Post: #1

There was a story about all this a while back on ROK.

Some of the brand's Luon yoga pants had been plagued with problems like ripping, sheering or becoming very transparent. This prompted the following comment from the Founder and CEO:

Quote:"Quite frankly, some women's bodies just actually don't work for it," he said. "It's really about the rubbing through the thighs, how much pressure is there."

The angry women/feminists/manginas/PC crowd got all worked up into a frenzy over this. Today, they got what they wanted as Chip Wilson, Founder and CEO of Lululemon, has resigned.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/chip-wil...8?cmp=fbtl

Post: #2

Incredible how gutless these CEOs and companies are. They only embolden these lynch mobs with each "sacrifice".

Post: #3

jesus christ, this country

Post: #4

Wow.

Post: #5

Wow, I came directly here as soon as I saw this and just had to click on the most recent in "Everything else"

So now you can found a wildly successful athletic gear company for women and get fired for saying your athletic clothing doesn't fit the bodies of unathletic women.

Unreal... un.. real...

Post: #6

It's one thing if some random MBA CEO is ousted after a controversy, but the guy who built the empire from the ground up? If he couldn't weather the storm, who can?

Fucking hell.

Post: #7

The guy wasn't even directly commenting about girls being fat.

He just said some thighs are too big for his pants.

Fuck man.

Post: #8

Why do powerful men yield to this kind of shit? I can almost guarantee this would not have hurt his companies's sales that much. We all know when we purchase stuff, the last thing we think about it is what some CEO said.

As long as this keeps happening men will keep getting taken advantage of.

/rant

Post: #9

There's a good chance they will elect a puppet CEO and this guy will still run the company behind some less prestigious title. If it weren't the actual founder, they'd probably can him entirely. Sets a bad precedent either way.

Also, once a company is firmly established, it can make sense for the founder to move on - maybe because someone else will make for a better CEO, or because the founder accomplished what he set out to do and wants to relax or pick a new challenge.

Post: #10

(12-10-2013 01:07 PM)basilransom Wrote:  There's a good chance they will elect a puppet CEO and this guy will still run the company behind some less prestigious title. If it weren't the actual founder, they'd probably can him entirely. Sets a bad precedent either way.

If he's got majority ownership or at least majority power, this would be the smart play by him. He'll avoid a boycott of his products and still run the show.

Post: #11

wow.

Honestly I don't know if I could come back and live in the US anymore.

It really does seem like it's fast becoming a PC/victimology police state sometimes.

Post: #12

Wow. Just Wow.

Is this satire?

Post: #13

This is happening in Canada.

Chip hasn't been CEO for awhile, he's being ousted from the board because the rest of management sees him as a liability (opinionated, there is also controversy over his love of Ayn Rand and the fact that he chose the name lululemon because he thought it would be funny when Japanese people say it)

He still owns a large % of the company but lately has been diversifying his wealth which means he's been selling lulu stock. Probably resulted in him having less sway.

Post: #14

(12-10-2013 01:07 PM)basilransom Wrote:  There's a good chance they will elect a puppet CEO and this guy will still run the company behind some less prestigious title. If it weren't the actual founder, they'd probably can him entirely. Sets a bad precedent either way.

Also, once a company is firmly established, it can make sense for the founder to move on - maybe because someone else will make for a better CEO, or because the founder accomplished what he set out to do and wants to relax or pick a new challenge.

That's exactly how it happens. After a few weeks he'll be named as the Chief Creative Director or some shit. The fat chicks feel empowered and the sales at the company rise because the very fatties who complained want the image of wearing pants that 'fat girls' can't wear. If fatties weren't so fucking insecure, Lane Bryant would have a market capitalization larger than Apple.

Post: #15

Incredible.

However I know that they have been looking for a CEO for quite some time. He is the founder of the company. He has been wanting to focus on his latest project and looking for an exit strategy from Lululemon.

Now he has found it. He had better not let the hurt feelings of these people in any way tie into his exit.

This is still utter bullshit, I can just see the smug faces of the overweight petition signers who feel empowered and are now scouring the internet in a frenzy to see what other powerful men they might be able to fuck over.

And shame on the CBC to tie in the two events to sell some news.

Post: #16

The role mainstream media plays in these ridiculous controversies is so frustrating, especially after having taken the red pill and questioning/analyzing the world around you.

Whether it's in the Global piece from a month ago, or this latest CBC story, there isn't a single person who has the common sense or courage to say "yeaahhh... but is he wrong? We're all thinking it." Or if they did, it never made it on-air.

Instead, the comments are universally categorized as wrong, bad, "controversial," misogynistic or some other terrible thing.

Isn't there someone in the media here who can stand up and say what we're all thinking?

At lease there seems to be some people in the reader comments on the CBC story who are weighing in with some common sense. If only the media would follow their example...

Post: #17

This makes me sick. I saw the interview where this guy made these remarks and he was very tactful but clear on a certain point. The complaints about his line of fitness apparel were largely coming from bigger women. her is my argument. i used to be fit as hell. I would cycle in the summer topless because I looked good. as of late I've put on a little weight. you know what I did? I put a fucking shirt on. You know why I don't wear skinny jeans? Because I have thighs like a fucking German soccer/football player. It's just not a good look. So why would any one pushing 40% body fat try to shoehorn themselves into a size 0 pair of yoga pants. Bitch you aren't into yoga. So a handful of beached whales blow out the legs of there athletic attire and when this is given as evidence that there is no fault in the product he is harpooned by the liberal media. My question is this. What the fuck do you want? Kevlar reinforcement? The pants already cost $100 a pair. I shame any one who rallied against this man who created a clothing line that made any chick who was a 6 or above 1 whole point better looking while wearing a set of lulu lemons. Now they have a new female CEO and you know what's going to change. Nothing, because fat chicks are still going to look appalling in lulus and there fat frictionous legs are still going to burn through them like dried grass.

Post: #18

We need another #FatShamingWeek

Post: #19

If you want to keep control of your company and do whatever the fuck you want don't go public.

As posted above, it sounds as if he has been selling off his position for a while anyway.

Made his money. Move on.

That's what I would do as well.

Post: #20

Wow. Just Wow.

Is this real?

Seriously.

Post: #21

Post: #22

(12-10-2013 04:39 PM)Tengen Wrote:  We need another #FatShamingWeek

#FatShamingYear

Post: #23

There was an interview with a former employee on NPR today. You guys are gonna love this...Two things she criticized about their corporate culture under his leadership:

1) being encouraged to read books. One happened to be by Ayn Rand. (There is an employee book club of some kind)

And, even better:

2) feeling pressured to workout/exercise to stay in shape

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/busine...pants-gate

Post: #24

Any number of clothing manufacturers out there don't make clothes over a certain size. Fat bitches know it, and hate it. We have a thread here about the Abercrombie CEO making similar statements about who he makes his gear for, and who he DOESN'T make it for. The reality of business is that you can't publicly alienate any sector of the public. Just make your stuff and market it to who you want. He had to know, no matter how delicately he worded his statement, that it would be interpreted exactly the way it was interpreted. Maybe he was ready to step away, as many of you have noted. Remember, Steve Jobs got pushed out of the company HE founded many years ago, but ended up back at the helm. I love how women that are in good shape want to defend fatties, threatening to give up the brand even though they work well for them. Let fatties fight their own battles. I can't stand seeing them walking around squeezed into stretch pants. It looks nasty.

Post: #25

(12-10-2013 01:02 PM)Kaii Wrote:  Why do powerful men yield to this kind of shit? I can almost guarantee this would not have hurt his companies's sales that much. We all know when we purchase stuff, the last thing we think about it is what some CEO said.

As long as this keeps happening men will keep getting taken advantage of.

/rant

Hast thou learned nothing from the Paula Deen affair? The media beast will feed the fire until someone is fired. It will be non-stop bad publicity. He did the only thing he could do to save his company.

If you want shit to make sense, America is just not the place for that.