[libramunoz]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Woman, here's how you quote particular parts of a post without torturing everyone with in-text quotation marks.



Yes, for private or practitioner base and it will be based on a "going rate," which can still be lower paying in relation to other more-male dominated fields. As you said later, it was never a high paying field and many were drawn to it to "help people."

Beyond that, the field of social work encompasses a wide range of overworked and overpaid occupations beyond private and practitioner base.




I am talking about trends that aren't erased depending on where you go. As I said, general patterns aren't meant to apply 100%, but more often than not. Apply that to every instance that you consider makes my statements "not necessarily true" or "depends...."



So, it didn't become that way with the increase in women in various occupations that employ social workers. It was always that way. Gender implications for female dominated fields and certain job types, perhaps?



Regardless of whether you are a social worker, if you haven't done so, skim through "Women in Social Work" by Ronald Walton. The perceived need for a (insert minority group) book for a field means there's something to discuss even if a large % (and the more visible) social workers are women. Again, social work encompasses a lot of occupations and range of salaries. In many organizations that employ social workers, the higher ranking persons are male. That may be correlated with the disctinction between administrative capacities versus practitioners; academicians and researchers versus (insert occupation); or where you work, such as in a state prison versus in public school system (which can also have gender implications).

I don't feel that you really disagree with me. But, when all else fails, just remove "social work" from my post and see the general point regarding the social sciences.

I only want to torture those I love!

However, in saying "Again, social work encompasses a lot of occupations and range of salaries. In many organizations that employ social workers, the higher ranking persons are male. That may be correlated with the disctinction between administrative capacities versus practitioners; academicians and researchers versus (insert occupation); or where you work, such as in a state prison versus in public school system (which can also have gender implications)." it's actually not the truth of the matter. Why, because this field is actually a female dominated to begin with. Therefore, within this field, those that are "higher ranking persons" are actually female. This is something that I have seen and know to be true more than once. There doesn't tend to be a distiction between what capacity they are working in, yet, it's just the way that it happens to be.

Yes, the stigma attached to doing Social Work for males is beginning to change (this change began in the late 1960s and early 1970s), it is still a stigma attached to it as far as being a male within this sector.
As far as skimming through "Women in Social Work" by Ronald Walton" I found it rather dry to my taste. I prefer Zastrow's work on many levels.

Again, the pay rate for Social Work does vary. However, within any job, you'll find people that are over worked and underpaid, it's just a factor of life. However, when you say, "Yes, for private or practitioner base and it will be based on a "going rate," which can still be lower paying in relation to other more-male dominated fields." you have to look at the fact of where you are and what that person is charging for their services. You can be within direct practice or as a consultant or as a director, it all depends on what that private practitioner is doing and what they specialize in. Specialization and licensing is the biggest factor in being able to determine the rate of pay. However, it's just not a comparison to "other more-male dominated fields" it has to do with the issue specialization of services, continuum of services, place of services, and time of services that are involved. It also has a lot to do with the types of therapy that are provided to the patient and the types of therapy that the clinician specializes in.

Just to let you know, "Beyond that, the field of social work encompasses a wide range of overworked and overpaid occupations beyond private and practitioner base." that private and practitioner are one in the same within the field of Social Work. Yes, this field does encompass a wide range of overworked and UNDERpaid positions within this field. However, so do MANY, MANY, MANY other fields of work, and this isn't just the lone dog out here wagging it's tail for the comforts of others.

However, when you say, "I am talking about trends that aren't erased depending on where you go. As I said, general patterns aren't meant to apply 100%, but more often than not. Apply that to every instance that you consider makes my statements "not necessarily true" or "depends...."" in regards to Social Work, you actually are. It is about where you go or have gone that determines what you will see and where. Ex: if you go to San Antonio and Our Lady of the Lake University, there is Worden School of Social Work, if you go to Byrn Mawer, it's specifically a school of Social Work, if you go to the University of Texas at Arlington, they have a specific school of Social Work, if you go to Clark-Atlanta University and Howard University, they have specific schools of Social Work. However, if you go to, let's say, LeMoyne-Owen College, their Social Work program is within their Humanities or Social Sciences Division, if you go to Tuskegee University or Talladega College, their Social Work program is within their Humanities Division, if you go to Trinity University, their Social Work program is within a Division of the college, it's not a separate entity from the school. Therefore, what I am saying is that depending on where you go, you will see a variety of faculty in a variety of positions.

Again, when you say, "So, it didn't become that way with the increase in women in various occupations that employ social workers. It was always that way. Gender implications for female dominated fields and certain job types, perhaps" it is that way, to a certain extent, but I didn't make the system. As the saying goes, "I'm just a squirrel trying to get a nut in this world." This is a field that was started by women, I don't know what to tell you. Read Charles Zastrow's "Introduction to Social Work" or for those in this field, The Social Worker's Guide 101. It truly explains how this field got started and why it was started. Since this is a field that was started by women, women tend to be at the forefront of making and maintaining the changes within this field. Moreover, this isn't the ONLY field where there are "gender implications" for those that work it. If you looked in the construction field, you expect to see men, and yet, there are female constructions workers. The field of chemistry was thought to be "male dominated" until Madame Curie brought herself along. The field of psychology was thought to be "male dominated" due to Freud's crazy tail, that was until Satir, Hartman, and others came along and busted right through that ceiling. So the fact of the matter is that in many fields, "gender implications" are there from jump-street, you either learn to bust-through or cause others to move to make the room.

Well yes, there was some disagreement because I am within the field of Social Work and have been doing it over 12 years. I understand what Social Work is about and to apply something general within this field, if you have a limited background understanding of it, it's not an easy thing to compare. I cannot remove "Social Work" from the post and apply it to the general point of the Social Sciences because it doesn't work within this manner. Either you're talking about Social Work, Sociology, Gerontology, Behavioral Psychology, or Psychology within itself.

These are very different aspects of the Social Sciences in of themselves. It's like a guy who had a Sociology degree telling me that he understood what being a Social Worker was about because "we studied the same things." No we didn't, we studied SOME of the same things, but there is a vast difference from Social Work to Sociology. Again, you can't make a general statement about the field of Social Work and expect it to apply to an argument where it doesn't fit.