The Neglect of Men as Social Work Clients or why The Joint Feminist Social Work Profession and the Family Courts Mirror Eleanor from Aquitaine's Gynocentric Misandry!
You’ve most probably heard about the male suicide epidemic or the suicide gap which is four times higher for men than for women, right? The following survey titled "The Unheard Gender: The Neglect of Men as Social Work Clients" does not only reveal the truth (when further researched and scritinized) that feminism, gynocentrism and misandry underlies the field and the proffession of social work but that altoghether with the feminist war on boys, men and masculinity either through their passive aggressive negligence and the inability to help men or their active spread and incitement of misandry, partly through what feminists themselves call "micro aggression", they are in fact the very reason for this epidemic. This is the universal hallmark of social work. The paper whose link I've posted belove is important as for the first time it removes the mask from the social worker's face as doing a "sacred job" in helping people.
Furthermore, it is also important to mention that although, this paper is still biased against men and spreads the typical man blaming feminist rhetoric in many fields such as the already refuted claim that domestic violence is gendered and mainly male perpetrated or the myths such as that of the deadbeat dads, the men who through hyper masculinity refuse to get help and the male dominated society as well as the gynocentric imbalances and biases, it is still very important as for the first time it begins to tackle some of the evils and the misandry universally and globally spread by social workers (even if it is done in this paper between the lines).
I'm not sure whether the author is a feminist or not but as most of the universities at least in the West are known as being strongholds of feminist and gynocentric misandry who are responsible for a lot of anti male policies that are mentioned in the paper and actually brought men into the vicious cycle first hand, it is indeed quite possible that the author's tactics here of being vague and not completely going against the misandrist academic stream imply or mirror policies and dictates as well as the man hating landscape of most universities which most probably are coming from senior directors, boards and superiors and thus the author doesn't go too far with the critique. I would indeed give here the benefit of the doubt as the paper still very clearly demonstrates and breaks the situation down so that even the ordinary person can now understand the fact that men struggling with serious depression for example as well as mental and/or personal/interpersonal issues do not seek help not because their toxic masculinity but the neglect, the further abuse and the hatred against them. In other words, men do not seek help because they'll simply won't find any of it. Evenmore so, this is true when they seek help from “helping professionals” that are conditioned and set out to destroy them for just the crime of being a man and not some feminist simp but for sure not providing help with the honest intent of helping men. This research clearly shows that the real reason is not that which is expressed by feminist imposters with internalized misandry such as Michael Kimmel and in the popular feminist man-hater formula of “toxic or hegemonic hyper masculinity" but that they are plain and simple denied de facto any help because of toxic gynocentrism, feminism and misandry.
Here is an EXCERPT from the professional literature review with its still extremely important conclusions:
"Various factors contribute to social workers' neglect of men. One is that most social workers are women and find it easier to work with women, whose outlook and language are usually closer to their own. . . . In few if any social work courses are men — their needs, their gender-related ways of manifesting and coping with distress, and interventions specifically geared to them — an inherent part of the curriculum"
"To right the imbalance and address the needs of men, social work must, first of all, acknowledge that men have unique problems, needs and unique ways of manifesting their distress. The principles are the same as with any underserved population. In the absence of sufficient knowledge, research is required on men's needs and problems, as well as on effective ways of offering and providing help to men so as to increase the chances that they will accept it"
"Moreover, to establish a good helping relationship with their male clients, it is essential that female social workers take account of the possible effects of the gender of the two parties"
From: “The Unheard Gender: The Neglect of Men as Social Work Clients,”
British Journal of Social Work. 2016 Jul; 46(5): 1463–1471.
Two articles supporting and expanding the findings and these insights:
Virginia Amato (MSW, RSW), “Listening to Men: Are Men the Unheard Gender?” Journal of Sociology and Social Work, December 2017, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 173-177.
Abstract: An ontological view of conceptualizing the world that women are more important than men may create a male gender bias which gets trapped in and blurs the epistemological lens of how one sees the world.
.. . .
Women have voiced their concerns to helping professionals for their inequities and people listened to the women (Turner, 2011). Men have voiced their concerns to helping professionals for their iniquities, but few have listened to men’s concerns leading to the perception of the “unheard gender”.
The difference for women is that the helping institutions have implemented mandates to encourage women and predominately entailed women listening to women (Turner, 2011). The problem a male client may encounter during the helping process may be based on his gender.
[Virginia Amato (MSW, RSW), “Listening to Men: Are Men the Unheard Gender?” Journal of Sociology and Social Work December 2017, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 173-177.]
ALSO: Virginia Amato, “The social construction of a possible male gender bias is negatively impacting fathers in child welfare services: Hammering a square peg into a round hole,” pp. 466-474, Pub. online: Feb. 7, 2018]
Here I want to quote some more important aspects of the paper from the British Journal of social work:
The first one states that "Very little of it looks at men in other roles or situations or concerns itself with men's experiences, feelings or needs"
This is both a combination of gynocentrism and misandry. It can be traced even back to queen Eleanor from Aquitaine who is known and can be considered as the one who gave rise to not only the classic European gynocentrism but many of its dynamics by creating the courts of love. First, it was the dynamic of defining men as the thing (property) of the woman in the code of Poitevin which clearly resembles all waves of feminism but especially the third wave and that served as the legal codification of her courts. In her misandrist gynocentric view men were nothing as chattels, property, of his female overlord devoid of needs, feelings and legitimate experiences rather than serving women. Second, it is the sole focus on women. Third, it is the dynamic started in her time of addressing female suffering while ignoring the male one. And the last one is that of giving women monopoly over the gender narative. Here we must remember that her courts were ruled by her, her daughters and 60 other noble women. The modern day family courts are actually derivatives of Eleanor courts and so is the field of social work that is almost solely dominated by women too - exactly as were her misandrist courts of love.
"The review points to a vicious circle in which the neglect of men in research, practice and training reinforce one another"
This is what I pointed above. However, unless we break the more profound and older chains and fetters of Eleanor's misandry, gynocentrism and the subsequent feminism nothing won't change.
"Gender has been a major issue in social work since the 1980s. The focus, however, has been on the female gender"
Again, this is the result of the same dynamic as described above.