Developing profeminist practice with men in social work

Abstract

The aim of this article is to highlight some of the theoretical issues and political dilemmas related to profeminist practice with men in social work. As a starting point in this inquiry, it is important to focus on is the invisibility of men, as men, in social work. Although there is a mass of literature in social work that has much to say about men and masculinities, this is usually presented in an implicit and untheorised way. Historically, the study of men, as men, has had little place in social work literature. Feminists in social work have drawn attention to the prevalence of sexist attitudes and practices in social welfare and, during the last twenty years, female social workers have developed interventions and policies aimed at overcoming sexism. Feminist practice with women has thus made a significant contribution to critical social work theory and practice. However, feminist social work has not had a lot to say about men either. The key feminist social work texts of the 80's and 90's made only passing references to men and there is only one recent feminist text that looks systematically at feminist practice with men. It is not surprising that attention has been directed toward womens' issues in combating sexism in welfare. The majority of social workers and the majority of welfare clients are women. However, it is increasingly being recognised that addressing sexism necessitates an understanding of men as well as women. All social workers will have contact with men. Furthermore, the majority of the concerns that women bring to social workers are connected to their relationships with men (Hanmer and Statham 1988). The contemporary male critical social work literature also neglects analyses of masculinity and practice with men. The focus of this literature is on challenging internalised oppression and empowering the disadvantaged; no mention is made of internalised domination. The only exceptions to this are Keith Pringle's (1995) book in the United Kingdom and Pease and Camilleri's (2001) edited collection in Australia. The relative absence of men in the social work literature is concerning. It is my view that the refusal to name men, as men, in social work limits the potential for challenging gender injustice in welfare.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 47 citations exist upstream.