Comments on: Queen Bees?

By: Synergy

Synergy — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:41:12 +0000

I would definitely reign in on the side of Queen Bee Syndrome. I don’t think I recognized it early on in my career, but maybe that’s because I was a student worker then. Since entering the work world I have experienced and/or witnessed it more than once to varying degrees. It is extremely damaging to other women in the work place, and ironically, the Queen Bee seems hardly to be aware of the way she positions herself in relation to every other female in the workplace…but that may be naivete on my part. She selectively mentors, if she mentors at all, and most often her mentoring choices are females she has absolutely no reason to feel threatened by. If she does feel threatened by another woman, she will, invariably, use any and all means at her disposal to reduce that perceived threat. In my experience, the Queen Bee is just another spin on Nurse Ratched.

By: sunnygrrl

sunnygrrl — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:09:21 +0000

Ever been on a fishing boat with another (or a few) women? That’s where you’ll find Queen Bee. No other female should receive any attention (even common courtesies) from her males! Unfortunately, I’ve had that experience and have heard its pretty common.

By: Erasmussimo

Erasmussimo — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 01:51:48 +0000

Anna, neither of the women who rebuffed my request were academics. Also, I had a nice chat with a female member of my “old boys/girls network” about the Queen Bee phenomenon. She was quite certain that it wasn’t a hypothesis, but a real phenomenon that she had witnessed (although she was never a victim). However, she suspects that there’s a selection effect at work here: the only women who make it to the top are those who are fanatically devoted to their work and are therefore none too willing to help others out.

By: Anna K.

Anna K. — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:37:56 +0000

Erasmussimo: It’s been 15 years since I’ve been in academia, so things might’ve changed, but the women usually ended up with lots of committee work and lots of time spent helping students, to the detriment of their research.

So that might be the source of not wanting to help out ‘every new kid on the block,’ if a woman is expected to do extended shifts as mentor/nurturer, compared to the men.

By: Robert Rushing

Robert Rushing — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:02:14 +0000

I think “ladies” irks some people for the same reason that some other titles (ostensibly of respect) can irk (“young man,” “miss,” or even, under the right circumstances, “sir”): they are almost always used patronizingly, sarcastically or in some other fashion that makes it evident that you are not being accorded respect. I think “ladies” is often used by authority figures when speaking to “misbehaving” younger women, and relatively rarely to address a group of, say, powerful women. It could be that Americans are particularly prone to dismissive or sarcastic usages of titles of respect, since they are in conflict with generally democratic ideals about social organization.

By: Erasmussimo

Erasmussimo — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:57:12 +0000

I have a tiny datum to add to the pot. I have on many occasions recommended talented young people (of both genders) to members of my “good old boys” network. On every single occasion I have done so, the good old boy that I contacted was happy to help out the talented young person. Even when they could not provide the direct assistance I requested, they would suggest another person who could handle the task. I have seen no gender-related variations in these effects, other than the fact that the great majority of the people in my “good old boys” network are, in fact, male.

However, on only two occasions have I been flatly rejected, and they were both cases in which I requested help from a “good old girl” for a young woman. In both cases, I was so stunned by the unexpected response that I stammered out a request for restatement of the rejection, so certain was I that I had misinterpreted the denial. I still recall the words of one such woman: “I just don’t have time to help out every new kid on the block.”

These are only two anecdotes, and they might be simple flukes. But they are so completely at odds with everything else I have experienced that I consider them noteworthy. And yes, there have been plenty of cases of “good old girls” helping out youngsters of both genders.

By: Kaethe

Kaethe — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:39:06 +0000

Damn you for that link, Courtney, it’s like a hideous time machine.

I’ve been lucky to work for awesome male and female bosses in recent years, all of whom have recognized that everyone wants to have a life outside of work, regardless of whether or not they have children, parents, or marriageable partners under state law. I’m in favor of a very broad family leave policy. And realistic employment/benefits packages for grad students, who mostly get shafted.

By: Christine Luk

Christine Luk — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:22:41 +0000

I want to thank Sheril for bringing up this issue on a public arena. It’s probably not a bad idea to recapture what the “queen been syndrome” entails. According to social psychologist Naomi Ellemers and her colleagues from University of Leiden (http://www.socialsciences.leiden.edu/psychology/organisation/ellemers.jsp), “queen been syndrome” refers to the distancing of the self from the group stereotype which not only involves perceiving the self as a non-prototypical group member, but may also elicit stereotypical views of other in-group members. Ellemers’ research interests center around group dynamics and categorizations of membership. One of the core areas she’s been working on is the social consequences of internal and external group identities. The idea is that the extent to which an individual identifies with a group is the baseline for supporting other members in the group. The argument is not about rivalry among women, but how social actors negotiate individual, collective and professional identities under what contexts and for what purposes. In her study, Ellemers found out that compared to male faculty members (as a control), female faculty members in sciences rated female Ph.D. students as significantly less committed to the organization and to their career than the male students. She argued that the unwillingness to support the disadvantaged may result from their rapid shift in identification from the low to the high status group.

As true with every other studies in social science, the results yielded from this one is limited due to the sample size and the research settings. I am not claiming universality of the existence of “queen been syndrome”. But I do think we need more empirical evidence to verify or falsify this notion, and personal experiences are important but insufficient sources of data for research purpose. Interestingly, Ellemers’ article was published in 2004 in Brit. J. of Soc. Psy. and there’s basically no discussion in the US ever since. Maybe US researchers don’t communicate with their European counterparts, maybe the topic of women in S&T has lost favor or maybe people don’t want to face counter-evidence that runs against their conventional beliefs and ideological hankering.

By: Ashutosh

Ashutosh — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:01:28 +0000

IMHO both men and women should keep away from having kids until they finish their PhD. But that’s just me; I have certainly seen my share of brave souls who manage to pull off this balancing act.

By: Courtney

Courtney — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:53:10 +0000

IIRC, some European countries have enacted laws which allow one or both parents to take extended leave (with pay, and without fear of termination) to care for their newborn children. It would be interesting (at least for me) to see if the gender gap is reduced in these countries, when compared to countries where such laws have not been enacted.

Not that I’m aware of. My brother’s girlfriend is a Ph.D. candidate at a MRU in Germany, and she refuses to even consider children until after her Ph.D. and post-doc, because even though they have to reserve you a place in the lab, you do get mommy-tracked, and you’re behind on the research.

And as an aside, I hate the “ladies” usage.
I’m not sure why. It describes 1/2 of the adult population.
[It] was a term attached to a very narrow and stereotypical view of femininity that was still rigidly enforced in my younger days.

Don’t worry, it’s still rigidly enforced. Hence, for example:
http://www.nljc.com/companyhistory.htm

Personally, I’d rather work for a man than a woman, with rare exceptions. My female bosses and professors have been bitchy, passive-agressive, and downright insane. OTOH, I’ve had some scarily mysogynistic male bosses. Gee, I guess I just don’t like working for other people.