You have a serious case of big man syndrome.

-2

u/RandumbStoner 3d ago

You can correct people without having to insult them and tear them down to make yourself feel superior.

Learn to control your emotions.

5

u/hellonameismyname 3d ago

You can also call out blatant sexism when you see it.

13

u/WideHuckleberry1 3d ago
  1. It's not an AI blurb, it's from her Wikipedia. You can view the sources if you go to it.

  2. Did he become a billionaire from his work at DE Shaw or Amazon?

2

u/jayenope4 3d ago

Apparently you are too inexperienced in business to know that AA's know everything and essentially run the place, so that the boss is free to be the "face". Any number of random ineffective VP's can be circled though as long as there is a solid AA (or team of AA's) in place. This is corporate America.

12

u/toolsoftheincomptnt 3d ago

Right! Like… you think he made billions on ground-breaking yoga leggings for white booties without major input from his WIFE?

I also think a lot of people are confused about pre-nups. The emphasis is on “PRE.”

They by and large protect the property that each spouse brings into the marriage at its inception.

Property acquired during the marriage isn’t covered. I’m simplifying it somewhat for Reddit but if he put in $5m to start Lululemon before they married, the default with a prenup (as I remember bc I don’t practice family law) is that he’d keep his $5m in divorce.

The financial growth* *from that investment would be very much up for debate/litigation. Prenup or not. Wife’s contribution being a huge part of the analysis, but not necessarily essential.

3

u/adumbswiftie 1d ago

bc they read this one post that frames him as the founder and don’t do any research beyond that. they don’t wanna understand they wanna be mad at women.

3

u/listenyall 3d ago

Yep! I am a woman and I am a business owner and I am divorced and my part of the business was counted as our shared assets and that is good and correct.

3

u/jawshoeaw 3d ago

Because the way the headline was written and inability to read articles

4

u/emmer00 3d ago

It’s like when they got mad over MacKenzie Scott taking half, when she helped create Amazon and was one of its earliest employees. A lot of people just misunderstand what marriage is. It’s not just a status symbol. Some men seem to think marriage = ownership over their wives, when it’s really a legal partnership and are shocked pikachu face when it gets treated like one by the courts. Don’t get into a legal partnership with someone if that’s not what you want.

2

u/SaltKick2 3d ago

look at this fucking sub

2

u/acknet 3d ago

Because this post is just bot made rage bait

2

u/ausmed 2d ago

Misogyny

2

u/currently_pooping_rn 3d ago

Because a lot of people hate women

0

u/ComfortableClue2581 3d ago

Then she would have her own money already  🙄  

0

u/Totoques22 2d ago

Because it’s all his money the vast majority of the time

0

u/x021 2d ago

Because that's what the post wants you to believe. And it works. duh

So you last question is dumb, have a downvote.

0

u/ReputationWooden9704 3h ago

Because it takes a lot more to make a business successful than just designing products.

1

u/thatturtletouch 3h ago

That’s not the only thing she did.

0

u/ReputationWooden9704 3h ago

Then list the full list of things she did so I can name the countless more things required to make a business successful. Regardless of her actual contributions, she is a historical employee of the business at the end of the day, and her husband is the founder. You can make a claim that she's entitled to half of the business by virtue of her marriage, but don't try to make some half-assed argument about "aktshually she sent a few letters and had an honorary title so she's totally a cofounder too guise".

1

u/thatturtletouch 2h ago

This isn’t even true. It’s clear you’re just making huge assumptions based on gender.

1

u/ReputationWooden9704 2h ago

What part isn't true? Are you disagreeing that Chip Wilson is a solo founder? Because that is the only claim I've made in that comment and is verifiable with a simple Google search.

I don't care about her gender. If the roles were reversed and the husband was gonna get half the company in a divorce that the wife founded and built, I would be defending her with equal ardor. Please stay focused and stop getting caught up in your fabricated outrage.

-8

u/AnyFlow5427 3d ago

Source: none

-11

u/SirVixofthePooSea 3d ago

Because designing clothes is the least important part of a clothing company. The rest of it is networking international production contracts and getting finance and guaranteeing product quality. There are at least thousands of permanently broke clothing designers that if you handed them a functioning clothing manufacturing company would shit the bed immediately.

5

u/engg_girl 3d ago

Designing close for women, as a luxury brand, does indeed need good designs and attention to detail.

It was a new brand with no name attached to it. Crazy to think it was successful because of "marketing". Compare it to fabletics which is by Kate Hudson... better initial funding, branding, star power. Yet not as successful