[peppersasen]

A link to this study, "Sexist workplace cultures turn women into 'queen bees'", was emailed to me:

If your organisation wants more women at the top, you will not succeed just by appointing a few women to top-level positions, claim Leiden researchers. You would be better off changing the sexist organisational culture, because this creates ‘queen bee’ behaviour, where women fight for their own position rather than for their gender. Sexist organisational cultures Female bosses have a bad reputation. Some of them behave like queen bees: they distance themselves from their female subordinates, sabotage these women’s career chances and deny that sexual discrimination still exists. A new study based on research conducted at three police departments that has been published in Psychological Science concludes that it is wrong to blame women for this behaviour, because sexist organisational cultures actually encourage it. Different standards Organisational psychologist Dr Belle Derks studies how women react to sexism. From her observations of women in workplace situations, she concludes that women often have to meet different standards than men do. Competitive behaviour, often considered positive in men, is considered negative in women. Describing workplace situations Derks carried out a study in collaboration with Dr Colette van Laar, Prof. Naomi Ellemers and Kim de Groot. The researchers asked 63 senior police women working at three different police departments to answer an online questionnaire. Half of the respondents had to describe a workplace situation in which they believed they were discriminated against or in which they had heard sexist remarks. The other half were asked to describe a workplace situation in which their gender was no issue and in which they were valued for their personal abilities. Leadership style The women were then asked to describe their leadership style, to say how much they felt they differed from other women and to say whether there was still sexism within the police. How the respondents responded to these questions depended on the strength of their female identity. Women who had not been reminded of their experiences of sexual discrimination answered like queen bees – they indicated a more male leadership style, said they were very different from other women and were more forceful in denying that there was still sexual discrimination in the police force. However, this was only if they had started out by saying that they did not identify with other women in the police force. Women who strongly identified with other women exhibited an opposite reaction: after they had thought about sexism they were actually more prepared to mentor other women and help them with their career. Fighting for yourself ‘If you place women in top-level positions without doing anything about gender bias in the organisation, you are forcing them to distance themselves from other women,’ says Derks. ‘If women have to choose between their own opportunities and those of their gender, some will choose to fight for themselves. Why should they stand up for their group? Men don’t have to do that, do they?’

Source:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Thoughts? Comments? I don't want to repeat myself (I wrote about it in detail
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, and
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
) but I can relate. I've personally interned at a gentleman's club (an intergovernmental organization that claims 50% of their staff in some of their agencies are women, but like VERY little of them are decision-makers). And I the women who had interest in office politics (the ones who weren't General Service Staff) were either unnecessarily hostile, back-stabbing, and were defensive/territorial. The person who had enough authority fed me with bullshittery and never helped (probably because he has difficulty empathizing what it's like to try to break the glass ceiling they seem to be so in denial about and partly he had it so easy).

I wouldn't say everyone was mean, though. The admin staff were always nice to me, invited me to lunch, and included me. And the nicest people I met there were men (my Project Manager and the Communications Officer).

But whenever a woman had some sort of interest and they knew I could fill in for what they did, they either used me or tried to get me blacklisted. It was so bad that I eventually couldn't take the job they made for me (Project Assistant) that I could keep after the internship because she sulked and went on 'strike' to make sure they didn't keep me. And the office tolerated that. The irony to this is of course: the one who was always unnecessarily hostile and bullied me to an extreme was actually the gender rights specialist in the office!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[ManWithNoName]

Hmmm, women get hired into positions because of their sex instead of merit because the organization wants to say it has more women in the workforce and then once in positions of power these women turn into territorial bitch backstabber's because they slowly realize they only got the position because of their sex and so any up and coming female who actually knows how to do the job or even if they don't know the job, if they seem nice and somewhat of a hard working yes-woman, is just as likely to replace them.

We should just hire the best person to do the job regardless of their sex and stop caring about how much of a percentage the workforce is male or female as apparently it's not working and helpful to no one.

[Beric]

	Originally Posted by ManWithNoName To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We should just hire the best person to do the job regardless of their sex and stop caring about how much of a percentage the workforce is male or female as apparently it's not working and helpful to no one.

This would solve 100% of the problems. Quotas and so forth only further discrimination. If people didn't constantly focus on gender, and instead focused on competency, there would be no problem.

[eagleseven]

	You would be better off changing the sexist organisational culture, because this creates ‘queen bee’ behaviour, where women fight for their own position rather than for their gender.

I would be concerned if a top executive put her gender above her company and career.

[peppersasen]

You guys actually make a really good point. All this quota/affirmative action bullshitery just made everything worst. The women who bullied me/stabbed me in the back were incompetent or at least distracted. The first woman (Hatsumomo) was
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and the one who back-stabbed me (DietCoke) actually had to have me 'brief' her on my desk research over lunch before she met with her boss (the one she stabbed me in the back to impress) or before group meetings about the project. I was perceived to be a 'threat' by at least one of them and was used by both.

There was one woman, though, who was never mean to me (Mameha) and although she never 'flaunted confidence', she seemed more 'aware' of her projects and was super helpful. I don't agree with what her project tried to achieve (as it would have encouraged degrading punishments which were clear violations of human rights), but I understand it wasn't her decision continue with it. But despite that, when I did work for her and I did a good job, she appreciated it instead of freaking out like Hatsumomo did.

I never really saw it that way, but looking back, it was always the incompetent women who screwed me up.

[Ytterbium]

To cite an old collegue; One or two women works out fine, when you've three you've a problem.

To my experience that's absolutely true. I'm slightly perplexed about this as a man. That doesn't really happen among men. A bunch of females and it's just chicken farm, if I may express myself that way. Diva, bitching, back stabbing etc. I don't know how a women work but it's alot of powerplay and so forth. Wanting to better, prettier, smarter than the rest. Women wants to feel special, adored etc. In contrary to men who don't really care about these things in the same way. Ofcourse there're bodybuilders and sportscars too but maybe they're just gays in denial.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think this may appear more often in male dominated areas especially when the ancient proto human drives spins the cogs. Such as being the most desirable lady to be pumped full of semen by some alpha male. Then all the other ladies become a threat to that target of recieving all those things desired. Not that two female hairdressers can catfight but it surfaces more in male dominated worlds.
I think females are more insecure than men in general, especially when being told what to do, how to behave and what to wear by fancy magazines. Which I think stems from old role models.
I think we should do like Israel and have mandatory military service for women aswell. It will strengthen confidence among women in general, remove insecurities and show that they also can. This will cause old role models to fade away and most certainly the bitching about it aswell. I think Isreal have the highest percentage of female scientist in the world aswell.
I think treating the both sexes equal will make such problems to fade away.

[thod]

	where women fight for their own position rather than for their gender.

Lol. The author is some kind of femo-nazi who thinks wimmin should sacrifice themselves for the feminist cause. I can see nothing wrong in a woman seeking her own advancement and not caring if other women advance or not. Men fight for their own advancement, they never seek to advance their gender.

	Psychological Science concludes that it is wrong to blame women for this behaviour, because sexist organisational cultures actually encourage it.

It's not my fault, its the culture. Well I do blame her for her behaviour. When you reach the top, the buck stops with you, you cannot blame anything else. This goes for men too, just because she is female makes no difference.

	‘If women have to choose between their own opportunities and those of their gender, some will choose to fight for themselves. Why should they stand up for their group? Men don’t have to do that, do they?’

All the winners will choose to fight for themselves, that's how they got to the top, they are competitive. The men don't have to stand up for their group because they do not see themselves as a group. The author thinks women are some kind of group, that the sisters should stick together. Against who though? the men? Now that would be sexism.

[Distance]

Why would I help anyone leverage themselves upwards based solely on genitalia? In the past, my conduct was as follows:

- Got what it takes to make it? Insta-mentor.
- E-mo much? Get lost.

Note genitalia had nothing to do with decision-making? Hence...Te-dom...

[peppersasen]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Men fight for their own advancement, they never seek to advance their gender.

Because they don't need to advance their gender.

---------- Post added 07-17-2011 at 02:45 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Lol. The author is some kind of femo-nazi who thinks wimmin should sacrifice themselves for the feminist cause.

I didn't sense an agenda in this study. Did anyone else? The person who led this study is an organizational psychologist who specializes in stigma, social identity, stereotype threat, EEG (electroencephalography), ERP (event-related potential). She's not some batshit crazy feminazi in a womyn's studies programme. She could have made this about non-EU migrants/immigrants in the European workforce if she wanted to.

---------- Post added 07-17-2011 at 02:53 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Ytterbium To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ofcourse there're bodybuilders and sportscars too but maybe they're just gays in denial. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think men just take competition less personally (even if it's over something serious and not something petty and stupid). Women care a whole lot/are competitive about their personal lives and they care who's doing well and who's not: Pete congratulates Ken for getting married, Ken congratulates Pete for his wife's pregnancy, Pete hates Ken for holding more accounts than he does--but each others' personal lives don't get mixed into the competition. Cooper doesn't care whether Don or Sterling wins Lucky Strike back: he just wants to be one who does it (a woman would care: if her 'friend' earned more she would probably be less hostile, if someone prettier earned more she would go wild about it). In addition, they drag those problems into office politics. It KILLED Hatsumomo when she found out I had someone who flew over just to meet me one weekend (how she even found out in the first place is an entirely different story, I didn't tell her about my personal life). She made a point of giving me a workload with an unreasonable deadline (although the assignment was FAR from urgent) so I would have to work over the weekend to ensure that I wouldn't have time for my visitor. How many men would stab another man in the back because the other had hotter SO or their spouse had bigger boobs/a bigger dick than his?

---------- Post added 07-17-2011 at 02:55 AM ----------

...Or a bubble butt. Yeah, I'd totally ruin an intern's entire career in international relations if her SO had a chunkier bubble butt than my SO. I've just seriously got a thing for butts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[notkewl]

A problem reinforced by a bigger problem. Bigger problem being sexual discrimination lawsuit that will most likely dominate in a court room.

One thing of significance is the type of people who invest and executive these big companies, they are all where they are because of sociopath behavior. You could put a nerdy smart female in the same position(unlikely but good scenario), and they'd either conform or be expelled from the position.

Why do you think quiet loners never get employment at these places? It's the socially dominant who fill these positions; thus why companies lose money through redundancy and nobody cares till they tank.

[thod]

	Because they don't need to advance their gender.

To me you seem to be saying that women in the workplace have some kind of duty to advance the cause of women, by looking out for other women, even if that is detrimental to their own career. I say they have no such duty, it is every woman for herself.

I would certainly expect police work to have a male dominated culture. It is the nature of police work. You cannot send police women in to break up a bar room fight. A police woman out patrolling a rough area is just as easy a target as any other woman. The first thing the thugs will do is take the radio and gun from her. Thus it will always be a male dominated profession.

[Ytterbium]

Thod there're women who can beat up both you and me. So don't generalise too much. just as there're men who can run away cowards.

[peppersasen]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To me you seem to be saying that women in the workplace have some kind of duty to advance the cause of women, by looking out for other women, even if that is detrimental to their own career. I say they have no such duty, it is every woman for herself.

I never said they had the 'duty' or 'obligation' to. I didn't even imply that. I was responding to your "men fight for their own advancement, they never seek to advance their gender" statement. Actually, I was surprised you would actually think the point of this (or at least my posting this) has to do with this "duty" you speak of. The point of me posting this is to discuss why women can't just mind their own business, do their work, and work hard to advance in their careers without having to back-stab or ruin someone else's career. Like the woman who I code named Mameha: she never stabbed me in the back, she was never nasty, she was always self-assured, and she was aware of how her projects were going because she's a competent person.

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would certainly expect police work to have a male dominated culture. It is the nature of police work. You cannot send police women in to break up a bar room fight. A police woman out patrolling a rough area is just as easy a target as any other woman. The first thing the thugs will do is take the radio and gun from her. Thus it will always be a male dominated profession.

Wow. Just wow. Do you have the slightest idea how important police women are? You should do more reading on police work. My first human rights job had to do with victims that would have been handled by a division of the police department that specializes in crimes against women, children, and the elderly and it is run by police women because that's who does the job best in that area. Rape, molestation, and sexual victims are more comfortable confiding to a female officer compared to male officers. Even male victims. Male victims of sexual crimes are't too keen on telling another guy, "dude, I just got sodomized" because that's embarrassing to them. Speaking to a more maternal police officer is helpful. There. I hope you learned something about women and police work today.

---------- Post added 07-17-2011 at 12:31 PM ----------

Also, it's a good thing to hire women in the police force to perform searches on women. I wouldn't like to be searched by a male cop or a male TSA officer. That is all.

[MrFlaneur]

In my experience a lady in a male dominated environment has a much easier time than a male in a female dominated environment. Ladies gang up, chaps dont in my experience. With my male bosses I knew that all they wanted me to do was turn up on time, work without making too many fuck ups and not cause a fuss. Working for wimmins was a whole different paradigm - made my head spin, they're impossible to please and rather than face a problem or complaint head on they just bitch behind your back.

[Eudoxus]

	Originally Posted by peppersasen To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Also, it's a good thing to hire women in the police force to perform searches on women. I wouldn't like to be searched by a male cop or a male TSA officer. That is all.

Eh, you're a criminal aren't you? Why do you get to be picky?

Furthermore, are you actually saying that you would be cool if a woman molested you/groped you, but not a man?...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[peppersasen]

	Originally Posted by Eudoxus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Eh, you're a criminal aren't you? Why do you get to be picky? Furthermore, are you actually saying that you would be cool if a woman molested you/groped you, but not a man?... To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Why do I have to be a criminal to be searched? Ever heard of "random searches" and "routine checks"? And more importantly "presumption of innocence"? I haven't been proven guilty yet, searches are part of a regular/normal procedure. I may look guilty but not necessarily, the cops may be wrong. And I have rights.

---------- Post added 07-17-2011 at 01:02 PM ----------

Have you ever been to a building where they perform security checks? Diplomatic premises and such? You get checked by COPS. When you enter a UN office, their floor's guarded by COPS who watch over as civilian security guards check my bags. Even when I go to charm school, the building is guarded by COPS who oversee when the security guards are checking my car before I enter the building complex. I don't need to be guilty of a crime for them to decided that they're going to check all my belongings one day as part of routine? I'm not a bad person for entering diplomatic buildings and I'm not a criminal for going to charm school.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
So, yeah, I do get to be picky.

---------- Post added 07-17-2011 at 01:08 PM ----------

I would be more comfortable being searched by a woman. I would feel less violated, yes. If she groped me, I would still sue her. But if you gave me a choice on who gets to search through my pockets, touch my body, and look through my bag full of tampons, I would prefer a woman. Is there something wrong with that?

---------- Post added 07-17-2011 at 01:29 PM ----------

Honestly, as a woman, it scares the shit out of me that men (who I assume are well-educated) are saying things they say here. The idea that some men still have these mentalities makes me feel "under threat" and uncomfortable. [Police]men are stronger than women, they'd be able to pin a woman down and rape her if he wanted to. It's that simple. Another user already pointed out how females are physically weak in arguing why police work "should remain a male-dominated profession", so how should I not be worried about being searched/interrogated by a group of policemen all alone?

---------- Post added 07-17-2011 at 01:41 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would certainly expect police work to have a male dominated culture. It is the nature of police work. You cannot send police women in to break up a bar room fight. A police woman out patrolling a rough area is just as easy a target as any other woman. The first thing the thugs will do is take the radio and gun from her. Thus it will always be a male dominated profession.

A study on policewomen on patrol by The Police Foundation:

POLICE FOUNDATION RESEARCH BRIEF POLICEWOMEN ON PATROL This study demonstrates that gender is not a valid reason to bar women from patrol work. Women perform patrol tasks as well as men. The attitudes and behaviors of some male officers, however, may create personnel problems if not properly addressed by managers. While women have long been part of the nation’s police forces, they traditionally were assigned to "women’s work," e.g., clerical duties, working with youth, or guarding female prisoners. Patrolling on the "front lines" of crime would expose women to violence, and it was generally believed that police administrators had serious reservations about a woman’s ability to perform well in violent situations. But in 1972, Congress passed an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting state and local agencies from job discrimination based on gender. Unless they had valid occupational reasons for not doing so, police departments were required to hire and assign women to jobs, including patrol, on an equal basis with men. Even before the law changed, however, the Police Foundation had begun surveying police departments to find out what was known about policewomen and their role in the law enforcement community. Little objective information was uncovered. The foundation asked The Urban Institute to help evaluate how well women performed as patrol officers. The evaluation was designed to provide police administrators with scientific information about the assignment of women to patrol work, how well women performed, and how citizens responded to them. The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia was selected for the study. Since 1969, the department had explored means of expanding employment opportunities for women. In 1972, it assigned a substantial number of newly hired policewomen to patrol work, thus breaking a national barrier by allowing women to perform police work traditionally reserved for men. THE EVALUATION The performance of 86 newly hired policewomen assigned to patrol was studied over a one-year period. Their performance was matched with that of 86 men hired at the same time and also assigned to patrol. Both groups were similar in educational level, civil service test scores, interview ratings, and police academy performance scores. The women, on average, weighed less and were shorter than the men, although the women met the department’s minimum height requirements. Because there was no set opinion on what constituted "good police performance," a variety of performance evaluation measures were developed. These included supervisory ratings, observations by trained observers, citizen opinion, and arrest statistics. These evaluation measures were then used to answer three questions: (1) Is it appropriate, from a performance viewpoint, to hire women for patrol assignments on the same basis as men? (2) What advantages or disadvantages arise from doing so? (3) What effect would the use of a substantial number of policewomen have on the nature of police operations? MAJOR FINDINGS The evaluation demonstrated that gender is not a valid reason to exclude women from police patrol work. Both female and male patrol officers responded to similar kinds of calls for service and encountered the same number of dangerous, angry, upset, drunk, or violent citizens. Although both groups obtained similar results when handling angry or violent citizens, the study noted that women patrol officers tended to be more effective than their male counterparts in avoiding violence and defusing potentially violent situations. The study found that women as a group made fewer arrests and gave fewer traffic citations. But the difference in arrest levels did not affect the women’s performance ratings. Researchers discovered that women were less likely than men to engage in serious unbecoming conduct. Women were also more likely to be assigned to light duty as a result of injuries. But these injuries did not cause them to be absent from work more often than men. Citizens involved in incidents with police officers had the same level of respect for and favorable attitudes toward patrol officers of both sexes. Female and male officers did not differ in terms of their respect for and attitudes toward citizens with whom they came into contact. IMPLICATIONS Women can perform police patrol work as well as men. In fact, it may be that a department with a substantial number of policewomen would be less aggressive than one with only men. Women act less aggressively and believe less in aggression. The presence of women may focus increased attention on ways of avoiding violence and cooling violent situations without using physical force. But departments assigning women to patrol can expect that male attitudes will create personnel problems. Some men, for example, may not believe that women can perform as well as men. As a result, female officers may be assigned by male managers to stationhouse (clerical) duties more often than males. Male officers also tend to be protective toward women. They may insist that female officers remain in the police car during traffic stops or arrests. Unfortunately, some women accept this less active role. Male officers may then complain that women are not doing equal work while receiving equal pay. The study indicated that the tendency of men to be protective toward women may make it difficult to fire incompetent policewomen during their probationary period. Many police departments will assign women to patrol only because it is required by law. Deploying female patrol officers, however, creates incentives to question many traditional police management practices now that they must be applied equally to men and women. This, in turn, creates opportunities for developing better selection criteria, performance standards, and supervision for all officers. The practical impact of this study has been greater than many in the field anticipated. Owing to its findings, the chief asset of the nation’s police departments–their human resources–were suddenly and significantly enhanced. The hiring of women for traditionally male dominated police roles not only enlarged the pool of talent but also reduced the cost of recruiting. According to the latest available statistics, in cities with more than one million inhabitants, the percentage of women officers has risen from two in 1974 to 10.4 percent today, a five hundred percent increase in little over a decade. The Police Foundation continued its work on the role of women in policing. To disseminate the results of its study in Washington, D.C., it published a manual which covers information on recruitment, training, promotions, performance, and the development of operational guidelines. The foundation published a status report on women in policing in 1981. On the Move: The Status of Women in Policing, a follow-on study on the role and status of women in policing, was published in 1990. This research found that, while women have made major inroads, much more progress needs to made in recruiting, promoting, and retaining women in policing.

Source:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[PRBori]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To me you seem to be saying that women in the workplace have some kind of duty to advance the cause of women, by looking out for other women, even if that is detrimental to their own career. I say they have no such duty, it is every woman for herself. .

the above pretty much summarizes my position. I am a woman in a lead role, but is not in the police force, in IT. I am call sometimes "queen bee" by co-workers and I think a lot has to do with my level of knowledge and the factor that my field is dominated by man. In any event, to each their own.... I have worked very hard to be were I am today and if I did it, other women can follow. They just have to learn to adjust to a male dominated environment in order to survive. That means not getting offended by a mans attitude, personality, and way of talking. Yes the "F" word is part of man vocabulary, deal with it, sarcastic jokes are part of man, deal with it. We have a few women in my department, we are very demanding from each other and hence, that may be seen as if we were competing, but that is not always the case. I think we all have different ways of approaching a situation and those tend to be mis-understood as competition.

If a co-worker need it advice and/or training, I would willingly teach them and guide them so that they be successful, but I will not in any way help them directly by giving them task I know they are not ready for. In our area of expertise there are certain rules that must be follow and I will have to say that they are not easy, so if the women is not pro-active she ain't going to excel and there is nothing I can do about that area...