Sisterhood of Backstabbers


The Tyranny of the Queen Bee

Kelly was a bright woman in her early 30s: whip-smart, well qualified, ambitious—and confused. Even a little frightened.

She worked for a female partner in a big consulting firm. Her boss was so solicitous that Kelly hoped the woman—one of just a few top female partners—might become her mentor. But she began to feel that something was wrong. In meetings, her boss would dismiss her ideas without discussion and even cut her off in mid-sentence. Kelly started to hear about meetings to which she wasn’t invited but felt she should be. She was excluded from her boss’s small circle of confidants.

What confused Kelly was that she was otherwise doing well at the firm. She felt respected and supported by the other senior partners. She had just one problem, but it was a big one. One of the male partners pulled her aside and confirmed Kelly’s suspicions: Her boss had been suggesting to others that Kelly might be happier in a different job, one “more in line with her skills.”


Having spent decades working in psychology, a field heavily populated by highly competitive women, I had certainly seen the queen bee before: The female boss who not only has zero interest in fostering the careers of women who aim to follow in her footsteps, but who might even actively attempt to cut them off at the pass.

The term “queen bee syndrome” was coined in the 1970s, following a study led by researchers at the University of Michigan—Graham Staines, Toby Epstein Jayaratne and Carol Tavris—who examined promotion rates and the impact of the women’s movement on the workplace. In a 1974 article in Psychology Today, they presented their findings, based on more than 20,000 responses to reader surveys in that magazine and Redbook. They found that women who achieved success in male-dominated environments were at times likely to oppose the rise of other women. This occurred, they argued, largely because the patriarchal culture of work encouraged the few women who rose to the top to become obsessed with maintaining their authority.

Four decades later, the syndrome still thrives, given new life by the mass ascent of women to management positions. This generation of queen bees is no less determined to secure their hard-won places as alpha females. Far from nurturing the growth of younger female talent, they push aside possible competitors by chipping away at their self-confidence or undermining their professional standing. It is a trend thick with irony: The very women who have complained for decades about unequal treatment now perpetuate many of the same problems by turning on their own.

I have said for years that women are their own worst enemies. There is an unspoken assumption to many feminist theories that women are loving, caring creatures who are subjugated by the patriarchy. Once they throw off the bonds of male oppression the world will be a utopia.

The fact is that women are female humans, and humans aren’t very nice people. They may not be as bad as male humans, but that’s a pretty low threshold. As women move into more positions of power, more women will abuse power.

That’s human nature.

About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Feminism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to Sisterhood of Backstabbers

  1. wmcb says:

    Completely OT….. like, waaaaaaaay OT, but….

    My husband is being hit on by guys trolling a drag queen bar. I think it’s hilarious. I’m giving him hell. Told him to get us a Sugar Daddy, and we can quit work and be set for life!

    He’s hot, y’all. HOT.

  2. Further OT the latest Belmont Club offering considers confirmation backtrack is not only worthless but toothless, as well. In a post about revelations from a new book from DoS adviser Vasili Nasr decrying a “Berlin Wall” of domestic WH wonks blocking access and thwarting foreign policy decision-making.
    One key quote: “Therefore events in Libya, Syria, North Korea and China ought to be viewed not through the prism of national interest calculus but through the lens of domestic political advantage for President Obama. Only then can they be properly understood. None of that game theory crap. It’s “who sent you?” The foreign policy of a great state is being run not by foreign policy professionals but by political hacks from Chicago.”

  3. wmcb says:

    THIS is why I hate the unions anymore. So WI passed a law. No one can be forced to pay union dues or join a union if they don’t wish to do so. Period. Law takes effect March 28th.

    So what does the union do? Tries to get a contract in before the deadline, that stipulates that non-union members, as part of a “security contract”, will be liable for union dues for the next ten years. “Screw you an yer laws, pay up.”

    NO, you fuckers. Just NO. You cannot subvert the law like that. You are damn money-grubbing thugs and bullies.

  4. myiq2xu says:

    Since it’s TFHT:

    Why are the college records, of a 51-year-old President of the United States, so important to keep secret? I think I know the answer.

    If anyone should have questions about Obama’s record at Columbia University, it’s me. We both graduated (according to Obama) Columbia University, Class of ’83. We were both (according to Obama) Pre-Law and Political Science majors. And I thought I knew most everyone at Columbia. I certainly thought I’d heard of all of my fellow Political Science majors. But not Obama (or as he was known then- Barry Soetoro). I never met him. Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none of the classmates that I knew at Columbia has ever met him, saw him, or heard of him.

    But don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Fox News randomly called 400 of our Columbia classmates and never found one who had ever met Obama.

    Now all of this mystery could be easily and instantly dismissed if Obama released his Columbia transcripts to the media. But even after serving as President for 3 1/2 years he refuses to unseal his college records. Shouldn’t the media be as relentless in pursuit of Obama’s records as Romney’s? Shouldn’t they be digging into Obama’s past–beyond what he has written about himself–with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt’s?

    The first question I’d ask is, if you had great grades, why would you seal your records? So let’s assume Obama got poor grades. Why not release the records? He’s President of the free world, for gosh sakes. He’s commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. Who’d care about some poor grades from three decades ago, right? So then what’s the problem? Doesn’t that make the media suspicious? Something doesn’t add up.

    Secondly, if he had poor grades at Occidental, how did he get admitted to an Ivy League university in the first place? And if his grades at Columbia were awful, how’d he ever get into Harvard Law School? So again those grades must have been great, right? So why spend millions to keep them sealed?

    Third, how did Obama pay for all these fancy schools without coming from a wealthy background? If he had student loans or scholarships, would he not have to maintain good grades?

    I can only think of one answer that would explain this mystery.

    Here’s my gut belief: Obama got a leg up by being admitted to both Occidental and Columbia as a foreign exchange student. He was raised as a young boy in Indonesia. But did his mother ever change him back to a U.S. citizen? When he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii or as he neared college-age preparing to apply to schools, did he ever change his citizenship back? I’m betting not.

    If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:

    A) He rarely ever attended class.

    B) His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.

    C) He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.

    D) He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

    It would be irresponsible not to speculate.

    • catarina says:

      TFHT=The fucking horny toad? hapless turd?

    • wmcb says:

      If there are TFHT out there, it’s because he’s been so secretive. Secretiveness breeds them.

      And actually, this is not TFHT, IMO. I’ve said for ages that I think the reason college records are sealed has zero to do with his grades. I do think he got foreign exchange scholarships. NOT because he’s not a legal US citizen (he is). But because he gamed the system and claimed Indonesian citizenship for that purpose. He lied for the money.

      It also explains how he took a lengthy college trip to Pakistan at a time when US passports were not welcome. He had another passport. He used his “exotic” past to benefit him, up until it didn’t. Then he buried it.

      Find me something else that fits the facts, and explains millions spent in court to keep those records sealed. Oh, and the passport office computer breakin during the election. And the publisher blurb that said he was born in Kenya. I don’t think he WAS born in Kenya – but I think he’d *claim* to be born on Mars if it benefited him. He’s a liar.

      Something stinks to high heaven, here. But the dumb birthers poisoned the well for questions.

      • Somebody says:

        I agree with you, I believe things are pretty much as you have laid out. He’s a con man, he gamed the system and used his background to his advantage, then buried it all when it suited him.

        I do quibble about the birthers. There are indeed birthers out there, but I think they’re numbers are overblown. I think the O camp feeds on the birthers to fan the flames precisely to keep logical questions off the table… other words it’s a con, the whole damn thing. The birther meme is a free pass like the race card and they use the hell out of it. By doing so have shut up any questions about his past, even legitimate ones. Just raise any question about his past and the O team starts screaming…..birther!

        Another minor quibble, if he indeed did use his Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan then he technically made a choice that he was an Indonesian citizen by doing so, because he was over the age of 18 at the time. (At least that’s my understanding of the law, but I’m not an attorney and I’m relying on stuff I read 4 or 5 years ago)

        ****I don’t think that it’s anything a good lawyer couldn’t get him out of, but the defense needed may not fit O’s narrative, better to just bury it all.

  5. votermom says:

    What, some ambitious & highly motivated power-oriented women in predominantly male milieus are predisposed to view other other women as threats to their own power?
    How biologically and historically inconceivable!

  6. votermom says:

  7. HELENK says:

    many of the “queen bees” are worried about the ” all about eves” in the workplace. there are two sides to the story

  8. votermom says:

  9. HELENK says:

    for the skywatchers this week

  10. votermom says:

  11. myiq2xu says:

    J-Nap is a fibber:

    Ms Napolitano said today that major airports were seeing lines “150 to 200 per cent as long as we would normally expect” as result of the federal spending cuts that went into force on Friday.

    “We’re already seeing the effects at some of the ports of entry, the big airports, for example. Some of them had very long lines this weekend,” she told a breakfast event organised by Politico.

    When pressed for specifics she cited Chicago’s O’Hare, Atlanta’s Hartfield-Jackson and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), adding: “I don’t mean to scare, I mean to inform.”

    However, when contacted by The Daily Telegraph, spokespeople for both O’Hare and LAX, as well as representatives from the travel industry, denied that airports had been hit by delays.

    “We haven’t had any slowdowns at all,” said Marshall Lowe, a spokesman for LAX. Mr Lowe said that he had been on duty over the weekend and received no reports of unusual security delays.

  12. votermom says:

    I love this twitter feed

  13. jeffhas says:

    I saw the headline to this article the other day, but couldn’t bring myself to read it – all I could think of was two words:

    Nancy Pelosi

    There’s the Queen Bee, then there’s the Really Queen Bee.

    After how she has reigned, what do you think ambitious women have learned?

  14. HELENK says:

    41% of democrats say backtrack should be allowed to unilaterally kill American citizens with drone strikes on American soil.
    i am dumbfounded when I read this. Have we really dumbed down the population that far? Are concentration camps next and are they ok too

    i cry for my country

  15. votermom says:

    I don’t know how to embed this video, and it has an annoying ad, but it’s a video from Star Parker on how gun control = Jim Crow

  16. driguana says:

    And Obama’s strategy for the rest of his term is to keep the Queen Bee in charge. So my progressive friends ask, “and what is wrong with new policies on gun control, immigration, climate change and the economy?????.

  17. driguana says:

    I’m a Queen Bee….young and able to buzz all night long…

  18. votermom says:

    Islamists hate the idea of girls running coz they might run away

  19. driguana says:

    On second thought, I’m a King Bee….

    • Somebody says:

      Big mistake! Better to just let Ashley be Ashley, she has plenty of baggage, but nude scenes are not part of it.

  20. votermom says:

    Wow. This is quite cool. Code to amplify imperceptible motion in videos. Check out the babies specially

  21. elliesmom says:

    This is an easy one. Women who succeed in a patriarchy know, consciously or unconsciously, that in a more gender neutral power structure it’s likely they wouldn’t be the ones on the top of the heap so preservation of the patriarchy is in their own self-interest. Women who aren’t at the top of the heap in a patriarchy may have the the belief, correct or incorrect, that in a more gender neutral power structure, they would be more successful. If the women who are currently successful gave any indication support for them would translate into the destruction of the patriarchy, women would get behind them a lot more – but the vast majority of them don’t send out those signals. Asking women to support other women who don’t support them in return with the promise that, while life stinks for them, it will be better for women who haven’t even been born yet is asking for a lot. How many men would stop fighting for their own survival if they knew it would be better for men 100 years from now? I’m all for supporting other women who support women in return. The rest of them can deal with whatever shit is thrown at them. This is a 180 degree turn around for me. Thanks to the Democrats.

  22. yttik says:

    Actually, the Queen Bee syndrome is a symptom of patriarchy and evidence of inequality. There is still a perception that there is so little power to go around, that a woman who makes it to the top is likely to perceive every other woman as a threat. Just as slaves who became slave overseers were some of the nastiest people around, as they struggled to maintain their new found power. You do not want to identify with your former status anymore, so you must do everything you can to separate yourself and reject that, including rejecting anyone still down there.

    Women have been well trained to view other women as a threat. We are definitely the foot soldiers of patriarchy. It starts very young, girls learn how to reject other girls, how to hold power over them. Some of the worst bullying and nastiness comes from girls. This is why we say sisterhood is powerful. Men are pretty good at aligning themselves, creating good old boy systems, working together. Women are taught that every other woman is a potential enemy.

  23. votermom says:

    Speaking of #Obamacare, what do you think of a company issuing all it’s employees a measuring tape and a pedometer?

  24. DeniseVB says:

    Speaking of #Obama 😀

  25. yttik says:

    LOL, I should also speak out in defense of the Queen Bees. It can really suck being a supervisor to other women. Forget having any respect or authority. They will hold you to an impossible standard, expect you to be unconditionally empathetic or else you’re a total bitch, and constantly question your qualifications and your right to be in the position you’re in. Mentor them?? Are you fricken kidding me? After a few weeks of that crap, you’re ready to can them all.

  26. votermom says:

  27. Constance says:

    I missed out on the discussion of nudity below and I see these last two topics as related. I would tell young girls that when actresses do the nudity route they are jumping to the front of the employment line of talented actresses by pandering to male bosses and male audience. Other women know this and other women don’t like them for doing it, half the population is women and so that leaves you with a lot of people who don’t like you. For some reason it is thought that women admire actresses and I can’t think of any who do. You know in all professions women have the option of using sex to get ahead, we know that and most of us wouldn’t think of doing it. Ashley Judd doesn’t have a chance in hell of getting elected to office.
    I would tell boys only one thing about the Hollywood female nudie business….women who reject this Hollywood crap are not rejecting sex, they are rejecting medias definition and depiction of sex and women.

    It is absolutely true that when more women are elected politics will not become lightness and positive wonder and in fact you will see more power grubbing women and incompetent corrupt women. In Seattle a few years ago we had women in half the city council positions. Half of the council was bribed by the criminal who ran the nude bars in the city to agree to some outrageous land or zoning deal…..the half of the council that was bribed was the female half and we had to throw them out. Which was no great loss because they kept proposing BS measures like a ban on circus animals when schools were failing, streets were full of pot holes and other real problems were completely ignored.

  28. votermom says:

  29. wmcb says:

    Where are the anti-war people? This “war by proxy” crap, training and arming this or that group, ALWAYS comes back to bite us in the ass. Always. I am not a dove. If we need to protect our legit interests, or intervene in a genocide or something, then go do it. Arm up, declare war via Congress, and publicly, openly, go kick their ass. And then come home.

    But this “we’re gonna meddle and pretend we aren’t, really” is madness.

  30. votermom says:

    found a youtube version of the Star Parker ad

  31. votermom says:

    Hah! The sequester broke twitter.

  32. angienc (D) says:

    OT — watch out, I just learned how to shoot the bird on-line:

    ‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›

  33. myiq2xu says:

  34. wmcb says:

    • yttik says:

      That is interesting! We do tend to have more guns, more violence, in areas where guns are tightly restricted. In many other countries where you have a total ban on guns, arms dealers, gun runners, and Eric Holder, step in to really fill the void.

      It’s another unintended consequence of gov policies that I don’t really understand, but we do have to give Obama’s anti gun rhetoric credit for selling a record breaking number of guns in America. Gun stores can’t even keep them on the shelves.

      Americans are so rebellious, sometimes I think if the Gov made gun ownership mandatory, we’d all disarm.

      • wmcb says:

        Ah, America, she’s a contrary bitch. It’s one of the things I love about her.

        Seriously – the causes of gun violence are myriad. Mexico has incredibly strict gun laws. Massive gun violence.

        Note: I am NOT saying that gun laws *cause* the violence. The causes of violence include many factors that are economic, governmental, cultural, drug related, overcrowding in cities…the list is long. I’m saying that there is no evidence that restricting guns from law-abiding citizens is the answer. You can find some data that seems to indicate it does, and lots of data that shows the complete opposite.

        IOW, look elsewhere for answers to pervasive violence, because the legality or not of guns is not it. Therefore, there is no ironclad emergency reason to go putting restrictions on a constitutional right.

  35. foxyladi14 says:

    Nancy Pelosi is the

    Queen Bee of all the other Queen Bees. 😆

  36. trixta says:

    Taylor Swift (to Amy Poehler and Tina Fey): “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.”

  37. trixta says:

    The following article contains a very good analysis addressing the vileness of Poehler and Fey’s put down of Taylor Swift’s love life at the Grammy’s. [I suggest reading the entire article. Here’s a snippet of what was said:]


    “Let’s go back to the allegations of misogyny. This is a loaded word and I am probably not qualified to address it head on. But it seems clear to me that Swift was treated differently by the Golden Globes hosts than Bigelow and Hathaway, for example, and that this can most appropriately be addressed to Ms. Swift’s romantic life. Detractors state that Swift has brought it on herself, dating around all the time and then writing songs about her former beaux when things don’t work out, but this doesn’t seem to be a fair basis for criticism (or, for that matter, outright vitriol). After all, she’s hardly the first young female singer to mine her broken heart for material: Adele’s first album was basically about nothing else. You may recall that she beat Swift that night for a Golden Globe, en route to an Oscar for the theme to Skyfall.”


Comments are closed.