Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So the writer of this article wants to call the young woman who was on the receiving end of this spitfire digital attack a bully herself.
I adamantly disagree.
As a marketing professional, she should know better than to not consider that her words could be shared with someone outside of that exchange.
But I do take issue with Miss Peggy, the writer of the article. I wonder what generation she is from. Here she is a woman herself writing an article titled 'Women Behaving Badly...' like this was some kind of so-called cat fight. No, this is about people behaving badly. The fact that the two people she is calling bullies are women is irrelevant. Then she goes on to call the young woman on the receiving end of the verbal smackdown a bully too. Sounds to me that she is either one of those authoritarian types or she is one of those morally vacant types who never wants to call the instigator penalty.
The young woman may have been unsophisticated by requesting to connect with this woman, but outing this bully did not make her a bully too. She was standing up to the bully, something a lot of people can't handle, like the weirdo administrators who have made our schools breeding grounds for the cultivation of bullying or those who never want to allow the victim of any civil offense to complain.
And in regard to LinkedIn, I get requests to connect that I consider self-serving all the time, in fact, probably the greater percentage of LinkedIn requests are self-serving. I simply ignore the ones I wish to reject. I have only responded to one by email because it came from someone in an organization that engaged in some impropriety in my regard. But even in the email, I was measured, civil, and polite.
So the writer of this article wants to call the young woman who was on the receiving end of this spitfire digital attack a bully herself.
I adamantly disagree.
As a marketing professional, she should know better than to not consider that her words could be shared with someone outside of that exchange.
But I do take issue with Miss Peggy, the writer of the article. I wonder what generation she is from. Here she is a woman herself writing an article titled 'Women Behaving Badly...' like this was some kind of so-called cat fight. No, this is about people behaving badly. The fact that the two people she is calling bullies are women is irrelevant. Then she goes on to call the young woman on the receiving end of the verbal smackdown a bully too. Sounds to me that she is either one of those authoritarian types or she is one of those morally vacant types who never wants to call the instigator penalty.
The young woman may have been unsophisticated by requesting to connect with this woman, but outing this bully did not make her a bully too. She was standing up to the bully, something a lot of people can't handle, like the weirdo administrators who have made our schools breeding grounds for the cultivation of bullying or those who never want to allow the victim of any civil offense to complain.
And in regard to LinkedIn, I get requests to connect that I consider self-serving all the time, in fact, probably the greater percentage of LinkedIn requests are self-serving. I simply ignore the ones I wish to reject. I have only responded to one by email because it came from someone in an organization that engaged in some impropriety in my regard. But even in the email, I was measured, civil, and polite.
This young woman's actions were far from heroic. They were petty and ill advised. However I think if you don't want something you are saying made public you shouldn't be saying them, and this lady deserves what she gets. And I agree with you completely this woman's surprise that people are acting primarily in the best interest in linkedin is so foolish I don't know where to start. She must be living in lala land.
The woman was a nasty, mean-spirited and vile human being. I'm glad the young lady posted the awful letter to her, because one she did, it caused others to come out and reveal their humiliation by this person.
I don't understand why it's so hard to ignore people. The awful woman left clear instructions on the types of people she wanted to give her precious list to. If the people weren't abiding by what she wanted, then she should have never responded back. There is no law saying that you have to.
I don't have a Linkedin nor do I want one.
I think it worked well when it first came out, but now that everyone and their grandmother is on it, it's going the way of facebook.
A secure woman would have helped to encourage, build, and mentor another woman as opposed to tearing her down. I wonder if Blazek would have written this if it were a young man trying to connect with her as opposed to a young woman.
These HR/recruiting/marketing types are the absolute worst. Contribute the least and have no real skills, yet have the biggest egos about their "careers".
But I do take issue with Miss Peggy, the writer of the article. I wonder what generation she is from. Here she is a woman herself writing an article titled 'Women Behaving Badly...' like this was some kind of so-called cat fight. No, this is about people behaving badly. The fact that the two people she is calling bullies are women is irrelevant.
I think the title is just some wordplay based on the '90s British TV show "Men Behaving Badly". Journalists need catchy headlines, and this one presented itself.
And I agree that it was only one "woman behaving badly" in this situation. She treated that innocent job-seeker disgracefuly.
The younger woman is also a bully. The recruiter was rude to her, but in a private manner. The younger woman decided to humiliate her publicly and also publicize her name. It's not like the recruiter was actively telling people not to hire her. I also find it odd, the first young woman didn't post how she contacted her. I think they both reacted badly. I think the young woman was worse. This was about the younger lady wanting to get a job or connections, I don't think she helped her cause at all.
The younger woman is also a bully. The recruiter was rude to her, but in a private manner. The younger woman decided to humiliate her publicly and also publicize her name. It's not like the recruiter was actively telling people not to hire her. I also find it odd, the first young woman didn't post how she contacted her. I think they both reacted badly. I think the young woman was worse. This was about the younger lady wanting to get a job or connections, I don't think she helped her cause at all.
I'm sorry your wrong. If you send an email to a stranger you should have no expectation that your conversation remain private. Especially if you say something nasty. If you don't want your behavior in private to become public, then that's probably an indication you shouldn't be acting that way in the first place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
