There are quite a few structural/systemic flaws in the UK government's proposed social care reforms, which I've already briefly discussed from my remit of The Productive Pessimist.
One key element I wanted to draw out and discuss in more depth here on my personal blog - as it ties in to one of the aspects of public speaking I personally offer via The Productive Pessimist, outside of the main focus of that business - is the Recruitment intention to "recruit more men..."
Masculinity is one of my core public speaking topics, with a particular slant of masculinity in a female-focused world. And "masculinity in a female-focused world" is exactly what we're dealing with in this stated intention to "recruit more men" to the social care sector.
Historically, the default assumption has been "men won't work in social care because it doesn't pay well", and "men see care as 'women's work', so they consider it beneath them; you won't ever get men to work in care." Both of these assumptions are stated, almost exclusively, by women - who know about as much about men's thought processes, interests, and motivations as men know about women's, and often care slightly less about men's mindsets than men do about women's.
I know men who work in frontline social care; they enjoy their work, they are fully engaged with it, they have no more complaints about the pay than most people in most jobs, and they certainly don't see themselves as "less masculine" because they're providing care and support to others.
There is very definitely a need for men in actively-engaged, frontline roles in social care, for the very simple reason that there are male social care clients, including men who have never wanted women supporting them, for various reasons. Quite apart from issues of personal dignity, men need to talk to other men - men's groups in wider society show us that so clearly. Over the last thirty years, so much of men's social life has been ripped away in the name of "equality" - men can't even access the one-time 'sanctuary' of the barber's shop as a guaranteed male-only space, men's groups' social media sites are routinely littered with comments such as "Can women join?" "I'd like to come along, but I'm a woman, is that okay?" "Do you run anything like this for women?" The Dull Men's Club on Facebook very rapidly became overwhelmingly female dominated, from a very solidly male starting point. And, in my observations, the "male toxicity" element only started to come through when the balance of women to men tipped towards women. While some would claim this is proof that "men just hate women!" I would argue it's more a dysfunctional expression of resentment that, while women will literally scream in outrage at the idea that even other women who are "objectionable" to them, in some way, much less actual men should be allowed anywhere near "their" spaces, any space intended for men very rapidly ends up "having to" allow women in - "otherwise it's discrimination!" (And yes...there is a Dull Women's Club. It is nowhere near as full of men as the Dull Men's Club is of women...which, in an era where cisgender women are constantly insisting that men are always trying to "force their way into women's spaces!", is...an interesting observation, to be sure.)
I have worked, as a man, in a healthcare organisation, which typically provides a close analogy to social care organisations, as the two are symbiotic, and widely held to share a sector sphere, and I can frankly say it was...not a positive experience.
The first issue was fairly benign, if somewhat triggering for me as a trans man; meetings typically started with "Good morning (afternoon), ladies" - occasionally, the meeting chair would notice that not everyone present was, in fact, female, and add "and (names of the one or two men present)"; more often, the 'additional greeting' was "and honourary ladies" (ugghhh...did not like that. At all.) Most frequently, however, no recognition that people who were not women were present was offered.
One key element I wanted to draw out and discuss in more depth here on my personal blog - as it ties in to one of the aspects of public speaking I personally offer via The Productive Pessimist, outside of the main focus of that business - is the Recruitment intention to "recruit more men..."
Masculinity is one of my core public speaking topics, with a particular slant of masculinity in a female-focused world. And "masculinity in a female-focused world" is exactly what we're dealing with in this stated intention to "recruit more men" to the social care sector.
Historically, the default assumption has been "men won't work in social care because it doesn't pay well", and "men see care as 'women's work', so they consider it beneath them; you won't ever get men to work in care." Both of these assumptions are stated, almost exclusively, by women - who know about as much about men's thought processes, interests, and motivations as men know about women's, and often care slightly less about men's mindsets than men do about women's.
I know men who work in frontline social care; they enjoy their work, they are fully engaged with it, they have no more complaints about the pay than most people in most jobs, and they certainly don't see themselves as "less masculine" because they're providing care and support to others.
There is very definitely a need for men in actively-engaged, frontline roles in social care, for the very simple reason that there are male social care clients, including men who have never wanted women supporting them, for various reasons. Quite apart from issues of personal dignity, men need to talk to other men - men's groups in wider society show us that so clearly. Over the last thirty years, so much of men's social life has been ripped away in the name of "equality" - men can't even access the one-time 'sanctuary' of the barber's shop as a guaranteed male-only space, men's groups' social media sites are routinely littered with comments such as "Can women join?" "I'd like to come along, but I'm a woman, is that okay?" "Do you run anything like this for women?" The Dull Men's Club on Facebook very rapidly became overwhelmingly female dominated, from a very solidly male starting point. And, in my observations, the "male toxicity" element only started to come through when the balance of women to men tipped towards women. While some would claim this is proof that "men just hate women!" I would argue it's more a dysfunctional expression of resentment that, while women will literally scream in outrage at the idea that even other women who are "objectionable" to them, in some way, much less actual men should be allowed anywhere near "their" spaces, any space intended for men very rapidly ends up "having to" allow women in - "otherwise it's discrimination!" (And yes...there is a Dull Women's Club. It is nowhere near as full of men as the Dull Men's Club is of women...which, in an era where cisgender women are constantly insisting that men are always trying to "force their way into women's spaces!", is...an interesting observation, to be sure.)
I have worked, as a man, in a healthcare organisation, which typically provides a close analogy to social care organisations, as the two are symbiotic, and widely held to share a sector sphere, and I can frankly say it was...not a positive experience.
The first issue was fairly benign, if somewhat triggering for me as a trans man; meetings typically started with "Good morning (afternoon), ladies" - occasionally, the meeting chair would notice that not everyone present was, in fact, female, and add "and (names of the one or two men present)"; more often, the 'additional greeting' was "and honourary ladies" (ugghhh...did not like that. At all.) Most frequently, however, no recognition that people who were not women were present was offered.
More problematic issues started to creep in (as they almost always do); it became a cultural running joke to refer to "the men of (organisation)", typically in dismissive ways.
Then the issues became personal.
I communicate in a direct, but typically friendly, way. I am aware of my tendency to become visibly frustrated or angry, and consciously work to avoid that, as I appreciate that people typically aren't intentionally behaving in a way which provokes those feelings in me, and that my emotions are my problem to deal with, not other peoples' to suffer. This was apparently received as "aggressive and intimidating" by female colleagues.
Instead of speaking to me - "Could you calm down a little bit?" or "I'd prefer if you didn't speak quite so bluntly to me", these colleagues went behind my back to my manager (also female). Instead of addressing the issue as "Some people need a bit of a softer runway to an ask - perhaps try making casual small talk, and asking about their welfare, before getting to the 'work point'", or similar feedback, I was told: "We're a very female-focused, female-positive organisation here, and masculine communication styles aren't really appreciated. You've caused people considerable upset, and it's not acceptable."
There are several problems with this, but a very prominent one is the fact that neurodivergent women can often communicate in a more direct fashion - telling any kind of women that they are behaving in a masculine way is...not really very inclusive.
It also doesn't offer any actionable guidance. "Be less masculine", when said to a man, is essentially "We resent the fact that you're not a woman. Could you sort of pretend you are, at least while you're at work? Don't wear dresses or anything, but just...stop being yourself." In contrast, guidance to "soften your approach...include personal connection...make the 'work point' the last thing you bring into the conversation" are all readily actionable points.
I was excluded from an opportunity to benefit from protected time to pursue a formalised course of study that was a mandatory 'first step' towards my organisation's progression pathway, when a female colleague (in the same role as me) from my team was given that time. Even when I asked directly, I was met with "Well, we'll see what we can do..." - which turned out to be...nothing, actually.
I was told that a required qualification for my role (Scrum Master certification) would "probably not be accessible, given your sight loss, because it's online, with a lot of video elements." There are options for Scrum Master certification to be completed in-person; "that's not something the organisation would be willing to pay for at this time, as we're not actively promoting men to leadership roles." Except that being a certified Scrum Master was part of me fulfilling the role I'd already been recruited to. It hadn't been, when I'd been recruited, but my department manager's role had changed, which had resulted in a cascade of responsibility shifts - both line managers on our team took on more strategy-focused work, meaning that myself and my (female) colleague, who both occupied the same job role, were required to take on more project management responsibilities. As part of that, we were both supposed to become Scrum Masters. She was put forward onto the virtual training; I ended up project managing multiple high-dependency, multi-stakeholder, business-critical projects mostly solo, and without Scrum Master certification. Something I managed well, including salvaging one project I had to take over with no handover, believing it to be "pretty much done" (because that's what the line manager who'd originally been PM'ing it had told the line manager she handed off to when she went on maternity leave... I'd volunteered to take on the project when her caseload was being broken down, and had been told it "needed an experienced, senior lead, because we have issues with the supplier." That 'experienced, senior lead' then went off on long-term sick for five months, with no notice...I was the only person with capacity to take on the project), which turned out to be months behind on mandatory elements from our side, had had no protected training time for the teams who would be using the new computerised system which was a core aspect of the project, and "a million miles away from anywhere near done", in the words of the system supplier, who was threatening to pull the plug on the whole deal when I took over.
While workforce "wellbeing" interventions explicitly skewed towards women - Menopause Cafes, Virtual Coffee Mornings (with advertised 'suggested topics' which were very heavily female focused),"Cost of Living" packs which exclusively contained female hygiene products, female toiletries, and "support for female colleagues driving alone in bad weather" - proliferated, the sole "men's wellbeing" offering - presented with a wry "just so the men of (organisation) don't feel left out" - was a "BMI and blood pressure test, followed by an opportunity for a vigorous workout!" Not only did this trigger intrusive thoughts connected to an historic eating disorder for me, but it also started at the time I was scheduled to end my working day, and required me to be in the office - in winter months, this wasn't possible, as I'd deliberately structured my working hours to accommodate the fact that I'm completely night-blind, so that, if I did have to work from the office (the role was hybrid-remote), I could still safely get home.
That was the sole offering "for men." (As though women wouldn't equally be interested in physical fitness...)
I wasn't alone in feeling ostracised and not really wanted thanks to the organisation's attitudes; the way men were talked about, the opportunities we were offered, the ways in which we were socially included (or not), came up from the two other male colleagues involved in the organisation's reciprocal mentorship protocol. Attempts to raise this with leadership typically got stonewalled.
If women were treated the way men were in that particular organisation (and frequently report being treated in organisations across the health and social care sector in the UK), there would be uproar. But feelings of "systemic wrongs" apparently justify direct wrongs...because, when it comes to gender equity, two wrongs, it is insisted, absolutely do make a right.
Except, they don't.
A lot of current toxic masculinity is fuelled not by the rise of equitable standards and opportunities for women, but the flip around to dismissive and outright discriminatory attitudes towards men, the insistence that no amount of domestic work men do will ever be enough, that, unless men are treating women better than themselves, almost as literal goddesses, they're "doing the bare f-king minimum". It is not acceptable for a man to rest after working a 12hr shift, with an hour's commute each way, and cooking dinner while his female partner is pregnant, it is claimed, because "She doesn't ever get to rest! She's pregnant for the whole nine months, 24/7!" (My perspective? Human beings need to rest. I'm a man who has to be disabled 24/7, for a hell of a lot longer than nine months.)
I'm a man who is also a kinship carer for my wife. I've known several male kinship carers, and several single fathers - but we get dismissed with "Oh, boo-hoo! You want a prize for doing what women just get on with!" The organisation I discuss having worked for in this blog was very fixated on the "additional work women are doing, after they finish their shift here, in terms of taking on the burden of kinship care, the demands of child-raising, and the bulk of domestic duties" - female colleagues complaining about these things were a constant soundtrack to my work there, while I - managing almost all of these responsibilities (apart from childcare, as my wife and I can't have children), whilst typically earning a lot less than the leadership-level women who tended to complain the loudest - was chastised if I so much as expressed frustration about colleagues not completing aspects of work I was relying on to progress my own responsibilities when they'd said they would. When female colleagues complained about the same thing, it was "understandable frustration"; when I did it, because I was a man, it was "problematic and unsympathetic, and not what we would expect from someone committed to our values of teamwork and mutual support."
Returning to the issue of social care needing to "recruit more men"... You can't spend a decade submitting an entire gender to baseless accusation, mockery, and, increasingly, very real discrimination, and then turn around and mewl "Oh, but we need you!" Especially not when you've spent far longer than a decade telling men you don't need them, for anything, ever.
You can't claim that "women always shoulder the burden of care, because women just feel for people more, women are naturally gifted at nurturing, women are people-focused", and then expect men to step forward, en masse, to fill roles in a sector you've consistently told them they're just "literally not capable of", purely on the grounds of their gender.
You can't claim that "yes, all men" are predators, or have predatory ambitions, and then turn around and ask them to step into a sector which is heavily involved with intimate personal interactions with vulnerable people. (Yes, of course there are administrative and leadership roles in social care...but I have a feeling these won't be the roles the government demands men fill in the sector...) You can't claim that "women are just better when it comes to dealing with people", and then expect men to feel their application to a sector which is all about people will be welcome.
Another huge cultural barrier to this necessary change, and one which is only being exacerbated by current "bad actors" on both the global stage and through social media's pervasive influence into everyone's everyday life is entrenched attitudes towards openly, actively LGBT people in the UK.
While we put on a good game at being "accepting" and "tolerant", while we point to our love of drag queens as "proof we're fine with the gays!", my personal experience of working in healthcare, and the experience of many people across the health and social care sector in the UK, is that homophobia, and especially transphobia, are rampant, particularly in women - who, currently, comprise the majority of the social care workforce.
Even the most brazenly and publicly pro-LGBT+ allies are strangely quiet on the concept of actively gay and lesbian social care clients, observably trans social care clients, the idea of those people being fully and enthusiastically supported to be their fullest selves. We don't discuss kink inclusion in social care settings. There are no facilities, at present, where an active and committed polycule could co-habit in a residential care setting, and it is doubtful the fullness of their dynamic would be appreciated by a harried carer visiting a private residence for 15-20minutes to provide essential care. Many trans women working in care find themselves assigned to male clients, because "they specifically asked for a male carer" - I can't imagine how that must feel, both to the trans woman who has been dismissively (and often publicly) de-gendered, and to the client, who is bewildered, and potentially angry, at seeing a woman coming in to help him with personal care, when he specifically asked for a man.
LGBTQIA+ experience has been increasingly reduced to "quirky young things!" - even though homosexuality is no longer illegal, we are seeing those people who were gay or trans at a time when it was illegal being ushered back into the shadows they already lived in for years, sometimes decades. The idea that a Queer person could grow old, could be dependent on paid professionals, rather than the much-celebrated "found family", could have to live institutionally, yet still be actively involved in gay relationships, could still want to get their freak on at a good dungeon party, or could need to be accompanied to consultations centring around gender-affirming care, is something we seem somewhat spooked by, desperately afraid of acknowledging.
But how is social care going to attract openly and comfortably LGBTQ+ staff, while people who currently work in the sector often feel very comfortable behaving in prejudiced and exclusionary ways, using derogatory and perjorative language, and insisting - as one (female) colleague in my previous healthcare role aggressively did during an Equality and Diversity training session - that they "don't believe in pronouns." Imagine trying to work as an LGBTQ+ person in that environment, much less be someone who is fully dependent on people holding such attitudes for such basic things as safe accommodation, or support going to the toilet.
Rather than addressing these concerns, the UK government, seeking to appease their Opposition colleagues, the "pressed middle" of UK society, and vocal personalities from America, are actively exacerbating, and seemingly promoting, bigoted attitudes towards LGBTQ+ individuals, and enacting laws which ostracise and seek to erase LGBTQ+ people.
That presents the cultural challenges to recruiting more men to social care (which I actually do believe is a good and necessary thing.)
Now to the practical considerations which are going to get in the way of the government's ambition to recruit more men to social care being achieved.
As I've already briefly discussed, the pervasive attitude is "social care isn't paid well enough for men" and "men don't want to work in social care", while the actual facts dispute that belief.
Yes, it is a very real fact that, even though it is routinely paying above the UK minimum wage, the wages paid by social care do not meet the Minimum Income Standard for a single working age adult, and fall impossibly short of meeting it if that individual is the sole wage earner for a family unit - something which is more common for men, as women are still overwhelmingly the ones stepping out of the workforce to have and raise children, to care for ageing parents, and owing to emerging disabilities, particularly damaged backs and joints, and chronic conditions such as fibromyalgia. However, many men in the UK are employed in jobs which only pay the minimum wage; the UK allows exalted executive pay to disguise the fact that 90% of jobs, across all sectors, are critically underpaid. And yet men do those jobs, they accept poor pay, and they figure out how to make that work with the financial demands of their households. (As, of course, do women, and people whose gender identity and lived experience sits outside the binary.) Men, particularly those with family responsibilities, are still the most likely gender to take "whatever job's available", frequently acknowledging they "gave up" on personal passions and ambitions because "someone has to pay the bills, don't they?" People of all genders in the UK are pretty well resigned to the fact that most of us are not going to get a job that actually pays enough to meet the Minimum Income Standard, and that at least the rubbishly-paid jobs still just about manage to offer more than the DWP doles out in Universal Credit.
This resignation, however, often chafes a little more at men, which is perhaps where the perception that "men won't take low-paid jobs" comes from.
Then the issues became personal.
I communicate in a direct, but typically friendly, way. I am aware of my tendency to become visibly frustrated or angry, and consciously work to avoid that, as I appreciate that people typically aren't intentionally behaving in a way which provokes those feelings in me, and that my emotions are my problem to deal with, not other peoples' to suffer. This was apparently received as "aggressive and intimidating" by female colleagues.
Instead of speaking to me - "Could you calm down a little bit?" or "I'd prefer if you didn't speak quite so bluntly to me", these colleagues went behind my back to my manager (also female). Instead of addressing the issue as "Some people need a bit of a softer runway to an ask - perhaps try making casual small talk, and asking about their welfare, before getting to the 'work point'", or similar feedback, I was told: "We're a very female-focused, female-positive organisation here, and masculine communication styles aren't really appreciated. You've caused people considerable upset, and it's not acceptable."
There are several problems with this, but a very prominent one is the fact that neurodivergent women can often communicate in a more direct fashion - telling any kind of women that they are behaving in a masculine way is...not really very inclusive.
It also doesn't offer any actionable guidance. "Be less masculine", when said to a man, is essentially "We resent the fact that you're not a woman. Could you sort of pretend you are, at least while you're at work? Don't wear dresses or anything, but just...stop being yourself." In contrast, guidance to "soften your approach...include personal connection...make the 'work point' the last thing you bring into the conversation" are all readily actionable points.
I was excluded from an opportunity to benefit from protected time to pursue a formalised course of study that was a mandatory 'first step' towards my organisation's progression pathway, when a female colleague (in the same role as me) from my team was given that time. Even when I asked directly, I was met with "Well, we'll see what we can do..." - which turned out to be...nothing, actually.
I was told that a required qualification for my role (Scrum Master certification) would "probably not be accessible, given your sight loss, because it's online, with a lot of video elements." There are options for Scrum Master certification to be completed in-person; "that's not something the organisation would be willing to pay for at this time, as we're not actively promoting men to leadership roles." Except that being a certified Scrum Master was part of me fulfilling the role I'd already been recruited to. It hadn't been, when I'd been recruited, but my department manager's role had changed, which had resulted in a cascade of responsibility shifts - both line managers on our team took on more strategy-focused work, meaning that myself and my (female) colleague, who both occupied the same job role, were required to take on more project management responsibilities. As part of that, we were both supposed to become Scrum Masters. She was put forward onto the virtual training; I ended up project managing multiple high-dependency, multi-stakeholder, business-critical projects mostly solo, and without Scrum Master certification. Something I managed well, including salvaging one project I had to take over with no handover, believing it to be "pretty much done" (because that's what the line manager who'd originally been PM'ing it had told the line manager she handed off to when she went on maternity leave... I'd volunteered to take on the project when her caseload was being broken down, and had been told it "needed an experienced, senior lead, because we have issues with the supplier." That 'experienced, senior lead' then went off on long-term sick for five months, with no notice...I was the only person with capacity to take on the project), which turned out to be months behind on mandatory elements from our side, had had no protected training time for the teams who would be using the new computerised system which was a core aspect of the project, and "a million miles away from anywhere near done", in the words of the system supplier, who was threatening to pull the plug on the whole deal when I took over.
While workforce "wellbeing" interventions explicitly skewed towards women - Menopause Cafes, Virtual Coffee Mornings (with advertised 'suggested topics' which were very heavily female focused),"Cost of Living" packs which exclusively contained female hygiene products, female toiletries, and "support for female colleagues driving alone in bad weather" - proliferated, the sole "men's wellbeing" offering - presented with a wry "just so the men of (organisation) don't feel left out" - was a "BMI and blood pressure test, followed by an opportunity for a vigorous workout!" Not only did this trigger intrusive thoughts connected to an historic eating disorder for me, but it also started at the time I was scheduled to end my working day, and required me to be in the office - in winter months, this wasn't possible, as I'd deliberately structured my working hours to accommodate the fact that I'm completely night-blind, so that, if I did have to work from the office (the role was hybrid-remote), I could still safely get home.
That was the sole offering "for men." (As though women wouldn't equally be interested in physical fitness...)
I wasn't alone in feeling ostracised and not really wanted thanks to the organisation's attitudes; the way men were talked about, the opportunities we were offered, the ways in which we were socially included (or not), came up from the two other male colleagues involved in the organisation's reciprocal mentorship protocol. Attempts to raise this with leadership typically got stonewalled.
If women were treated the way men were in that particular organisation (and frequently report being treated in organisations across the health and social care sector in the UK), there would be uproar. But feelings of "systemic wrongs" apparently justify direct wrongs...because, when it comes to gender equity, two wrongs, it is insisted, absolutely do make a right.
Except, they don't.
A lot of current toxic masculinity is fuelled not by the rise of equitable standards and opportunities for women, but the flip around to dismissive and outright discriminatory attitudes towards men, the insistence that no amount of domestic work men do will ever be enough, that, unless men are treating women better than themselves, almost as literal goddesses, they're "doing the bare f-king minimum". It is not acceptable for a man to rest after working a 12hr shift, with an hour's commute each way, and cooking dinner while his female partner is pregnant, it is claimed, because "She doesn't ever get to rest! She's pregnant for the whole nine months, 24/7!" (My perspective? Human beings need to rest. I'm a man who has to be disabled 24/7, for a hell of a lot longer than nine months.)
I'm a man who is also a kinship carer for my wife. I've known several male kinship carers, and several single fathers - but we get dismissed with "Oh, boo-hoo! You want a prize for doing what women just get on with!" The organisation I discuss having worked for in this blog was very fixated on the "additional work women are doing, after they finish their shift here, in terms of taking on the burden of kinship care, the demands of child-raising, and the bulk of domestic duties" - female colleagues complaining about these things were a constant soundtrack to my work there, while I - managing almost all of these responsibilities (apart from childcare, as my wife and I can't have children), whilst typically earning a lot less than the leadership-level women who tended to complain the loudest - was chastised if I so much as expressed frustration about colleagues not completing aspects of work I was relying on to progress my own responsibilities when they'd said they would. When female colleagues complained about the same thing, it was "understandable frustration"; when I did it, because I was a man, it was "problematic and unsympathetic, and not what we would expect from someone committed to our values of teamwork and mutual support."
Returning to the issue of social care needing to "recruit more men"... You can't spend a decade submitting an entire gender to baseless accusation, mockery, and, increasingly, very real discrimination, and then turn around and mewl "Oh, but we need you!" Especially not when you've spent far longer than a decade telling men you don't need them, for anything, ever.
You can't claim that "women always shoulder the burden of care, because women just feel for people more, women are naturally gifted at nurturing, women are people-focused", and then expect men to step forward, en masse, to fill roles in a sector you've consistently told them they're just "literally not capable of", purely on the grounds of their gender.
You can't claim that "yes, all men" are predators, or have predatory ambitions, and then turn around and ask them to step into a sector which is heavily involved with intimate personal interactions with vulnerable people. (Yes, of course there are administrative and leadership roles in social care...but I have a feeling these won't be the roles the government demands men fill in the sector...) You can't claim that "women are just better when it comes to dealing with people", and then expect men to feel their application to a sector which is all about people will be welcome.
Another huge cultural barrier to this necessary change, and one which is only being exacerbated by current "bad actors" on both the global stage and through social media's pervasive influence into everyone's everyday life is entrenched attitudes towards openly, actively LGBT people in the UK.
While we put on a good game at being "accepting" and "tolerant", while we point to our love of drag queens as "proof we're fine with the gays!", my personal experience of working in healthcare, and the experience of many people across the health and social care sector in the UK, is that homophobia, and especially transphobia, are rampant, particularly in women - who, currently, comprise the majority of the social care workforce.
Even the most brazenly and publicly pro-LGBT+ allies are strangely quiet on the concept of actively gay and lesbian social care clients, observably trans social care clients, the idea of those people being fully and enthusiastically supported to be their fullest selves. We don't discuss kink inclusion in social care settings. There are no facilities, at present, where an active and committed polycule could co-habit in a residential care setting, and it is doubtful the fullness of their dynamic would be appreciated by a harried carer visiting a private residence for 15-20minutes to provide essential care. Many trans women working in care find themselves assigned to male clients, because "they specifically asked for a male carer" - I can't imagine how that must feel, both to the trans woman who has been dismissively (and often publicly) de-gendered, and to the client, who is bewildered, and potentially angry, at seeing a woman coming in to help him with personal care, when he specifically asked for a man.
LGBTQIA+ experience has been increasingly reduced to "quirky young things!" - even though homosexuality is no longer illegal, we are seeing those people who were gay or trans at a time when it was illegal being ushered back into the shadows they already lived in for years, sometimes decades. The idea that a Queer person could grow old, could be dependent on paid professionals, rather than the much-celebrated "found family", could have to live institutionally, yet still be actively involved in gay relationships, could still want to get their freak on at a good dungeon party, or could need to be accompanied to consultations centring around gender-affirming care, is something we seem somewhat spooked by, desperately afraid of acknowledging.
But how is social care going to attract openly and comfortably LGBTQ+ staff, while people who currently work in the sector often feel very comfortable behaving in prejudiced and exclusionary ways, using derogatory and perjorative language, and insisting - as one (female) colleague in my previous healthcare role aggressively did during an Equality and Diversity training session - that they "don't believe in pronouns." Imagine trying to work as an LGBTQ+ person in that environment, much less be someone who is fully dependent on people holding such attitudes for such basic things as safe accommodation, or support going to the toilet.
Rather than addressing these concerns, the UK government, seeking to appease their Opposition colleagues, the "pressed middle" of UK society, and vocal personalities from America, are actively exacerbating, and seemingly promoting, bigoted attitudes towards LGBTQ+ individuals, and enacting laws which ostracise and seek to erase LGBTQ+ people.
That presents the cultural challenges to recruiting more men to social care (which I actually do believe is a good and necessary thing.)
Now to the practical considerations which are going to get in the way of the government's ambition to recruit more men to social care being achieved.
As I've already briefly discussed, the pervasive attitude is "social care isn't paid well enough for men" and "men don't want to work in social care", while the actual facts dispute that belief.
Yes, it is a very real fact that, even though it is routinely paying above the UK minimum wage, the wages paid by social care do not meet the Minimum Income Standard for a single working age adult, and fall impossibly short of meeting it if that individual is the sole wage earner for a family unit - something which is more common for men, as women are still overwhelmingly the ones stepping out of the workforce to have and raise children, to care for ageing parents, and owing to emerging disabilities, particularly damaged backs and joints, and chronic conditions such as fibromyalgia. However, many men in the UK are employed in jobs which only pay the minimum wage; the UK allows exalted executive pay to disguise the fact that 90% of jobs, across all sectors, are critically underpaid. And yet men do those jobs, they accept poor pay, and they figure out how to make that work with the financial demands of their households. (As, of course, do women, and people whose gender identity and lived experience sits outside the binary.) Men, particularly those with family responsibilities, are still the most likely gender to take "whatever job's available", frequently acknowledging they "gave up" on personal passions and ambitions because "someone has to pay the bills, don't they?" People of all genders in the UK are pretty well resigned to the fact that most of us are not going to get a job that actually pays enough to meet the Minimum Income Standard, and that at least the rubbishly-paid jobs still just about manage to offer more than the DWP doles out in Universal Credit.
This resignation, however, often chafes a little more at men, which is perhaps where the perception that "men won't take low-paid jobs" comes from.
Men frequently feel an acute unfairness that "I can't just spread my legs, get pregnant, and bam, a bunch more money hits my account every month, and I'm suddenly able to get a load of freebies and sympathy!" Men are most often the gender paying child support, including to partners they did not "abandon", but who, in fact, demanded they leave, a fact which can feel exceptionally unfair, especially if the woman in the equation has a habit of denying access rights without good cause as a "punishment" for her perception of time "wasted" in the relationship, or because her former partner has entered a new relationship.
Then there is the consideration that a lot of social care jobs are part-time; women are still much more likely to be in a position to afford to take part-time work than men, as, in a heteronormative relationship, men still overwhelmingly provide the more significant "main" income, providing the stability from which women can accept fewer hours, because the bills are taken care of by their male partner's salary. (Inevitably, the perception that "she gets to spend her money on whatever she wants, while I have to spend mine keeping the lights on!" is a frequent complaint and resentment from men who are working full time while their partner is only in paid employment part-time - often in order to ensure that the essential, but unpaid, work of running a household, raising children, etc can be managed effectively.) Two part-time incomes, especially with recent lowerings of income tax thresholds, frequently do not result in one full-time income. The maths ain't math'ing, as they say. This means that there is a need for one person in a family to be in full time employment, which can impact on the capacity of both partners to attend equitably to domestic duties. And yet, those domestic duties still need to be attended to. Two partners who are each in relatively low-paid work are not going to be likely to be able to afford a cleaner, or all the childcare they need. Not everyone has family who are able or willing to "help them out."
"Men don't want to work in social care" - this is perhaps somewhat true, but not for the reason people rush to cite, of men considering social care 'women's work', and therefore demeaning to them.
Social care (and healthcare) predominantly market themselves as relational sectors; the "point" of doing these jobs is for the people who benefit from care! It's all about service, and service is just an ongoing commitment of the job. It's vague, ill-defined...it's just being there for people! It's helping people remain independent in their own homes! It's preventing loneliness!
Typically, men are much more outcome-orientated. They want to know what the goal of a job is, in clear, well-defined, specific, objective, measurable terms. Men, much more so than women, like to not just know that they're doing well, they want to be able to prove - even if only to themselves - that this is the case.
So, what might promotion of outcomes in social work recruitment look like?
. "You'll play an active part in reducing the number of emergency hospital admissions and unplanned GP appointments our clients find themselves requiring."
Then there is the consideration that a lot of social care jobs are part-time; women are still much more likely to be in a position to afford to take part-time work than men, as, in a heteronormative relationship, men still overwhelmingly provide the more significant "main" income, providing the stability from which women can accept fewer hours, because the bills are taken care of by their male partner's salary. (Inevitably, the perception that "she gets to spend her money on whatever she wants, while I have to spend mine keeping the lights on!" is a frequent complaint and resentment from men who are working full time while their partner is only in paid employment part-time - often in order to ensure that the essential, but unpaid, work of running a household, raising children, etc can be managed effectively.) Two part-time incomes, especially with recent lowerings of income tax thresholds, frequently do not result in one full-time income. The maths ain't math'ing, as they say. This means that there is a need for one person in a family to be in full time employment, which can impact on the capacity of both partners to attend equitably to domestic duties. And yet, those domestic duties still need to be attended to. Two partners who are each in relatively low-paid work are not going to be likely to be able to afford a cleaner, or all the childcare they need. Not everyone has family who are able or willing to "help them out."
"Men don't want to work in social care" - this is perhaps somewhat true, but not for the reason people rush to cite, of men considering social care 'women's work', and therefore demeaning to them.
Social care (and healthcare) predominantly market themselves as relational sectors; the "point" of doing these jobs is for the people who benefit from care! It's all about service, and service is just an ongoing commitment of the job. It's vague, ill-defined...it's just being there for people! It's helping people remain independent in their own homes! It's preventing loneliness!
Typically, men are much more outcome-orientated. They want to know what the goal of a job is, in clear, well-defined, specific, objective, measurable terms. Men, much more so than women, like to not just know that they're doing well, they want to be able to prove - even if only to themselves - that this is the case.
So, what might promotion of outcomes in social work recruitment look like?
. "You'll play an active part in reducing the number of emergency hospital admissions and unplanned GP appointments our clients find themselves requiring."
. "Your strategic focus will ensure people of all ages, in all states of health, have an acceptable, actionable, affordable plan for the point when age, disability, or ill-health prevents them from being as independent as they have been used to."
. "You will introduce new tech to up to 30 new clients, and work with them to understand the technology, and make the most mutually effective use of it, around our expectations as a provider."
And, of course, it's not just men who will respond positively to this shift towards concrete, measurable points of focus; women more often report experiencing "imposter syndrome" than men; having concrete frames of reference for "what am I supposed to be doing in this job?" is an effective way to combat imposter syndrome.
"Be part of making peoples' lives better!" is a worthy, but amorphous proposition. It becomes very easy, especially if you're managing a demanding workload, and trying to balance that paid workload with unpaid labour which isn't feeling especially manageable, to wonder if you actually are "making peoples' lives better." When your clients die, their illnesses worsen, or their domestic situation deteriorates, you can take it very personally, viewing it as your own, immediate failure.
In contrast, if your job goal, in black and white, is "reduce the number of emergency hospital admissions and unplanned GP visits our clients experience", it's easy to see if you're "doing your job" - if John-Joe was making three GP appointments a month, and typically being admitted to hospital five to six times a year, before you started supporting him, and he's now seeing his GP once a month, and hasn't had to go to hospital in over six months, then you know you're doing really well in your job.
Should social care be better paid? That's a complex proposition; if the frontlines of the social care sector were paid more, then the costs to those requiring social care services would increase. Eventually, we would reach a point where almost no one would be able to afford even basic social care - which would require the State to fund what will, by that point, have become a very expensive proposition. As we're currently seeing with disability welfare provisions, governments tend to respond to something they have to fund being expensive by announcing that they're going to "reform it" - with a focus on reducing access to it, and an intention to remove it entirely as a physical reality.
Social care has to meet rent and mortgage commitments for buildings which are often necessarily expensive. It has to fund expensive alterations to private homes, to make them suitable for disabled inhabitants. Even now, when we are acutely aware of this cost burden, construction is not inclusive by design. (The Productive Pessimist Ltd can advise on inclusive design, both for new builds and renovations. If this is relevant to you, please feel welcome to email us at theproductivepessimist@yahoo.com)
There's also the reality that people are not paid "what they are worth" - they are paid in respect of the profit they bring to the business they work for. The reason MPs are paid salaries which often have people looking askance, and muttering about "Maybe Guy Fawkes was right..." is because they are actively involved in marketing "Brand GB", and thus bring a considerable (but ill-distributed) profit into the UK.
Social care staff, especially those in frontline roles, are, quite simply, very, very limited in their ability to bring in any profit for the sector - at least as it is currently run. There are ways to change this, and therefore potentially unlock improved pay for those working in social care - but, again, this may simply result in the costs to social care clients becoming prohibitively expensive - which leads towards an inevitable acceptance of widely-accessible assisted dying, and significant risks of coerced euthanasia.
Finally, the question has to be asked:
What can men actually bring to social care?
This is never going to be a question that continues "...which women can't" - because men and women are individuals first and foremost. There are no traits that all men and no women, or all women and no men, hold. No competencies that are the exclusive preserve of one gender. Men's and women's personalities are equally likely to be introverted or extroverted, reward-seeking or self-rewarding, logical or intuitive. Men are no more resilient against musculoskeletal damage than women, which any man in his fifties who is struggling through demanding manual labour in the agriculture or construction sector can tell you.
What men can bring to social care is balance. Not just a balance of gender in frontline staff, but a balance of focus across the sector, a balance of insight, and a balance of experience and perspective.
Men are more likely to have worked extensively with adults who can be petulant, resistant, and aggressive - all of which can be ways that social care clients behave, because of the impact of cognitive injury, stroke, long-term health challenges, or simple frustration in someone with limited ability to verbally express themselves. While women often have experience of "managing the behaviour" of children, men are more likely to have had to engage with adults who are behaving in challenging ways - and clients in adult social care need, and deserve, to be treated as adults, rather than being infantilised by those charged with their care.
Men can bring a wider business awareness, especially if they are older men who are looking to step away from the pressures of a leadership role as they approach the end of their working life, or following upheaval in their personal life. Women in social care have often been exclusively in the sector for much of their working life, while men tend to change careers more frequently, and carry the knowledge of every experience with them into new roles.
Men may be better able to facilitate access to full sexual expression for their clients, as men are more often very open to conversations about sexual appetites, and more likely to be confided in around such things by male clients.
And, if nothing else, more men in social care is a start on the road to shutting up the engagement-hounds of social media, who insist that "yes, all men are lazy, thoughtless, and engage in weaponised incompetence!"
Society includes both men and women. We're not going to change that. There will never be a point where "everyone is non-binary!" Men are not going to make a sudden and universal decision to identify as trans women for a "better life", any more than the women who acutely feel the impact of patriarchal privileging of men over women have decided to identify en masse as trans men.
I am a man. Would I work in social care?
My honest answer?
I don't know.
In its present form, and given my very recent experience with it, I would err on the side of "No."
I wouldn't be able to work in a frontline role - I can't see well enough to read labels on food or medicine packets. I can't drive, so I wouldn't be able to support clients living in their own homes - still a very prominent point of focus for social care, with its insistence that "independence" means "being able to live in your own private home, regardless of the financial or logistical challenges of keeping you there."
I'm not comfortable around people, as a rule, and I've been assaulted - physically and sexually - often enough to be actively wary of it from people who are often somewhat less in control of their emotional responses than the general population.
Being night-blind, I can't do shift work during the winter.
But in a leadership role, within a genuinely reformed social care sector?
The answer becomes: maybe.
. "You will introduce new tech to up to 30 new clients, and work with them to understand the technology, and make the most mutually effective use of it, around our expectations as a provider."
And, of course, it's not just men who will respond positively to this shift towards concrete, measurable points of focus; women more often report experiencing "imposter syndrome" than men; having concrete frames of reference for "what am I supposed to be doing in this job?" is an effective way to combat imposter syndrome.
"Be part of making peoples' lives better!" is a worthy, but amorphous proposition. It becomes very easy, especially if you're managing a demanding workload, and trying to balance that paid workload with unpaid labour which isn't feeling especially manageable, to wonder if you actually are "making peoples' lives better." When your clients die, their illnesses worsen, or their domestic situation deteriorates, you can take it very personally, viewing it as your own, immediate failure.
In contrast, if your job goal, in black and white, is "reduce the number of emergency hospital admissions and unplanned GP visits our clients experience", it's easy to see if you're "doing your job" - if John-Joe was making three GP appointments a month, and typically being admitted to hospital five to six times a year, before you started supporting him, and he's now seeing his GP once a month, and hasn't had to go to hospital in over six months, then you know you're doing really well in your job.
Should social care be better paid? That's a complex proposition; if the frontlines of the social care sector were paid more, then the costs to those requiring social care services would increase. Eventually, we would reach a point where almost no one would be able to afford even basic social care - which would require the State to fund what will, by that point, have become a very expensive proposition. As we're currently seeing with disability welfare provisions, governments tend to respond to something they have to fund being expensive by announcing that they're going to "reform it" - with a focus on reducing access to it, and an intention to remove it entirely as a physical reality.
Social care has to meet rent and mortgage commitments for buildings which are often necessarily expensive. It has to fund expensive alterations to private homes, to make them suitable for disabled inhabitants. Even now, when we are acutely aware of this cost burden, construction is not inclusive by design. (The Productive Pessimist Ltd can advise on inclusive design, both for new builds and renovations. If this is relevant to you, please feel welcome to email us at theproductivepessimist@yahoo.com)
There's also the reality that people are not paid "what they are worth" - they are paid in respect of the profit they bring to the business they work for. The reason MPs are paid salaries which often have people looking askance, and muttering about "Maybe Guy Fawkes was right..." is because they are actively involved in marketing "Brand GB", and thus bring a considerable (but ill-distributed) profit into the UK.
Social care staff, especially those in frontline roles, are, quite simply, very, very limited in their ability to bring in any profit for the sector - at least as it is currently run. There are ways to change this, and therefore potentially unlock improved pay for those working in social care - but, again, this may simply result in the costs to social care clients becoming prohibitively expensive - which leads towards an inevitable acceptance of widely-accessible assisted dying, and significant risks of coerced euthanasia.
Finally, the question has to be asked:
What can men actually bring to social care?
This is never going to be a question that continues "...which women can't" - because men and women are individuals first and foremost. There are no traits that all men and no women, or all women and no men, hold. No competencies that are the exclusive preserve of one gender. Men's and women's personalities are equally likely to be introverted or extroverted, reward-seeking or self-rewarding, logical or intuitive. Men are no more resilient against musculoskeletal damage than women, which any man in his fifties who is struggling through demanding manual labour in the agriculture or construction sector can tell you.
What men can bring to social care is balance. Not just a balance of gender in frontline staff, but a balance of focus across the sector, a balance of insight, and a balance of experience and perspective.
Men are more likely to have worked extensively with adults who can be petulant, resistant, and aggressive - all of which can be ways that social care clients behave, because of the impact of cognitive injury, stroke, long-term health challenges, or simple frustration in someone with limited ability to verbally express themselves. While women often have experience of "managing the behaviour" of children, men are more likely to have had to engage with adults who are behaving in challenging ways - and clients in adult social care need, and deserve, to be treated as adults, rather than being infantilised by those charged with their care.
Men can bring a wider business awareness, especially if they are older men who are looking to step away from the pressures of a leadership role as they approach the end of their working life, or following upheaval in their personal life. Women in social care have often been exclusively in the sector for much of their working life, while men tend to change careers more frequently, and carry the knowledge of every experience with them into new roles.
Men may be better able to facilitate access to full sexual expression for their clients, as men are more often very open to conversations about sexual appetites, and more likely to be confided in around such things by male clients.
And, if nothing else, more men in social care is a start on the road to shutting up the engagement-hounds of social media, who insist that "yes, all men are lazy, thoughtless, and engage in weaponised incompetence!"
Society includes both men and women. We're not going to change that. There will never be a point where "everyone is non-binary!" Men are not going to make a sudden and universal decision to identify as trans women for a "better life", any more than the women who acutely feel the impact of patriarchal privileging of men over women have decided to identify en masse as trans men.
I am a man. Would I work in social care?
My honest answer?
I don't know.
In its present form, and given my very recent experience with it, I would err on the side of "No."
I wouldn't be able to work in a frontline role - I can't see well enough to read labels on food or medicine packets. I can't drive, so I wouldn't be able to support clients living in their own homes - still a very prominent point of focus for social care, with its insistence that "independence" means "being able to live in your own private home, regardless of the financial or logistical challenges of keeping you there."
I'm not comfortable around people, as a rule, and I've been assaulted - physically and sexually - often enough to be actively wary of it from people who are often somewhat less in control of their emotional responses than the general population.
Being night-blind, I can't do shift work during the winter.
But in a leadership role, within a genuinely reformed social care sector?
The answer becomes: maybe.
Comments
Post a Comment