Does some of the hatred of social workers stem from it being a female-dominated profession?

[Charlotteperkins]

On the back of the 3 very long threads this week following the BBC programme on social workers.

They are probably the most vilified profession.

I'm sure I've read somewhere that there is evidence that there is a pattern of professions (eg teaching) which decrease in status when the proportion of women in them increases.

Something to mull over...

I think it's because they have the ability to take your children away rather then the hatred of them being because it's a female dominated profession.

I think it's a bit like the police. No one ever has involvement with social services because things are great. They are there because something has gone wrong or you need help - whether that's because your child with SN needs support only they can arrange or somebody's reported you for abusing your child. As a result, people view them with suspicion and even fear, even though they are glad they are there.

Like the police, if there's a satisfactory result, it tends to be noted quietly in a file somewhere. If there's a bad result, it makes headlines, encouraging the suspicion among those who've never had dealings with them.

But the police, judges, doctors etc also have a role in that. It's not down to one person - these other professions don't seem to attract the same visceral hatred?

Why aren't family court judges villified?

Yes, I do actually because of some of the abuse levelled at them that I've heard anecdotally and some of the insults bandied about "frustrated", "couldn't/doesn't have children of her own", "silly young girl" etc.

I think in general jobs that are done more by women have much less 'value' to attached to them - like care work/nursing/social work etc.

Family law court judges aren't villified because of the web of secrecy surrounding the court process - you'd be hard pressed to find out which judge was sitting on certain cases - I guess because of retribution worries.

I think you're probably right Charlotte.
There are many other reasons too of course - the front-line nature of their role and the fact it pits them against clients in some cases, the fact that they are in many cases simply not able to do the job properly because they don't have the resources - but the visceral hatred and as Laurie says, some of the particular insults used, do suggest there is misogyny involved.

What is the ratio of male/female social workers? Does anyone know?

Teaching and midwifery are prime examples of the OP's argument, so I don't have a problem with seeing the vilification of social work made worse by misogyny, even though I think the main culprit is the nature of the work itself.

That said, there seems to be a special form of hatred reserved for child protection social workers (possibly stoked up by media frenzy) that you just don't see (or at least I haven't) for social workers dealing with say the elderly. I wonder if it's because women are still considered primary guardians of children's welfare, so in cases where it all goes wrong the moral outrage is more because people deep down believe that the woman social worker's mothering instincts should have somehow prevented it? Perhaps a male social worker would be easier absolved?

Just musing really.

Yes I think it probably does. That and a general misunderstanding about what they do. My mum was a social worker and she always knew she was walking a knife edge between keeping a family together and ending up in the press. I don't read the social worker threads because they are too frustrating.

People get very aerated by ss because they 'interfere' in matters that most people see as private. I have never ceased to be amazed at how, when some poor mite is killed by it's family, more venom seems to be directed at ss than at the perpetrators. Women tend to be more represented in the caring professions. I do think there might be some mileage in the idea that women sws tend to bear the brunt of the anger for both interfering and then not interfering enough when it goes wrong. After all 'being a family' is meant to be one of those things that people (especially women) just know how to do.

Yes I've often wondered that too. I suspect it does.

No, it stems from them being the deciding force that take your children.

Even incapable, neglectful, and outright abusive parents still love and miss their children.

Family court judges certainly are vilified - very much so by the Families Need Fathers brigade, and also in the more spittle-flecked Mail/Telegraph opinion pieces about closed courts stealing children from their loving families. (To be followed the next day by pieces about poor innocent children being left to suffer in dysfunctional families. They can't win.)

But yes, the stereotypical idea of a social worker seems to be a middle-class, youngish female and I wonder if part of the prejudice against them derives from a sense that it is wrong for a young woman to enter a family's private territory and assert authority over a male head of the household. Is it seen as demasculinizing, perhaps?

(Of course many families involved with social workers don't involve adult males so this isn't the whole story.)

I have to disagree with the premise. Most vilified profession in Britain by a long chalk is that of 'banker'. Closely followed by 'politician'.

Any person working in the caring professions.... doctor, paramedic, social worker, nurse ... will be vilified if they are shown to have neglected the people they are supposed to care for or to have abused their position. Doesn't matter if they are male or female. They will also be classed as 'angels' and something next to saints if they do their job properly.

But Cogito, I've never heard of social workers being classed as angels or next to saints, and most do do their jobs properly.
They definitely don't share in the idealisation that the medical professions get.

I think it is partly because thye can take your kids away.

But I do think there's something interesting about the fact that the public hate them, more than they hate the (usually men) who murder the children in their care. When a woman is responsible for child abuse, like Baby P's mum, the media vilify her the most. When a man is responsible for it, it seems they vilify the female social worker the most.

As if the female social worker should have stopped the man abusing - somehow, she's more responsible for his behaviour, than he is.

Surely HMRC, Health & Safety officers are in the same category.

All hated because they can take something away from you, (rightly or wrongly) have powers that at times you cannot question, and have certain members that are power-crazed and totally incompetant.

Whether or not the female element crosses all those groups I cannot say.

The general public cannot grasp the concept of the needs and safety of the child being the most important factor in deciding what action to take.

They don't know the research and evidence base used to understand the decisions taken, so think that they are an over reaction. They look at parents in the process from their own POV, until you meet lots of different parents you cannot understand what you are dealing with, the chances given and the parents not taking the chances.

It is a scary thought that someone can judge your parenting and find it wanting, so you can lose residency of your children. This is because of a lackof understanding and knowing the process.

Men are as few as 22%, in some areas less, they usually go into management, or move into other jobs (education welfare etc).

I don't think SW are hated because they are female, alot of women would not want male SW's.

I would like to say that there are more families were there has been two parents at the start than LP's, those include step parents.

I think it's one of those jobs that nobody cares or thinks about when it's done well, but when it goes wrong everybody has an opinion about it.

Like housework and mothering.

I think part of the problem is that when SWs do an amazing job, the resulting 'success' is still a tragedy for all concerned. A child may be in care suffering from the lifelong effects of abuse and separation and this is the best outcome for that child. It's always a fucking tragedy.

The public never hear about these 'successes'- and nor should they. However, this leaves most people's perception of SWs formed by either their own or friends' involvement which is often painful and traumatic, or by media coverage of SW's failures.

Plus, it is natural for us as parents to identify with other parents to some extent; Birds makes a very good point about the general public not grasping the concept of the child's needs being paramount; this is actually a really hard concept to grasp, and can be at odds with our own parental instincts. I don't think putting the child's needs first comes naturally, and needs skilled professionals in order to ensure that this happens. I work in children's services, but could never be a SW. I am full of admiration for the job they do.

I've spoken (well chatted) to social workers on MN before about specific issues, and they made it clear that they had no power. They basically took orders from above, which in my book translates into: from "the system" i.e "from men".
The issue in question was how on earth it could be possible to remove children from their mother when her spouse was abusing her, and yet not possible to remove the abuser himself from the home, and have him put in jail.

The question being discussed was that surely if there's enough evidence to remove the children from the home on the grounds the man is abusive, then there's definitely enough evidence to remove the man/abuser himself...

Apparently not.

Apparently removing the man is dealt with by a different department.

So what you have is a system that punishes mothers for men's crimes, while, err, not actually punishing the men themselves.

I heard all sorts of excuses from social workers such as "the women put their men first and refuse to leave" "we have to make the decision on the mothers' behalf" and blah blah, but it all rang hollow, because at the end of the day if you remove the abuser and jail him, or make sure he can't approach the home, then the woman is not in a position to choose him is she...

The social workers seemed not even to realize that abused women are often traumatized and suffering from Stockholm syndrome, knowing that if they try to leave their spouse will kill them (it is when women try to leave that they are usually murdered), so what is the point in social workers blaming the women in this situation? They didn'T even seem trained in the basic psychology of abused women. THey spoke as though the women were choosing the abuser over their children because of some airy fairy romantic ideal. And I heard some real aggression towards the mothers in the tone of the social workers who discussed this with me.

Hmm is it not because SWs would normally have much less training than drs/ judges?

Especially with doctors: yes, there are some terrible ones. But they are highly skilled professionals. I don't know that much about SWs, but am I right to think you only need an undergraduate degree to be one?

It's also much more subjective in terms of professional judgement. Obviously I don't know if they are telling the truth, but I have seen a number of women on AIBU talking about SWs criticizing them for housekeeping when they had perfectly normal standards and similar. This is obviously subjective - but a doctor's diagnosis is much more evidence based.

Whether rightly or wrongly, my sense is that SW isn't really a skilled profession - that it's much more about applying certain models and using prepared criteria than having a real in-depth understanding.

sakura, children are not removed in order to punish the mother.

They are removed because their needs come first.

SWs can only work within the law- if there is no law to remove an abusive man from the home, then the children must be removed from the abuse.

What you describe falls outside the remit of SS.

I work with children whose mothers invited men round to abuse them. Women who had been abused themselves and were horribly, horribly damaged- yet leaving the children with her was not an option because they were not safe. Work to make them safe in her company would have been putting her needs above theirs, and placing them at risk of further abuse. Not an option.

Put bluntly, the SWs are there for the children, not the mothers. Perhaps there ought to be a department of SS which puts the (abused) mother's needs first- but this should not be children's services.

I don't think that the hatred of social workers stems from it being a mainly female dominated field, I have met a few sw's of both genders.

The negative reputation of sw's does stem from the fact that a significant number of sw's are middle classed, blinkered numpties that would rather do paperwork and lecture people than do something practical and actually help.

Blaming their bosses is missing the point a bit, sw's do have power in their roles, They have the power to write works of complete fiction and pass them off as fact.

On the flipside I really liked the sw's I had as a child. They were good people and they did a lot to help me through a very traumatic childhood. I have nothing but positive memories of them, they kind of filled a void for a little while.

I was never removed from the parental home (confusing because by today's standards we would have been removed in a shot) I feel that nowadays some just don't seem to understand people that aren't like them.

People with no children telling people with children how to do it springs to mind. In some cases they are right, in others, horribly wrong.

They were too patient with my parents, gave them endless opportunities and they never changed, now they don't seem to give enough support.

LadySybilDeChocolate I think it's because they have the ability to take your children away -and- Colditz it stems from them being the deciding force that take your children. Even incapable, neglectful, and outright abusive parents still love and miss their children

For the umpteenth time - NO Social Worker can remove a child - it is a decision made SOLEY by a Court of Law, and with paperwork and evidence to support the Social Work request (as that's what it is) which would make your eyes bleed. I'm sure that those abusive parents do miss their children, would never suppose otherwise, but I still believe their child has a right NOT to be abused, emotionally, physically, or sexually, that overrides what their parents think/feel/believe.

Sakura and yet not possible to remove the abuser himself from the home . In Scotland there is recourse to removing an alleged abuser (Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981).

Sakura I don't know that much about SWs, but am I right to think you only need an undergraduate degree to be one? ONLY a four years Honours Degree, with a Diploma in Social Work gained concurrently, and practical, failable, placements - not that skilled then, eh?!

VivaLaSativa (Love your name) a significant number of sw's are middle classed, blinkered numpties that would rather do paperwork and lecture people than do something practical and actually help - only the Bosses to be fair

To answer Charlotteperkins OP, the majority of my colleagues have been female, managers have been historically male. Not a great balance in my opinion.

I DESPAIR at the state of my profession, I really do...Damned if we do, damned if we dont - too fecking right

...and in Scotland we also have the added layer of the Children's Hearing System - three (volunteer) lay members of the Public (and Oh so Middle Class worthies in many cases) who at a yearly Review Hearing can reject the recommendation of a Social Worker that has seen, visited, worked with, a child and their family, week in week out, and whom the Panel Members have never set eyes on...at least the guidelines for that process recommend a mix of genders