Subtle misandry even in the best of humanity. A social worker hired to tend to the juveniles in the local court system, 75% of which are male, yet 85% of his clients are female.

cammycam · 2014-07-01T13:00:58+00:00

""Cherrington estimates 85 per cent of his clients are female, a high percentage given that his office’s clients are 75 per cent male. Cherrington says he prefers working with females because they come with multiple challenges including pregnancy and children, and face greater risk of exploitation than males.

“A guy can find a couch, a guy can find shelter,” he says. “A girl has a lot of issues and baggage, and to sleep on that couch has a cost.”"

A guy can also find themselves conducting more property crime, in a gang or other criminal enterprise. Instead, he could be getting those boys into literacy or job training programs, or maybe just stable homes. But instead, it sounds more like he's going to reach out to his clients' girlfriends and buy them cigarettes and condoms once the male is already in a juvenile institution.

Arn13 · 2014-07-01T19:26:52+00:00

The vast majority of homeless are men, so his statement “A guy can find a couch, a guy can find shelter" is demonstrably false. It's just a rationalisation he made up (probably subconsciously) to explain to himself why he hardly helps men.

My guess is that the guy, just like most people in our society, has more sympathy for women: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274 - but does not want to admit to this, as that would bring attention to the unequal treatment men receive in our society.

hereisyourpaper · 2014-07-01T13:48:40+00:00

Misleading title.

The social worker estimates that 75% of the people that come to get help are male. But this one individual's clients are about 85% female. The titles implies that 75% of juveniles in the local court system are male, but women are primarily getting help, which is not the case.

Schmit_on_you · 2014-07-01T20:17:20+00:00

"A teenager emerges from the crowd and walks toward him. Janice looks worried and nervous, and they move into a hallway so they can speak more privately. She’s 19, and studying to work in health care. She’s doing well, but it’s the end of the school year and her student funding has run out but she hasn’t found a job. She has a baby, no food, and her rent is due in two days. Her boyfriend is in jail. She says a government worker told her that morning they won’t help her. She starts to cry.

“OK,” Cherrington says, “Can I get angry and phone the minister’s office and tweet about it?”

She nods yes."

Am I the only one that doesn't understand, just from what is present in the article itself, why this girl or Cherrington himself is "angry" with the minister's office if this girl can't provide for herself or her baby? How is it the minister's fault? Just based off of what is there, it appears that she EXPECTS them to provide for her and her child no matter what.

Comments