I've been scrolling the internet for a while now.. I have had to succumb to the notion I need you help..
I am reflecting upon a case study.. child has "grabbed bruising marks" I basically have said because the main care giver is a mother social workers can overlook the idea of abuse due to gender.. I want to back this up with some research of how either social workers or society overlook female abuse.. just can't find the research anywhere :( any ideas??
Not sure I understand what you are saying. A bruise is OK if inflicted by a female hand? !!!!!
Is that a recommendation you would make yourself? Or are you just putting the idea out there to be a bit controversial? A bruise is a bruise, regardless of who has caused it!
Of course I am not saying a bruise is okay..I may have not got my idea over.
I am trying to say how social workers and society can/may overlook abuse caused by females due to the assumptions that female behaviour is non violent..The idea is from Coulshed and Orme but they apply it to female carers and elderly abuse
socialwork11: Of course I am not saying a bruise is okay..I may have not got my idea over. I am trying to say how social workers and society can/may overlook abuse caused by females due to the assumptions that female behaviour is non violent..The idea is from Coulshed and Orme but they apply it to female carers and elderly abuse
Don't see where you are coming from because to be female and non-nurturing/violent is generally seen as far more deviant than to be male and non-nurturing/violent. Who did people despise the most, Ian Brady or Myra Hindley?
Have you thought about why your theory does not provide rich research evidence?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/oct/04/uk-female-child-sex-offenders
http://www.publicservice.co.uk/blog_story.asp?id=274
http://www.springerlink.com/content/rt2j17m550017624/
I am trying to say how because social work is "social" social workers are bound to be influenced by the social climate, social workers therefore have their own prejudices/biases.. I.e. the denial that mothers can harm their children for example the guardian articulates ..."This surely goes some way to explaining how Baby P in the last eight months of his life could have been seen 60 times by health or social workers who failed to permanently remove him from the source of his torment. When he was taken to hospital with swelling and bruising to the side of his head, the medical and social services seem to have paid more attention to the plausibility of his mother's account - he'd been pushed over by an older child and hit his head on a marble fireplace - than to the evidence of his injuries." Moreover, Anna Motz, forensic psychologist and author of The Psychology of Female Violence , is appalled by our collective denial of what mothers can do, which she believes we compensate for in our regular outpourings of emotion in totemic cases like that of Victoria Climbié and Baby P. "If women are cruel towards a child, it's always because of the male violence that they've been subject to - they don't have agency."
I was just trying to find some kind of statistic to show the difference in gendered assumptions about abuse, however, It doesn't matter about this topic advice doesn't seem to helpful
you're asking about attitudes to abuse, not actual abuse, yeh?
i doubt there is any evidence that social workers overlook injuries if they assume it is caused by a woman, because i don't think social workers do that. like redana said: a bruise is a bruise, and whoever actually did it, the focus is on not letting it happen again.
but i think i see where you're coming from... it may be if a child has grab marks, some people could assume the mother didn't do it or that she "had to" for the child's protection (somehow...), and "they" might assume that the injury was inflcted by a partner, brother, or A.N. Other; or "they" might more readily assume it is "abusive" if it was a single dad as opposed to a single man. but "they" would be missing the point (see above).
good luck with your paper, though and be sure to share if you find anything!
in reference to the guardian article, where was the quote from?
i think there is a difference between physical and sexual abuse. i think it's easy to envisage a stressed out parent smacking their child once too hard, or grabbing them for some reason, and that a one off incident isn't quite the same as systematic abuse...
there isn't, to my knowledge, a lot of research about women who sexually abuse. there is even less about girls who cause sexual harm - in fact, most of the interventions i've seen come with the disclaimer "boys only" because of the research. BUT, i haven't researched it, so could be about my experience as i'm not specialist...
trodge: you're asking about attitudes to abuse, not actual abuse, yeh? i doubt there is any evidence that social workers overlook injuries if they assume it is caused by a woman, because i don't think social workers do that. like redana said: a bruise is a bruise, and whoever actually did it, the focus is on not letting it happen again. but i think i see where you're coming from... it may be if a child has grab marks, some people could assume the mother didn't do it or that she "had to" for the child's protection (somehow...), and "they" might assume that the injury was inflcted by a partner, brother, or A.N. Other; or "they" might more readily assume it is "abusive" if it was a single dad as opposed to a single man. but "they" would be missing the point (see above). good luck with your paper, though and be sure to share if you find anything!
I think the premise of the postholder in an over-arching way has some element of merit in it.
Research shows that the majority or physical abuse..particularly over physical chastisement has a female perpetrator, and the majority of murders of children are committed by the female parent...and male children are more at risk.
Paternal physical abuse tends to be more overt, and more readily discovered and procedures taken, especially in the context of a failing relationship where the mother either does the reporting or corroberates the incident.
More single mothers have sole care of the child, and fewer fathers still living with mothers report the mothers physical abuse.
This probably leads to a more statistical and systemic effect rather than because of any gender characteristics.
When a male does physically abuse a child it tends to be in anger and without weapons. the results can be quite serious.
Female physical abuse more often involves the use of impliments such as sticks wooden spoons belts etc, and is more often strategic or instrumental than in anger. genttal mutilation of both gendered children generally has a female perpetrator ( aside fromcultural/relegious mutilation)
I had all the research sources to hand once many years ago, I think from being approached as a manager for my organisations statistics by a mens issues organisation....called Mens Aid I think,
Yes I have just checked and their website www.mensaid.com is still there and full of this kind of stuff.
Be aware though that this site has a particular agenda, and will publish research that supports that agenda, and not any that tends to dilute it. You should look for other sources as well. I view it with extreme reservations as a potential resource base for misogynists, and it has little balance, thoughthey would argue that the balance is provided by everyone else.
Their conclusion was that in the absence of any other proven facts , just based on gender, a child was statistically likely to be safer in the care of the father than the mother.Which I can't argue with mathematically.
The writer wishes to point out that the views and opinions in this post do not necesserily reflect those of the author, and no liability is accepted for its content.
because the main care giver is a mother social workers can overlook the idea of abuse due to gender.
This is the crux of the OP and a view I do not subscribe to. I have never come across it in colleagues male or female and until shown otherwise, would put it down to academics on a particularly boring afternoon.
I suppose the only way one would really know, would be if people were to "own up".
Very difficult to prove motives.
Shirack: I suppose the only way one would really know, would be if people were to "own up". Very difficult to prove motives.
I would suggest that IF indeed it does happen, it would be unconscious, not deliberate so you wouldn't get any "owning up".
The whole balance of " is it in the best interests of the child if he/she is removed or investigated for a couple of light bruises incurred in the context of an understandably harrassed and concerned mother trying to protect the child from the physical consequesnces of their own actions" comes into play if removing the child from their main carer.
If it is a father in a two parent family then the consequences of taking action in respect of the father will not be so severe either for the child or in logistics for the social worker, as the child will remain at home and still have the mother to look after him/her.
Therefore the disincentives to framing the fathers actions as unaccceptable and actionable are much less than framing the mothers as such.
These calculations take place subconsciously, in the same way as the "Stockholm Syndrome"
Instead of being a hostage to terrorists, and subconsciously adopting their views to enhance the chance of a "least worst outcome", we may be hostage to the difficult consequences of CP assessment, and subconsciously sway towards, or allow ourselves to be persuaded towards, the one which is least difficult in the short term.
Thats IF the phenomenon exists of course...!
redana: socialwork11: Of course I am not saying a bruise is okay..I may have not got my idea over. I am trying to say how social workers and society can/may overlook abuse caused by females due to the assumptions that female behaviour is non violent..The idea is from Coulshed and Orme but they apply it to female carers and elderly abuse Don't see where you are coming from because to be female and non-nurturing/violent is generally seen as far more deviant than to be male and non-nurturing/violent. Who did people despise the most, Ian Brady or Myra Hindley? Have you thought about why your theory does not provide rich research evidence?
To be fair though thats actually an argument about why it would be overlooked - deviancy by definition is in a minority and so you are less likely to think of it as a contributing factor.
Silver Sage: Shirack: I suppose the only way one would really know, would be if people were to "own up". Very difficult to prove motives. I would suggest that IF indeed it does happen, it would be unconscious, not deliberate so you wouldn't get any "owning up". The whole balance of " is it in the best interests of the child if he/she is removed or investigated for a couple of light bruises incurred in the context of an understandably harrassed and concerned mother trying to protect the child from the physical consequesnces of their own actions" comes into play if removing the child from their main carer. If it is a father in a two parent family then the consequences of taking action in respect of the father will not be so severe either for the child or in logistics for the social worker, as the child will remain at home and still have the mother to look after him/her. Therefore the disincentives to framing the fathers actions as unaccceptable and actionable are much less than framing the mothers as such. These calculations take place subconsciously, in the same way as the "Stockholm Syndrome" Instead of being a hostage to terrorists, and subconsciously adopting their views to enhance the chance of a "least worst outcome", we may be hostage to the difficult consequences of CP assessment, and subconsciously sway towards, or allow ourselves to be persuaded towards, the one which is least difficult in the short term. Thats IF the phenomenon exists of course...!
2 good posts there SS! really informative cos i defintely never knew that
Gender effects and decision making was somethig i was interested in when i was qualifying -i think mainly because my lecturer seemed to dismiss out of hand that females could sexually abuse! cant remeber off hand any specific reserach for the OP but you could look at things like attitudes and stereotypes that inform social work decision making - Sue White has done some good research into that and then go from there? Also maybe bring into Parton's natural love thing - the fact that mothers love is thought to be special etc. Also the fact that mothers routinely given custody means those attitudes are prevalent in society (despite SS's statistics!) and so are highly likely to be prevalent in SW. Also use the fact that this is something that is never mentioned on social work training courses (in my view due to the strong feminist influence on the profession ) and so unlike racism etc social workers dont really have any familiarity with the issue and so dont guard against it in their decision making procvess. Could use Gladwells Blink as a reference for how decion making comes from knowledge and familiarity. Scourfield wrote about CP and gender - theres possibly something specific in there but cant remember off hand - did a book and articles. The positioning of men as all consuming evil and potential rapists by some feminists and women as beyond reproach has to have an effect but whether its a big one is questionable? Theres is definitely research in oher areas like substance misuse that states that social workers preheld attitudes are key to everything in a case. Child protection handbook has a big section on abuse (tho irt may be sexual?) and I can vaugely remeber there being a little bit about gender differences. Am a great believer that the fact that social work is dominated by females has an impact on the profession -i think youd have to search very hard to find anything that says what that is tho...
Of course you'd have to balance it up with what the others have said - the fact that its physical abuse makes a difference in expectations and the fact that women do in fact get caught and charged for physical abuse suggests it may not be overlooked to any great extent (tho it'd be interesting to investigate SS's stats a bit more and see if theres a pattern in the type of cases that get uncovered ie are they the most serious)
you may not prove it but it makes for an interesting few 100 words! lol
like trodge says report back if you find anything!
romeo2001: redana: socialwork11: Of course I am not saying a bruise is okay..I may have not got my idea over. I am trying to say how social workers and society can/may overlook abuse caused by females due to the assumptions that female behaviour is non violent..The idea is from Coulshed and Orme but they apply it to female carers and elderly abuse Don't see where you are coming from because to be female and non-nurturing/violent is generally seen as far more deviant than to be male and non-nurturing/violent. Who did people despise the most, Ian Brady or Myra Hindley? Have you thought about why your theory does not provide rich research evidence? To be fair though thats actually an argument about why it would be overlooked - deviancy by definition is in a minority and so you are less likely to think of it as a contributing factor.
If that's the case, why are so many mothers subject to c.p and legal proceedings? How is that consistent with 'being overlooked'?
redana: romeo2001: redana: socialwork11: Of course I am not saying a bruise is okay..I may have not got my idea over. I am trying to say how social workers and society can/may overlook abuse caused by females due to the assumptions that female behaviour is non violent..The idea is from Coulshed and Orme but they apply it to female carers and elderly abuse Don't see where you are coming from because to be female and non-nurturing/violent is generally seen as far more deviant than to be male and non-nurturing/violent. Who did people despise the most, Ian Brady or Myra Hindley? Have you thought about why your theory does not provide rich research evidence? To be fair though thats actually an argument about why it would be overlooked - deviancy by definition is in a minority and so you are less likely to think of it as a contributing factor. If that's the case, why are so many mothers subject to c.p and legal proceedings? How is that consistent with 'being overlooked'?
i agree with that and have said similar in the other post - it would seem to imply that its something thats accounted for - only argument I can think of against that would be the stuff that gets uncovered is perhaps the thin end of the wedge with lots being overlooked but not sure you could prove that. My friends in CP at the min seem to see everyone as an abuser and I guess that would counteract any gender effects
At the risk of protracting this further and going around the circle again, dont forget the Cleveland effect!
No not the one everyone THINKS was there ( ...mad over-enthusiastic Social Workers and doctors taking everone into care) The real one.
What happened was that Dr Higgs correctly indntified anal reflex dilation as a conditioned response to some kind of attempted penetration, and that it was a possible indicator of abuse indicated further investigation was required.
Because Cleveland Council didn't have the resources to immediately investigate the volume of referrals this created, they felt the only thing they could do to protect the children until they could do the assessments was to accomodate them. Due to lack of accommodation a lot of children were accomodated in hospital.
The separation from their parents and failure to investigate/resolve the concerns quickly enough was the scandal, but it was reframed by the press media and the local MP Stewart....forget his second name...into "demon Social Workers"
Dr Higgs waspublicly villified, despite the fact that the eventual enquiry stated that her tecnique was valid and she behaved appropriately in referring for further investigation.
So my point is;
There is an effect operating where we will NEED to only identify the number of cases tthat we have the resources to deal with ..plus about 10% ( so some are not dealt with properly) Once we get to that stage, all these expeditious overlookings start happening, and it is sometimes easier to frame a mothers "grab marks " as not abusive but protective , than it is a fathers. There are other types of injury where the reverse gender bias will take effect.
It comes down to pressure-induced pragmatic refraction of assessments ( I will patent that ! Sounds learned!!)
It could be argued that fathers grabmarks are more likely, due to usually having a stronger grip.
Therefore more worrying if mother seen to be perpetrator.
Shirack: Funny, Yummy said it on my thread. Hope your work is more accurate.
Funny, Yummy said it on my thread. Hope your work is more accurate.
quite right. Yummy and redana: please accept my apologies for the wrong attribution.
fortunately i don't work drunk at 11pm
Silver Sage: At the risk of protracting this further and going around the circle again, dont forget the Cleveland effect! No not the one everyone THINKS was there ( ...mad over-enthusiastic Social Workers and doctors taking everone into care) The real one. What happened was that Dr Higgs correctly indntified anal reflex dilation as a conditioned response to some kind of attempted penetration, and that it was a possible indicator of abuse indicated further investigation was required. Because Cleveland Council didn't have the resources to immediately investigate the volume of referrals this created, they felt the only thing they could do to protect the children until they could do the assessments was to accomodate them. Due to lack of accommodation a lot of children were accomodated in hospital. The separation from their parents and failure to investigate/resolve the concerns quickly enough was the scandal, but it was reframed by the press media and the local MP Stewart....forget his second name...into "demon Social Workers" Dr Higgs waspublicly villified, despite the fact that the eventual enquiry stated that her tecnique was valid and she behaved appropriately in referring for further investigation. So my point is; There is an effect operating where we will NEED to only identify the number of cases tthat we have the resources to deal with ..plus about 10% ( so some are not dealt with properly) Once we get to that stage, all these expeditious overlookings start happening, and it is sometimes easier to frame a mothers "grab marks " as not abusive but protective , than it is a fathers. There are other types of injury where the reverse gender bias will take effect. It comes down to pressure-induced pragmatic refraction of assessments ( I will patent that ! Sounds learned!!)
Thats mad - we were explicitly taught on our course that cleveland was a prime example of social workers we shouldnt be becasue they were child snatchers- cant believe that
trodge: Shirack: Funny, Yummy said it on my thread. Hope your work is more accurate. quite right. Yummy and redana: please accept my apologies for the wrong attribution. fortunately i don't work drunk at 11pm
Thanks, but no need.
I kind of dismissed my idea of this topic subject, due to the first couple of comment's!
Looked into Kate Wilson's book for practitioners, she has quoted a few references in respect to gender and abuse. I will endeavor to research them more and shall have to type them up .I am In placement @ the moment so bit hectic.
Thanks!
http://www.secasa.com.au/index.php/workers/25/37
Although not UK based still makes a interesting read