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...

Previous- there are three placements, first is 40 days and then 80 day and a 100 day placement. One has to be statutory, in the UK.

RevoltingPeasant I have only ever met one very young and immature SW'er. I qualified in my 30's.

See Birdsgottafly's post above Revoltingpeasant - the training is improving - I only had to do two placements!

The profession's trying to get better, it's just that standards, thresholds, legislation, L.A's etc don't share one unifying set of 'rules' - ethics and values maybe, but no agreed nationwide responses to so many common and widespread issues. The tide of people, often with multiple and sharply contrasting 'needs', having SW involvement is not slowing down, we need a cease-fire, and support ironically, before the whole system implodes.

Can I ask you, why do you think people 'report such bad experiences'? (of SW'ers) - I have my views of course, but it would be more interesting to hear from a source unnconnected to SW.

There are thousands of people with SW involvement (in Children & Families alone) (and I agree with BGF that it is Child Protection which attracts the most Public venom) The tragedies/scandals that you read about are, thankfully, very few and far between when you actually consider the sheer numbers of children/people involved.

Previously, you mean why do I think so?

Well, ignorant answer but.....

I think people strenuously object to having someone scrutinise such private parts of their lives. I think it can't help but feel like judging. My own experience with SWs was when my DSis was very ill - I was in primary school - and I think they thought my parents weren't coping or something. They were very nice but even at that age, I remember having a pretty good idea why they were there, thinking their niceness was a veneer and that they thought I was stupid, and that they really didn't do much to help (I was about 7 btw).

I suppose when you see people posting here about bad experiences with SWs they tend to be about intrusiveness/ judging - and often judging badly. E.g. there was a woman on an AIBU thread on Friday saying that she had had difficulties when her daughter presented at A&E with groin pain - this was referred to SS and she thought they thought she was abusing her DD.

I think also people have very different standards of cleanliness/ care for their children and personally, there are a lot of things I would totally take in my stride which I know lots of people in this country wouldn't. E.g. did you see the AIBU thread about a family living in a yurt with a baby - people there were saying they would call children's services about them. I have seen people on here say they would contact SWs about children being allowed to walk to school at primary age and suchlike. To me, those are parenting choices - perhaps not ones I'd agree with, but still.

I think the involvement of SWs often seems to signalise a kind of standardization of parenting - do you see what I mean by that?

RevoltingPeasant You are absolutely right. It is the fear of being judged, and perhaps found wanting, in the eyes of someone who may be poles apart from you, whether rich or poor. Purely subjective judgement at that - is there a worse kind?

A good SW should be able to disregard the 'messy' house - bet their own isn't all Pledge and no crumbs - but some can't, agreed.

I also agree with the principle of parenting choice and know the depth, breadth, and range that can encompass, but I also know where the line is for a child. I think most people would if they were shown the every day homelife of some children. It's not rocket science really

Bed for this tired old SW'er, cheers for the discussion.

"E.g. there was a woman on an AIBU thread on Friday saying that she had had difficulties when her daughter presented at A&E with groin pain - this was referred to SS and she thought they thought she was abusing her DD"

Surely that was down the staff at the hospital not the SW.

I think it has to do with a right wing agenda of general badmouthing of the public sector, preparatory to getting rid of it. (of course the public sector is disproportionately staffed by women and here we run into chicken and egg stuff)

I think it is fear.

The fear that if they enter your life with regard to your children that somehow implies you are lacking in some way, even if that association is because you need them i.e. if dc have sn. And if you need them as an adult, the fear of your own vulnerability and potential loss of independence.

Don't get me started on some of the doctors we've come across

Rural Scotland sounds wonderfully remote!

Sorry, that was for previously...

I think the professionalism of the SW profession does have something to do with it. People who practice medical and law do have to study longer than just an ordinary undergraduate degree.

That SW who was responsible for the Cleveland fiasco, went on to head up a SS dept. elsewhere. Whereas if she'd been part of a body like the GMC, she'd have been struck off.

So I don't think we can completely ignore that aspect in why people resent SW's - I'm not saying it's necessarily justified (though it may be), just that it's understandable. I think people feel that if someone is making really long term, life-changing decisions about their families, then they really need to be very highly qualified indeed.

Having said that, if you got very posh people with PhD's doing it, they'd be criticised as not being in touch with real life.

Damned if you do etc.

I think it is because of fears of having your child taken away - even if you are a good parent, many still fear SS.

I think an equally hated job role is parking officers

I don't think people with PhDs are necessarily posh and I'm cynical about GMCs striking off medics as so offen they're reinstated.

I think the position of SW in child protection vis a vis their clients is complex.

Doctors and lawyers are traditional seen as a repository of knowledge that is inaccesible to the lay person (although this is changing) and in their training they are taught to act in a an authoritative manner in order to instill respect and compliance from their patients/clients. That is why so many of them have a rather poor bedside manner.

GPs and lawyers also operate outside the realms of local government and regard themselves as business people with a fair amount of power and autonomy to make their own decisions with regard patients and clients. However, as the general public become more knowledgeable about health and the law, their attittude and deference towards medics and lawyers is changing as they are seen to be increasingly fallable

Social workers, on the other hand are encouraged to be more 'hands on' for want of a better word, and more approacheable and familiar. They are usually local government employees and operate within a political and resource poor framework as well as within the child protection framework.

I'm neither a social worker nor a medic but that is my understanding.

Ormirian - If medical staff thought it might be a non-accidental injury, they have a duty to refer to SW in the first instance. (NOT commenting on that particular Thread btw- I did not read it all).

On the other hand, 'A total of 19 doctors and health workers examined (Peter Connelly) on a total of 33 occasions in the eight months before his death'...he had a broken back, and eight fractured ribs, amongst other injuries (mutilated fingertips and fingernails missing), at the time of his death

No one profession should act in isolation when a child is at risk, or be scapegoated when it goes tragically wrong.

I think SWs are asked to do the impossible - a task that has never fallen to anyone before in our society. They are strangers being asked to intervene in private lives and homes of others. And investigate matters that we all think are our business and ours alone. It was never going to be an easy or popular profession.

Previously thanks for the answer - yeah, it is definitely reassuring to talk to you, as you seem really sensible. I think there is a caricature of SWs that gets wheeled out regularly.

Can I say something that will make me no doubt more unpopular? Because this is also a female-dominated profession....

In my sector, HR and similar depts are generally regarded as bureaucratic and brainless. Many of the people who work there will be apparently intelligent, well-qualified, even have PhDs ( ) but nonetheless have a determinedly computer-says-no attitude.

I won't go into details, but at my previous job, there was an awful kerfuffle when someone hadn't brought in a death certificate (of their own child) to excuse absence and as it was uncertified, they started trying to dock pay...

I have to say that my impression, rightly or wrongly, is that many people regard SWs in the same light. They may be qualified (though I would still argue not that highly for people with so much power) but I think they are often seen as 'clipboard warriors' if you know what I mean.

I think that, coupled with the fear and resentment about being judged, makes people dislike them. Plus, I would guess (??) that you have to investigate many false alarms, and thus the majority of cases you look into actually have nothing wrong - ? So then you would have many hacked off, wrongly suspected people who have a fine anecdote to go spreading about.... eh voila !

OrnIrian and Revoltingpeasant (PoL does cartwheels at being called a sensible SW - it means a LOT at the present time, you may never know just how much your words do mean to me, thank you)

... IT IS a female dominated profession - just like caring, cleaning, child-care, P/T working, being a resident parent, etc. SW IS/CAN be a tick-box exercise to demonstrate need to a superior who has never even met the child/family in question. I only wish there was a clear-cut solution to it all.

I am not JUDGING the crumbs on/under the table and the day to day existence of the (happily) majority of families (delighted to post a pic of MY mid-renovation des-res, and overwhelming ironing mountain...would make you weep...do I care? Not a jot!) but when a child is ignored, or emotionally, sexually, physically, distressed and abused, I can, and will, move heaven and earth to give a damn about their life - now and in their future...whatever Mum or Dad thinks/says/feels/believes.

Look forward to seeing tonight's episode of 'DIIDo, DIIDon't' - will throw up many more perspectives on the role that so many women undertake as a career.

Q.

In your opinion, to what degree (excuse the pun) SHOULD SW'ers be trained? How many years experience do you think would be enough? (current GP/Lawyer levels?)

What is the general concensus with regard to the, actual, fit for purpose, professional, requirements for another woman/man to judge your parenting...

What if it you were told your parenting was not 'good enough'?

Forget being - tired, grumpy, exhausted, overwhelmed - whether at work or home, resentful, judgy, happy - but still tired...you folks are so far off the SW (SS? - really? yuk) radar as to be in deep, unexplorable, infinite, Space.

SW'ers, honestly, are (bar the rare malicious referral)
by neccessity, ONLY involved with the children parents that are so far down the rabbit hole it requires not a looking glass but that old SW favourite, the Crystal Ball.

Prevz (feel like we're on those kinda terms now ) I don't know enough about SW to know how far you should be trained, but....

I would say undergrad degree + postgrad diploma or MA of some kind PLUS a long internship a la doctors - I think SWs should have some basic counselling training + child psych training somewhere in all that if poss.

This is no doubt pie in the sky!! I also think experienced candidates should be a massive priority and there should be some screening to counteract judginess. I.e., the training should involve being exposed to different functional models of parenting.

If I were told my parenting weren't good enough? Well, this is the thing - it would depend massively on who said it and why.

If my (currently imaginary) 3yo kept bumping his head on the coffee table and an A&E nurse took me aside and said kindly, 'Look you know, this is the 3rd time we've had DS in here in a year - you need to sort this out because your son could get a serious scar' - I'd listen.

If a GP said to me, 'You know this infection your baby has could be due to not cleaning down surfaces properly' - I'd listen.

If a lawyer friend said to me, 'Not trying to interfere, but do you know that it's actually illegal to show your DC 15-cert films at that age?' - I think I'd listen there too.

But if the 22yo judgeypants SW of popular imagination said to me, 'Current guidelines advise that you make sure your children are wearing pants at all times for child protection reasons' I would think it was a load of shit. Partially because it is, but also partially because it would come from someone who couldn't frame their opinions in an authoritative yet sympathetic and sensible way that made me respect them.

If a sensible SW said to me, 'I'm a bit worried about you letting your DC play outside where you can't see them because I've seen kids get run over there' I'd listen because it would be kindly meant advice based on experience.

If someone invokes what seems like a box ticking exercise as a reason for changing how you parent, it feels like just because and I think that angers people.

... Concludes essay

RevoltingPeasant cheers for taking the time to write your thoughts down. It's lovely to debate these issues outside of the workplace.

Re: training - we can go on to do a MA etc, but in our own time, at own cost (so not generally undertaken) We do some Psychology, some Counselling, some of everything: as most courses are for generic SW it's hard to be more specific with the course content. Specialities (like Doctors) might be the way to go? (Doctors may accumulate debts from studying for so many years but generally recoup this from future high salaries, SW'ers would not have this option - I'm still paying off my student loan, and will be until retirement at 74!) We also have to be accountants, private detectives, lie-detectors, tight-rope (whilst juggling) walkers, and clairvoyants in the course of an avarage day!

I wish we could give the profession a boost, and explain clearly on a bigger stage what we do, what we can do, and what we can't...a LOT of myths could be busted! Then maybe we would have some Public confidence in what can be a life changing/saving service. (The T.V programme did not go far enough, attempted to show some of the issues we deal with - but couldn't show the paperwork, the stress, the pressure to get it right, the bosses (oh Gawd, the Bosses!) the miles we drive, the e-mails, the letters, the meetings, the burn-out - despite that I love my job, and keep going because of those very rare moments like meeting that young man earlier this week)

'If a lawyer friend said to me, 'Not trying to interfere, but do you know that it's actually illegal to show your DC 15-cert films at that age?' - it's not illegal to watch these films in your own home whatever the age of the audience (Is illegal to take your toddler into the cinema for the matinee of SAW though!)

Neither is it illegal (in Scotland) to give a child, over five years of age, alcohol in their own home (yes, really) As long as they're not holding their heads, puking in the sink, begging for a kebab and a couple of Paracetemol after indulging, there's not a court in the (Scot) land that could charge the parents.

Same with the 'pants' issue - would only be CP if child was being allowed by parents to be pantless at a meeting for those with unhealthy interests in children.

Welcome to the strange reality of SW in todays society.

I agree there ARE supportive, caring, and constructive ways to speak to people regarding difficult issues, sadly more and more of the families we work with can't, won't, and never will, be able to consider their child's needs before their own.

We're not as judgey in the scheme of things as some imagine...like the family where the toddler was exhorted to eat up their lunch of sausage rollS, and sausage rollS alone - (a large proportion of MN would be up in arms - thank goodness they're not your SW'er!) Me? I was looking at the child, who was beaming and happy after a cuddle and kiss from their parent - but then I'm a sensible Social Worker (sooo, getting a badge with that on it )

AvErage totally distracted by a job related ermmm, individual, currently doing something in the public eye and presenting a wholly innacurate representation of their life...Only about 7,000 people know the truth, a few SW'ers amongst them

Yes, specialism would be interesting. I think that would give the profession a boost - you're right there. It'd sort of feel like that person had chosen to go into a special area because they cared about it, iyswim.

But I think people do feel that way! I mean, I've had any number of crappy GPs but I see go to the GP and basically trust them and see them as someone who is on my side, who cares. Ditto nurses, consultants, what have you. I do think their specialisation matters a lot in that.

God yes, you are right about not wanting most of MN to be my SW ... but seriously - I think that is the problem - most people see SWs as 'not highly qualified, just ordinary people' - and so they assume they will go all catsbumface if the skirting boards aren't clean and DS likes to wear Barbie knickers instead of Bob the Builder pants or something.

(The pants e.g. earlier was a deliberately stupid one btw - having spent much of my own childhood pantless - my poor mum!!)

still go to the GP