Autumn, 1998, Vol. 5, No. 1

EnGENDERed Disparity: Males in Social Work
Jim Britton: 2nd Year Clinical
Mike Stoller: 2nd Year Clinical

Entering the building, I knew I was different. While I understood men would be scarce, I had not expected such a disproportionate disparity. I sat alone. As the lobby started to fill, I was relieved to spot a former co-worker, another male. We shared our apprehensions about our decision and speculated in what manner our gender might shape our experiences.

Now in our second year, we reflect on how our experiences as males within the program have impacted us and shaped our views about the role of men within social work. As males, we have a minority status within social work, but, unlike minorities in other contexts, we often profit from our salient differences. Williams (1995) argues that men strategically segregate themselves "to emphasize their difference by disassociating- and condemning- the women in their professions" (p. 73). However, we dispute the notion that men consciously capitalize upon these differences. In reviewing our experiences and research on men in a profession dominated by women both in its focus and in number, we assert social work helps administer to the gender segregation in the field

We propose that males in social work may simply submit to the subtle messages inherent in social work, its educational programs, and society, to conform to hegemonic gender roles. Social constructions and social work itself may convey implicit and explicit directives, both in micro-level interactions and in macro-level policies, that serve to rigidly constrain men's ability to transcend traditional male stereotypes. Thereby, society perpetuates an inequity between men and women even within social work profession. We must examine gender issues within social work and call into question those assumptions, biases, and practices that not only forestall women in assuming more equitable positions but also those that disempower men in redefining masculinity.

Historical Trends and Context

Throughout the history of social work, women, buttressing the profession through their talents and energy, have comprised the majority of workers (Trattner, 1989). In fact, many more women than men have sought graduate degrees in social work. As illustrated (Figure 1), the gap in proportions of men and women at the University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration (SSA) progressively narrowed since the early 1900's, yet has again widened after the 1960's. In fact, the percentage of men in the graduate program at SSA has fallen to 18%, the lowest since 1935 (Figure 1). Apparently, opportunities for women to pursue both careers and advanced degrees have expanded especially in the last thirty years while men continue to avoid entering a field associated with women.

To legitimatize social work as a profession, early leaders in social work including Mary Richmond and Sophonisba Breckinridge, recruited men to augment the power, prestige, and status associated with social work (Williams, 1995). Men in social work, although few in number, still acquire a uniquely unearned prestige within the field and find themselves propelled to the traditional, high-profile administrative roles. Historically, they have been earmarked for these administrative roles to fulfill both macrosystemic expectations and gender role definitions (Baines, 1991). Propagated in the inherent expectations within social work's "organizational culture" and its history, the field sustains segregation as men tend to enter administrative and policy-oriented tracts (Christie, 1998).

Inequity and Segregation

As Williams (1995) suggests, men in female professions elude the "glass ceiling," the invisible barrier to advancement, that women encounter in male-dominant professions. Instead, these men appear to ascend in their careers on "glass elevators." Women tend to acquire careers in direct practice; whereas, men in social work are found more often in administrative positions (Lambert, 1994; Williams, 1995). In fact, men advance more rapidly into administrative roles than women, and most often earn a higher salary even in the same positions as women (Christie, 1998; Lambert, 1994; Williams, 1995). Although men represent approximately a quarter to a third of all social workers, women earn between 62 and 88 percent of what men earn, hold fewer administrative positions, and acquire disproportionately fewer doctorate degrees (Lambert, 1994; Williams, 1995). Data collected from graduates of the School of Social Service Administration further substantiates that positions within social work have become inequitably "gendered" (Grant, 1998) (See Figure 2). Only in corrections and probation and as deans and administrators do men outnumber women.

Raising your Hand: "Doing Gender" in the Classroom

As white middle-class, heterosexual males, we possess majority status within society, but when men enter the social work domain, we become both minorities in number and spokesmen for those with majority status. Because we are few in number, our gender becomes salient, and because of societal status, our contributions are valued. Often, we seem to participate in a variety of student committees, panel discussions, and activities. According to one male student in the program, "When heated discussion erupts, I often wait for the most opportune time to contribute to the discussion. As I raise my hand to participate, I seem to draw immediate attention not only from the instructor but from other classmates as well. Often, I am called on immediately despite the many others who waited to participate. I have questioned, >Why does my contribution garner so much attention? Is my contribution any more relevant than my peers? Do my classmates feel that I represent the male perspective and, therefore, speak on behalf of all males?' Or, as one male expressed, "The bottom line is when I speak people listen." The microdynamic processes of "doing of gender," the interactional process in which men and women operate out of internalized social constructions of gender, appear to reproduce themselves even within social work classrooms where men are rewarded for playing out patterns of interaction that preserve male status and reinforce the views of how men and women relate (Gilbert & Scher, 1999, p.75).

Negative Constructions of Men

Although advantaged within classroom dynamics, male social work students find negative male gender role definitions consistently reinforced as often men are faulted for a lack of emotionality, an innate quest for power and dominance, and many of the social ills. Often, men are cast as the culprit, the abuser, those who abandon their families (Brooks, 1998; Kelley & Hall, 1992; Krill, 1992). Our masculinity impedes self-reflection, contains expression, stymies empathy, and forestalls deep connections even with those of our own gender (Ellman & Taggart, 1993). In fact, masculinity itself appears antithetical to that which social work and counseling avows (Brooks, 1998; Christie, 1998). As evidenced in Krill's (1992) experimental class that addressed "Men's Issues in Social Work," male social work students may take on a defensive posturing to justify their career choice and defend their gender. Not surprisingly, male social workers may begin to question their legitimacy in a field that tells them that they often lack the empathy and nurturance to perform some of their roles.

Socially Engendered Differences: Male and Female Roles

Early on, boys are told what they can and cannot become. While little boys are tender, vulnerable, full of feelings, expressive, and affectionately connected, these components of their nature become a detriment (Simon & Preger-Simon, 1992). Boys learn to disavow anything that makes them appear weak or feminine, including passivity, emotional expressiveness, and vulnerability (Brooks, 1998; Gilbert & Scher, 1999). Consequently, very few boys say they want to be nurses, teachers, librarians, or social workers when they are what they want to be when they grow up (Williams, 1995). Adolescent males, while establishing their identities, must oppose female characteristics or face severe social sanctions. Boys, showing interest in the activities of the "opposite" sex, often encounter a more vigorously restrictive socialization process than girls (Brooks, 1998; Williams, 1995). As Williams (1995) contends, "Being called a sissy, for example, is probably a worst insult than being called a tomboy"(p. 51). Due to these constraints during childhood and adolescence, often men who enter the field only do so after prior job experiences and after developing a level of comfort with themselves as individuals (Williams, 1995; Christie, 1998).

Males in Social Work

Male social workers must subvert traditionally defined and socially normed male roles. When a man chooses to enter female-dominated professions, he may still incur stigmas that differentiate him from other males. Those who choose to enter the field may experience a "discrepancy strain," a failure to live up to the standards, expectations, and norms of their traditional gender roles (Gilbert & Scher, 1999, p. 108). As one male student relates, "I can remember a conversation with my father before I made my decision to get a master's in social work. While he supported me in my endeavors, he raised many questions, >Why do you want to enter social work? How do you think you are going to provide for your family and the lifestyle you are accustomed to?" Deferring to socialization pressures that still impel them to fulfill the "breadwinner" role and avoid feminine characteristics, they may segregate themselves from women in the profession, selecting specialties or positions that society deems as more appropriate for men (Williams, 1995). They too may emphasize the masculine aspects of their jobs to "reduce the dissonance between their professional and gender identities" and to justify their career choices (Christie, 1998, p. 506). Thereby, male social workers adhere more closely to the social definition of masculinity.

Toward Gender Equity in Social Work

To forge new gender identities, we must both thwart those socially fabricated constructions of gender roles and advocate for changes within social work and its graduate programs. "If more men were intimately involved in caring for young children- as fathers... or as social workers- then boys would not have to define masculinity as the negation of femininity: They would have "real life" male role models with whom to identify" (Williams, 1995, p. 188). Social work programs provide a context in which we can question gender roles and reshape them through sharing our own experiences. However, greater attention to male roles within counseling and social work must not detract from efforts to challenge the misogyny and gender power differentials that exist (Brooks, 1998). We must challenge ourselves to stymie gender complacency and ignorance by calling attention to gender issues within our own profession- one that propagates a structure of gender inequity and promotes some of the very gender role constraints against which clients struggle. Social workers, both men and women, must play an active role "in efforts to redefine and rebalance gender relations so that men and women can both seek personal fulfillment, be gainfully employed, and share in the responsibilities and joys of family life" (Walsh, 1998, p.32). Only when we are courageous enough to engage in an open dialogue about gender issues and female/male interrelational dynamics within our own field will we begin to "work through" our own gender issues and gain insight into the implicit and explicit gender constraints that clients encounter. For, as Krill (1992) questions, "If students do not address their personal enmity, blame, and defensiveness about members of the opposite sex, how will these unresolved dilemmas express themselves in worker-client relationships?" (p.152). We, too, hope to advance research and social work services for men to circumvent the social and internal barriers to their full involvement with families and equal partnerships with their spouses. Our views seek to foster a shift in the social construction of gender roles and expectations, a shift toward gender equity.

References

Baines, C. (1991). The professions and an ethic of care. In C. Baines, P. Evans, & S. Neysmith (Eds.), Women's caring: Feminist perspectives on social welfare. Toronto, Canada: McClellan and Stuart.
Brooks, G. (1998). A new psychotherapy for traditional men. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Christie, A. (1998). Is social work a 'non-traditional' occupation for men? British journal of social work, 28, 491-510.
Ellman, B. & Taggart, M. (1993). Changing gender norms. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family process (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Gilbert, L. & Scher, M. (1999). Gender and sex in counseling and psychotherapy. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Grant, G. (1998, October 28). Data on male/female ratios at SSA. Office of External Affairs: University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration.
Kelley, K. & Hall, A. (Eds.). (1992). Mental health counseling for men [Special issue]. Journal of mental health counseling, 14.
Lambert, S. (1994). A day late and a dollar short: Persistent gender differences amid changing requirements for organizational advancement. Journal of applied social sciences, 18(1), 89-108.
Krill, D. (1992). Male and female dialogue in social work education. Smith college studies in social work, 62(2), 139-154.
Trattner, W.I. (1989). From poor law to welfare state: A history of social welfare in America. (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Simon, J. & Preger-Simon, M. (1992). Men's oppression and relationships with women. Smith college studies in social work, 62(2), 306-308.
Walsh, F. (1998). Strengthening family resilience. New York: Guilford Press.
Williams, C. (1995). Still a man's world: Men who do women's work. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Return to the Table of Contents

Back to Adovocate's Forum