Although intended for the parents of teenage girls, one source which I have found particularly useful for this is ‘Queen Bees and Wannabees’, by Rosalind Wiseman.
In an adolescent girl gang, there is usually a leader, the 'Queen Bee'.
“Through a combination of charisma, force, money, looks, will and manipulation, this girl reigns supreme over the other girls and weakens their friendships with others, thereby strengthening her own power and influence…Never underestimate her power over other girls (and boys as well). She can and will silence her peers with a look” (p25)
Wiseman goes on to provide some further characteristics of the Queen Bee.
“Her complaints about the other girls are limited to the lame things they said or did.
She can persuade her peers to do just about anything she wants.
She’s charming to adults…
She can make another girl feel ‘anointed’ by declaring her a special friend.
She’s affectionate, but that affection is often deployed to demonstrate her rejection of another girl…
She won’t…take responsibility when she hurts someone’s feelings…
She thinks she’s better than everyone else. She’s in control, intimidating, smart, caring, and has the power to make others feel good or bad. She’ll make stuff up about people and everyone will believe her” (pp25-26).
Gang membership is enforced by rules, and Wiseman mentions examples from the cliques she studied, such as having to wear pink on a Friday, or not wearing a skirt more than twice a week, or not speaking to certain individuals in school.
Members should be sexually attractive enough to have social credibility, but they mustn't upstage each other and certainly not the Queen Bee. The clique controls how 'slutty' its members are allowed to be - in other words, it controls female sexual display, or put another way, male access to female sexual beauty. The clique also decides whether a certain boy is cool enough to go out with. So in short, female social groups set the price of sex by attempting both to control the supply side and influence the demand side.
As with any teenage gang, you get ahead by intimidation, or by performing rebellious feats of daring; the gang provides its members with incentives to behave badly towards outsiders (and sometimes towards insiders who have fallen out of favour).
A profile of the typical Queen Bee would be something like the following:
- She is charming and charismatic.
- She is manipulative, lying and deceitful.
- She is extremely shallow and superficial.
- She is aggressive and ruthless, and has no concern for others’ feelings or needs.
- She is arrogant, and seems to have an unshakable sense of superiority and personal entitlement.
I came across this definition of Antisocial Personality Disorder, and it seems to fit the Queen Bee remarkably well. The text describes the difference between the terms ‘psychopath’ and ‘sociopath’. I am suggesting that the Queen Bee is often a sociopath.
“I use the term sociopath (socialised psychopath) for an individual with many of the characteristics of Antisocial Personality Disorder who expresses their violence psychologically (eg constant criticism, sidelining, exclusion, undermining etc). Psychopathic APD people are usually, but not exclusively, associated with low socio-economic status and urban settings and tend to be of lower intelligence. Sociopaths are usually highly intelligent, have higher socio-economic status and often come from "normal", "nice", "middle-class" families.
... most of the research on Antisocial Personality Disorder has been undertaken with people who are physically violent, as these people have come to the attention of the authorities (police, welfare agencies, doctors, psychiatrists, etc) through their recognised (physically) antisocial behaviour. They have committed criminal, arrestable offences. I believe relatively little research has been undertaken with people who are psychologically violent but rarely physically violent; these people tend to commit non-criminal, non-arrestable offences. People who are physically violent tend to have low self-esteem, low intelligence and low self-discipline; people who are psychologically violent tend to have low self-esteem, high self-discipline and high intelligence”.
People with these kinds of anti-social personality disorders are very good at getting themselves into positions of power, by manipulating and intimidating others. There is no doubt that many tyrannical leaders in history were psychopaths. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are obvious examples. An excellent book on the subject is Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes. Psychopaths are able to manoeuvre themselves into positions of power and influence within otherwise benign political structures, and turn them to their own ends. This is probably the origin of much political violence and corruption. There is no reason to think that women’s political organisations are immune from this.
Robert D Hare is the leading expert on psychopathy, and he has also applied his thinking to corporate situations as well. Corporations often seem to behave like psychopaths (destroying the environment and exploiting the poor for example), and this is perhaps partly due to the nature of the corporation itself, and partly due to the fact that corporations are often led by psychopaths.
Evidence is now accumulating that psychopaths wreak havoc at every level of human society. If we really want to make the world a better place, then understanding and dealing with anti-social personality disorder is perhaps one of the best approaches to take.
Psychopathy may prove to be as important a construct in this century as IQ was in the last (and just as susceptible to abuse), because, thanks to Hare, we now understand that the great majority of psychopaths are not violent criminals and never will be. Hundreds of thousands of psychopaths live and work and prey among us. Your boss, your boyfriend, your mother could be what Hare calls a "subclinical" psychopath, someone who leaves a path of destruction and pain without a single pang of conscience. Even more worrisome is the fact that, at this stage, no one -- not even Bob Hare -- is quite sure what to do about it. Reference
It seems likely that many leading feminists have also suffered from anti-social personality disorders.
Queen Bees like to control the behaviour, dress, relationships and sexual behaviour of their female subordinates. This should provide us with an insight into the feminist movement’s fixation with what other women do in bed, who they do it with, what they wear, whether they wear make-up, whether they use internal tampons, and so on. These women were doing this kind of thing at fifteen, and they are still doing it at forty. They do it because it gives them power over others. If you happened to be a Queen Bee at school, and especially if you are a lesbian, what better place to go than the feminist movement, to carry on where you left off. Taking power within a women's group is not too difficult for such people, and many of the other women will also plug straight back into the adolescent roles they previously occupied. The Queen Bee knows how to push their buttons.
Although the evidence shows that women are not beyond using physical violence when it suits them, such violence tends to take place in private, out of the way of prying eyes. You do not generally see acts of mass public violence committed by women, although it is not unknown.
Instead, women's methods of attacking their enemies usually consist of passive-aggressive psychological techniques, such as vicious gossip and rumour-mongering (destruction of reputation), destruction of relationships, verbal and emotional abuse, false accusations (falsification of primate distress signals), the recruitment of proxy attackers, social exclusion, public shaming or moral intimidation.
Recruitment of proxy attackers is an important one with regard to physical violence. When women want such actions carried out, they generally persuade men to do it for them, as it is more effective, and they can deny responsibility. For example, Kathleen M Blee, in her excellent book, Women of the Klan, describes how the powerful WKKK were able to persuade male members of the KKK to attack men who beat their wives or defaulted on child support.
However, there is no doubt that verbal denigration is vastly more common as a method of attack by females. They have always done this in private. Whenever they have entered public life, it should come as no surprise to find that they have done exactly the same thing. Blee describes how the WKKK organised ‘poison squads’ to circulate vicious rumours aimed at driving particular individuals out of town. Misandry in popular culture can be seen as simply the latest incarnation of this practice. The target of the WKKK was usually Black, Catholic or Jewish citizens, but the target of today’s feminist movement is the entire male population.
What we see now in popular culture is a constant low-level denigration of men, a relentless, often subtle stream of contempt and negative representation. This has the effect of controlling the overall cultural 'temperature' of sexual politics, which in turn makes it easier for women to rule the roost in private, or be given preferential treatment in public, such as leniency in the courts. It is this insidious cultural climate, produced by little more than concerted and highly organised gossip, which is the problem as much as anything.
In his classic work, The Games People Play, the psychiatrist Eric Berne describes a game called ‘Now I've got you, you son of a bitch’, in which the aggressor scrutinises the victim’s behaviour for signs of weakness or failure and then uses it against them. This practice of gathering dirt on people is really the classic strategy of the gossip, and perhaps the commonest of all female games.
The men’s and fathers movements concentrate a lot of attention on child contact following divorce, and although useful as a galvanising issue, it is far from being the root cause of the malaise. Denying men contact with their children is just another symptom, just another way of punishing and controlling men by passive methods. Women learn these techniques in adolescence, and it takes a mature mind to see through them.
Ganging up against men serves an important function in encouraging group cohesion. If you and I find ourselves stranded on an island inhabited by hostile natives, we will probably form common cause very quickly. That is the picture of the world that the politically astute (many of whom are psychopaths) often paint for the naive. The feminists, who essentially want power for themselves, are telling women "They all hate you, you know. We need to stick together. Only I can save you". This was also the basic message of Hitler to the German people. Anti-male propaganda cements the female social group together with the propagandists (i.e. feminists) in the leadership role.
I don't think there are any instant solutions to totalitarian feminism, it will take a long time to change it, and it will require a large number of small personal rebellions. The type of totalitarianism we are dealing with here often operates in private, on a small-scale, personal level. It has to be understood in that way and combated appropriately. It works by pressing particular psychological buttons. The first task is to recognise this.
Female Manipulation on Men’s Links
Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work, by Paul Babiak, Robert D Hare