English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-09-24 08:28:57 · 18 answers · asked by wildwood081 2 in Social Science Other - Social Science

18 answers

The answer to this question is steeped in history.In my grandmothers time social workers preyed on the working class and those who couldn't afford to feed their family as there was no state benefit then.Your children were taken off youwith no thought.
In my mothers time social workers were seen as interfering busy bodies who wanted everything perfect and made a lot of trouble for families.They made a big point out of cleanliness and made a lot of mistakes.
Today in my time social workers do not have enough powers to remove children from families and bad parents can just ignore them.This is due to goody-too-shoes people who have never lived in a bad situation.I know of two families that should have there children put into care , so they can be fed and clean.The social services are involved but have no powers they have to work with the parents even thought the parents don't give a s**t.The social workers are bound to follow these rules no matter how upset they get that the children are in such a state and the parents don't care.
If social workers could strike a balance without people saying that the human rights of the parents were being breached and help kids and act quickly and swiftly people would have more respect.But now they have to tread softly softly incase someone doesn't like what they are doing.Then mistakes happen because they can't get the kids out in time.Even with foster parents they have to check and double check any complaints and then go to court and then act if they have enough proof.
I believe that some parents do need the help and do want it and then they should get it but when the children would be better off in resbite care for their safety and health surely it should be done regardless of the parents say so...
I'll get off my soapbox now..lol.
Just to let you know too I have been on both sides of this story personally and don't mean to offend anyone with my opinion.

2006-09-24 08:47:02 · answer #1 · answered by lost my mojo 2 · 1 0

I don't know which country you mean. I live in the US and I think that social workers get stigmatized because the system is so messed up. As far as children are concerned, so many children just fall through the cracks, and social workers with heavy case loads just can't pay attention when complaints are called in. Social workers can get demonised because their job is to make sure that children and families are safe, that cases of abuse are attended to, that people have a place to go when they need out of a dangerous situation, and those jobs just don't get done very well. I don't think it's the fault of the workers themselves (usually good meaning people), but I do think that the structure of the system causes these problems--too little funding, too few caseworkers, too much poverty, too few good families willing to care for vulnerable children.

Then, there are alot of social workers that get tired of having a difficult job and just don't care anymore. I guess that after a certain point they don't realize that they could actually prevent alot of misery and abuse if not for their selfish choices. My suggestion is that if somebody wants to be a social worker, they give it alot of thought first and be willing to give up much of their lives to help others pretty much.

2006-09-24 08:35:17 · answer #2 · answered by forbidden_planet 4 · 0 0

I suspect "demonized" may be a bit strong. But, the essential reason is the underlying reason one goes into "social work". Just look at the phrase itself. "Social.... work". I want to work with those who are unable to work for themselves. I want to take care of those people. I, because I am far superior, and more intelligent, and capable, will give of my own precious self to others who are dumb, incapable, slow, lazy, etc.

But, you say, there are people who, for legitimate reasons, are just in need of some temporary help. This is true. What percentage, do you suppose they represent compared to the third and fourth generational people the social worker helps? 1 %, or as much as 3%?

Then there are the cases which hit the news, where some social worker placed a child in a house and the child died due to abuse. Or the latest liberal enlightened activity where social workers hand over children for homosexual pedophiles to use.... what normal human being would not react with impassioned resentment at such stupidity?

But, these cases do not represent the whole of the profession... you say. To which I say, really?

Peace

2006-09-24 08:53:09 · answer #3 · answered by docjp 6 · 0 0

Its because the people like those answering this question is not educated enough to understand a complex and difficult job that is there to protect the children....even if they are taking them away or not....would you rather have a child's life be ruined by some abusive non caring parent and feed this youth/ yob culture that's making Brittan's youth such loving caring, focused, sweet individuals...It seems the social workers care more than some of the parents...just listen to them on in public transport

2006-09-24 22:52:12 · answer #4 · answered by Quintus T 3 · 0 0

The reason being isn't with the social workers themselves but a broken system. The system doesn't allow for people to make decisions based case to case but lumps everyone together. The system is black and white where there are many gray areas.

2006-09-24 08:35:22 · answer #5 · answered by jackiethejac 1 · 0 0

I have just read some of the pathetic answers here. Someone has stated that we molest children, No we protect them, we keep them safe by taking them away from abusers and we work hard going above and beyond our duty. Get a life fool.
The answer to your question is because people like this joker make comments like that. Yes we are under estimated in what we do and people dont realize the stress it can cause us. But we still turn in for work, we dont let kids down.I am proud of my job are you.

2006-09-24 11:49:40 · answer #6 · answered by dollybird 3 · 0 0

Because they employ graduates straight from University who dont have the first idea of life.
These people then wreak havoc by breaking up families, because they 'think' children are in danger.
I think they should not be allowed to make decisions about families until they themselves are parents.
Their attitude to family life is similar to the Americans view of Terrorism.

2006-09-24 08:35:35 · answer #7 · answered by vwcarman2001 5 · 2 0

because they are a complete waste of time and space. only intefering busy-bodies are attracted to such an occupation. on a macro-economic scale they are only given the job to keep them off the unemplyment lines, thus making the government's metrics look better. need i go on?

2006-09-24 08:32:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

We only hear of the bad case scenarios. There are thousands of people doing as good a job as their system allows and these are the people that you are talking about.

2006-09-24 21:44:32 · answer #9 · answered by GWEN C 2 · 0 0

Because we essentially control what the client gets. Like most people hate their boss, or how teenagers hate their parents. We do what is best for the clients, even it isnt the most fun for the clients. We require them to take responsibility for their lives and become self sufficient.

2006-09-24 08:37:38 · answer #10 · answered by Allison Y 3 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers