Skip to main content

    I apologize for not having written here lately. I've been hauling a LED streetlight around trying to clue my city in about how to save $24 million a year and maybe REOPEN children's centers.
     Some good news is that with the pasage of the Civil Marriage Rights act in the House of Delegates things look very promising for the state of Maryland to become the eighth state to legalize same-sex marriage. This is a bi-partisan vote as a few Republicans have switched their votes since meeting with same-sex couples. Governor O'Malley waits to sign it.
     Now all I hear is this (Not Again!) brouhaha over whether women themselves will be able to control their reproductive health or will it revert back to the state. Apparantly there are a significant number of women who seemingly wany EveryWoman's sex lives to be tightly controlled. Why would any woman have this opinion condemning all females back to sexual ignorance and slavery? Well, I have a theory, which I would like to offer to the medical community and the World at large, a new syndrome called the "Queen Bee Syndrome", which I will refer to as QBS in this article.

    Historically speaking, it seems that in the struggle for civil rights, many in the very groups winning such rights would benefit the most from are the very ones who resist change with a desparation bordering on mania. One example was Booker T. Washington's notion that segregation might be a good temporary solution except for the "talented tenth" until the other just starting ninety percent should be able to get an education inpeace without having to get nervous over the hostile stares of white people. You know what happened. Instead of this separation improving all blacks learning Jim Crow tried it's best to deny everyone altogether including the "talented tenth"!
    We come now to the phenomenon of powerful women like Palin, or Bachman, or Mrs. Santorum pushing as hard as they can to deny every American woman any reproductive choice altogether under the name of "religious freedom". At least this is the present item being talked about in the culture. A few decades ago it was the Equal Rights Amendmant. That never was passed thanks to these woman-hating women.
     I submit that all these woman-hating women are suffering a psychological condition I call QBS. This is a phenomenon whereby someone who has attained some high position despite social handicaps suddenly turns around and tries to restrict anyone else from that caste not only from surpassing it, but even to accomplish the same achievement!
    QBS is apparant in cases of large numbers of mothers that really hate their daughters and play endless mind games to prevent said daughters from breaking out into anything like a wider world. It is the only high rankng woman in an organization that does her best to prevent other professional women from promotion. It is Queen Victoria refusing to discuss suffrage for women. Why?
    I offer a very old example (before remotes). When Mary Wollstancraft published her 1792 book "A Vindication of the Rights of Women", almost immediatly she was opposed by scholar Hannah More. Citing the Bible, fear of losing attractiveness, and fear of gender-identity confusion she was instrumental in postponing serious women's rights issues for almost three generations. Yet she was a scholar, read Greek and Latin, and was a popular novelist? Why would she deny her fellow female Brits the same delights?
     Because Hannah More considered her self "special". Whenever she could go to social gatherings surrounded by exciting smart men like Doctor Johnson, William Wilberforce, and David Hume as the only woman there she could become the Queen Bee, the only female intellectual "God" would allow.
     Now there is only One Queen Bee in any hive. The Queen Bee rules, all other females are only drones.
     Look at some of these retroactive women! See the hard glint behind their eyes when they talk of ripping away all women's health care! Except for themselves. They need all the best benefits so they can do their duty in keeping all the drones in their place and have all the most exciting men to themselves. Honestly, do some of their photo shoots make them look like pictures of three-week old corpses with their decayed death-grins?
    This is QBS. These are the professional women-hating-women. If every girl had the same access to basic health as the QBs then some of them might becaome truly brilliant beyond the QBs own limits. Then the QB wouldn't be so "special".
   I hope this helps to explain the puzzling sight of women against birth control.f course ALL mothers do not hate their daughters. About 15% do.
   Last note: As Mormons insist of "baptizing" famous dead people to become "Mormons" Dan Savage (Savage Love) can put you onto a website that can "baptize" famous dead Mormons into full practising members of the LGBT community. I'm going there next. So long.
   

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Amen (14+ / 0-)

    You can certainly add Phyllis Schlafly to your list. She traveled around the country lecturing everyone on why women (other women, of course, not her) should be staying home and out of the work force.

    I worked for a firm that was acquired by a larger firm with a female CEO. Some of my female co-workers thought that this would be really cool. I told them: "be careful what you wish for. Just because she's a female doesn't mean she cares about YOU and your rights."

    Sure enough. This [divorced, childless, ruthless] queen bee CEO actually told her senior-level female subordinates not to have children if she was "serious about her career" and any further promotions.

    Some drink deeply from the river of knowledge. Others only gargle. -- Woody Allen

    by cassandracarolina on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 12:55:22 PM PST

  •  Amen, again (12+ / 0-)

    I've been in situations where there is a perfectly level playing field and a promotion is awarded.  

    Instant QBS.

    It's about competition and staying at the top.

    When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

    by msmacgyver on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 12:59:28 PM PST

  •  Heh....From your title, I thought you were (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cassandracarolina, Avila, Aunt Pat

    referring to that Joan Crawford movie called "Queen Bee"...But I think the reference is apt!  I was enthralled by that movie and Joan's over-the-top evil persona--my mother kept nervously suggesting I do something else, but I wouldn't budge...I think I was about 11 years old....

    In a dark time, the eye begins to see. Theodore Roethke

    by bibble on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 01:05:05 PM PST

  •  I agree with your theory to a large extent, (7+ / 0-)

    but I think there's a factor you're missing, and that's fear.

    I don't know whether I'll be able to explain this well, but I'll try.

    When I graduated from law school, women were just beginning to attend in large numbers.  When I joined the workforce, there weren't many yet, and they had seldom broken any glass ceilings.  I attended a good law school and received high grades.  Therefore, I had an easy time finding a good job - as in high paying.  There was one other woman at the first law firm I went to work for.  She was the token woman.  She was used to being the only woman.  She wasn't actively hostile to me, and was, I think, a nice enough person.  But she had virtually no idea how to interact with another female in the workplace.  She was simply too used to dealing with men.  As I progressed in my career, I began to understand better.  

    I was the first (and as far as I know, the only) token woman hired at the second firm I worked for.  It's a strange position to be in.  You know you're treated very differently; you know they're not comfortable having you there.  You get to listen to their sexist comments, along with their racist comments, but know objecting would only serve to divide you further from the group.  And it might even make them decide to simply separate you completely.  So you try to ignore it.  Some people will try to reduce the divide by either pretending to or actually becoming a participant in the sexism and racism.  

    No matter what, though, you're walking a line.  You know what the opinions of those around you are.  You have no support system of your own.  You recognize that your position is one of weakness and that you can be shut out completely at any time.  And you know that as - or if - other women come up, they might handle it differently than you are - which might then create more difficulties for you.  Or you feel the way the first woman I worked with did - literally have no clue how to adjust to not being the only token woman after having been for so long.  You see, as a token, you're treated differently, but you're also treated "special" in certain ways.  And since you have to deal with so much negative stuff, you learn to kind of cherish that special stuff.  Of course, you know deep down that the "special" stuff is actually harmful, but you grasp at what's offered since you can't have what you really want.

    I can't get too terribly upset with women who handle the whole situation in what I consider to be a very poor way - with the QBS as you call it.  It's still the sexism and patriarchal society we have that's created it all.  That's where the real blame continues to lie, and while I'll disagree vehemently with these women, I'm not going to put the blame on their shoulders alone.

    "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

    by gustynpip on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 01:08:08 PM PST

  •  Hi. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Avila, WheninRome, Marie

    I don't know what goes on in the personal lives of truly powerful women, but let me tell you my story of not quite fitting in.

    I noticed, or was told very early in life, that I was odd.
    I was treated that way by my family, and excluded whenever possible. My sister was the Queen Bee, I was nothing.

    Later on in school, I was bullied for being smart, and wanting to do nothing but read. I was shy, withdrawn, and other girls were mean to me.  Boys were indifferent.

    As I developed (or didn't), it was the girls who were early bloomers who were the stars, I was a band nerd. Girls were still mean, and boys were still indifferent.

    My sister was the one who had cheerleaders and jocks as friends, I trailed behind them with my clarinet, and tried to not be too noticeable.

    Then something happened.

    Boys weren't mean anymore.  They liked me, I could talk to them without getting dirty looks or having to apologize for myself.  No one shoved me or called me names, or made fun of my clothes like when trying to hang out with girls.  I didn't have to be pretty, only fun, and interested in the things I liked anyway, like time travel theories. And since I liked boys, it was perfect.

    By this time, girls were women, and all the same rules from middle school still applied. You had to be rich, popular, pretty, concerned about all this stupid crap, have tons of shoes, etc. to be accepted.   It was very empty and painful.

    It's like women are on this hair trigger radar for social flaws and place, where men aren't. I think they're basically nicer. I know it's not politically correct to say.

    Sorry.

    •  It's not only "not politically correct", but it's (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Marie, Aunt Pat, Sanctimonious

      not even remotely true.  Every man and every woman (with a rare exception of an occasionally truly evil one) has good points and bad points.  And good traits and bad traits aren't dependent upon sex.

      You might have more in common with men than with women - I certainly felt like I did early in my career when I was one of only a few women in my position - and therefore feel more comfortable around them.  However, that does not mean they're "nicer" people.  It just means you fit in better with them right now.

      I never did buy into the "women are horrible" meme.  Maybe because I was never treated badly by them.  I can get along just fine with either sex and look at each as an individual, not as a member of a particular sex.  However, as I've gotten older and have had the pleasure of having more women to work with, since more and more have joined my profession, I'm finding myself more and more comfortable with women and finding myself preferring being with them.  I don't believe it's because one sex is "nicer" than the other, but rather that I have more in common with them.  Previously, I had more in common with the professional men I came into contact with and therefore felt more comfortable with them.  But now that there are more professional women around me, I find myself enjoying that even more.

      It sounds to me like you're maybe a little bit into the QBS yourself.  You know, you're "different" than other women because you're into the superior things like time travel, whereas petty women are all about shoes.  I find it great to be able to talk to women about shoes AND about the latest Supreme Court case.  It really doesn't have to be one or the other.  And I don't say that with a nasty intent, but rather to give you something to think about and question whether maybe your past experiences are coloring your outlook and maybe a modification of your attitude might make you see other women a bit differently - and they might see you a bit differently.  It's really not high school anymore.

      "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

      by gustynpip on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 01:35:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It kills me that Republicans (men and women)... (8+ / 0-)

    hate the government, thinks they should stay out of everything, be hacked into tiny pieces that can then be drown.  Hell, they practically had a melt down last year over the government saying they should use energy efficient lightbulbs! Lightbulbs!

    So how the hell did they come full circle and suggest that the government should ban a woman's right to choose contraceptives and control her reproductive health?  

    Energy efficient light bulbs = communist dictator

    Banning a woman's right to plan a family = perfectly reasonable

    WTF?????

  •  Good theory. It also applies in other cases (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat

    such as when poor people somehow manage to climb their way out of poverty and become wealthy and then support policies that would make the poor suffer and help the already rich.

    Many people prefer being a king in hell than a mere servant in heaven, basically. There is something exciting and ego-boosting about being one of the few women who are allowed by society to have power, or one of the few people who made it out of poverty and into riches, or whatever other scenario in which one can feel "special." If everyone has equal rights and equal opportunities, suddenly the people who were lucky enough to succeed under the old system get angry because "I had it tough and succeeded on my own merits, but now you're all getting it easy." It's the classic psychology of somewho who came up with a chip on their shoulder, and once they proved themselves as special, they don't want to give up that special position that they feel they "earned" (which in many cases was in large part due to luck, not only their own hard work).

    Eric Stetson -- Entrepreneur and Visionary. www.ericstetson.com

    by Eric Stetson on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 02:21:19 PM PST

    •  Another name (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      spacecadet1

      I have seen it referred to as the "Underdog Syndrome". Underdogs who become Topdogs are more repressive than their predecessors, because they fear that they, in turn, will be deposed and replaced. The examples that spring to my mind are the French and Russian Revolutions.

      FOSI: Full Of Shit Information - Both my sister and I are trivia freaks...

      by Spoc42 on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 05:03:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  A small correction (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gustynpip, Spoc42
    Now there is only One Queen Bee in any hive. The Queen Bee rules, all other females are only drones.
    Not the best analogy. A queen bee doesn't rule the hive. The worker bees (female, but can only lay unfertilized eggs and only in unusual circumstances) rule collectively, and in fact could be called anarcho-communists, because there really is no leader. They all work together.

    The bees decide when a queen must be replaced (when she is faltering in her function of laying eggs). The queen basically has the function of laying eggs, which is crucial, of course. Queens will destroy other queens emerging from cells, because there is usually only one queen in the hive. Beyond that, they don't rule anything.

    And workers bees are not drones, which are male bees who also do little except mate with queens.

    Anyway... just sayin'.

    How's that war economy working out for you?

    by ZhenRen on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 02:30:16 PM PST

  •  It's incredibly difficult to resist (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassandra Waites, Spoc42, gustynpip

    the inclination to fall into the Queen Bee Syndrome when one is the first or one of the first women admitted to a previously male dominated workplace.

    For a long time, the highest level a woman could aspire to and achieve was being in charge of an all-female department.  That meant that subordinates were the only competition and therefore, security was in keeping subordinates down.  Instead of the better my subordinates perform their jobs, the better I as the supervisor look.  That's how in the mid-1970s I explained feminism to middle-aged women that had been held down for decades by a Queen Bee.  

    In my first position as the token woman -- a court mandated requirement when the company lost a sex discrimination suit -- I was lucky.  Most of the guys were decent and secure enough in their positions that they didn't view me as a threat and were honestly impressed with how hard I worked and how quickly I mastered technical skills.  What neither they nor I spoke about is that we all knew that the trial wasn't just about me but women in general.  

    Soon enough, subsequent training programs included at least 30% women.  Three years into this change, my boss (a wonderful boss) said to me that the success rate for the women in the training programs had been low.  He was correct.  It was low and a disappointment to me.  Fortunately, I hadn't fallen into the QB syndrome and quickly pointed out that the success rate for women was similar to that for male trainees.  

    Some of my most cherished working experiences were with highly competent women, but those times were rare.  The worst were working with men within my age range when they had advanced to senior positions.  That's when I first felt the sting of sexism.    

     

  •  I really don't think this phenomena (0+ / 0-)

    has anything to do with women per se and, at the risk of sounding 'politically correct' think your hypothesis and "Queen Bee" terminology reeks of Queen Bee-ism/sexism.

     I think it's more the nature of (1) conservatism in the examples you mentioned above - remember, these are Republicans, and their beliefs aren't going to differ much from Republican men, regardless of whether the issues pertain to women or not and (2) the nature of change and the inhererent resistance to it; historically, only a very small % of people in groups benefitting from change historically have been on the forefront of fighting for it  - many in that group have tacitly assumed the role ascribed to them by the society and/or are the most nervous about stirring things up and suffering a blowback - per your example above "the very groups winning such rights would benefit the most from are the very ones who resist change".

    "It depends what the meaning of 'is', is"
    Platform of the Neo-Democratic Party
    Speaking out of one side of their mouth for the little guy, their nominal constituency, and the other for the plutocracy, their real constituency.

    by Sanctimonious on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 04:42:11 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site