Talk:Queen bee (sociology)

Queen Bee Redirect sucks!
I just wanted to lodge a huge protest that this stub under Queen Bee (subculture) (which is listed on the Queen Bee disambiguation page) was redirected here. That stub was way way way more informative than this page... because the stub has gestures towards what I actually was looking for while "Conformity" as understood by social psychologists is interestingly and tangentially related to it but basically not what I wanted at all. There's a whole literature in feminist cultural critique that I wanted summarized that the stub was working towards and someone killed it :-(

(Also, this is just a general comment, but I stopped trying to edit wikipedia a while ago because everything I tried to add was deemed "not important enough" and rather than fight stick in the muds for no pay I decided to just give up on the project... this deletion is a perfect example of something important to many people but not to the editor cliques who are willing to put up with so much crap that they dominate this wiki in ways that actually reduce it's net value. Kind of amusing that I finally broke down and wrote out this complaint on a page about "Conformity"... sigh.)


 * And that's just for starters
 * Messy Thinking (talk) I hear ya.


 * I also see something completely non-notable and silly playing a significant part in editing this article down the road: the application of the Mean Girl's 7 Deadly Sins: Vanity, Teasing, Prejudice, Power Tripping, Self, Jealousy, and Gossip.

Restoration
"Queen Bee" is a legitimate pop culture reference, and doesn't really have much to do with Conformity, though I could see it possibly merged into another article at some point. This redirect was inappropriate, considering that there were 3 votes to keep, 3 votes to redirect, and 2 votes to delete. That is hardly a consensus. I have restored the article and suggest that we develop it further, or merge it with something more appropriate. In any event, it should be a consensus. --Jcbutler (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Eight votes on something that affects so many more? Weird!
 * Messy Thinking (talk) Cliques, perhaps?


 * Cliques might work, though that article is in even worse shape than this one. --Jcbutler (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Pop Culture List
I removed the pop culture list, but it was automatically re-added. I understand that it's flagged as a removal of content, but the list shouldn't be 90% of the article. 67.162.113.118 (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not tvtropes
Wikipedia is not tvtropes. This page doesn't really belong here, I think the fact that the only examples here are fictional makes the situation pretty clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.175.140 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree any more strongly. This is very obviously a common fictional trope trying to be passed off as scientific by people with specific political agendas. What next? Are we going to writing articles about princesses being saved from castles? If nothing else, this article's association with sociology/psychology should at least be removed.

Primecut (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Fiction List
This is a small complaint, but how is Trina Vega an example of a queen bee? On many episodes she's been shown to be dislikable and unpopular, such as her attempting to sit at a table of popular kids followed immediately by them leaving. She's never even seen with friends at her house. So would anyone oblige to her being taken off the list?

Misinformation within page
'Homophily' is not a synonym of the Queen Bee Syndrome, but is a reference to an alternative/competing theory. The terms are rather antonymous: sisterhood vs. hostile competition/domination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.33.145 (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
School diva and the queen bee really refer to the same concept, so I propose merging it here. While school diva is definitely better sourced and written, I have doubts as to how often that term is really used in English. suggests it's hardly at all used. Compare to (just to use an arbitrary qualifier to discourage hits on actual bees). Queen Bees and Wannabes, if nothing else, has made this the more dominant term. --BDD (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ after over a week without comment. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Politically Biased Section?
There are statements accusing conservative, non-politically-feminist women of being the most likely to be 'queen bees', and this is supported by only one reference, if that even refers. Because of the inherent pejorative nature of the concept of the 'queen bee', and the unreliability of its sources, I have placed bias and inadequate-reference templates on this section. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the reference to these women suceeding via their own efforts rather than via "affirmative action" programmes, they are likely to be hostile to victimhood narratives and identity politics, both of which positions would get them identifed as politically conservative. But yes, the reference does look pejorative - effectively implying that any woman failing to engage in "gender politics" is a category traitor and worthy of condemnation. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * From what I've read, a "queen bee" is actively hostile to other women and doesn't want to see them achieve similar success. I'm sure such women exist, but is being opposed to affirmative action necessarily the same thing? Heck, you could argue that the "queen bee" label itself is a way of smearing and penalizing women who achieve success in male-dominated fields. Rosekelleher (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Identifying with the Role
Something that should be explained, perhaps by example, is that "Queen Bee" is a title/function that the Bee herself may intentionally strive for. That is, it's not just a diagnosis or a sociological observation about the behavior patterns of others. Leptus Froggi (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)