I did not refer to Freud because I agree with his ideas. The claim was that psychotherapists do not look at environmental and societal origins of psychological disorders, which is false, plenty do. Have you looked into the material by Judith Hermann, the other psychotherapist I mentioned? You will find that she writes at length about Freuds denial and patriarchical circumstances.

As someone who has dealt with ideas from social workers since before I could talk, I strongly disagree. Having such ideas applied to a "troubled kid" (by the way, people decided I was troubled at age 3. Of course, the issue, which I will NOT explain, was a teacher). Eventually my parents did pay for psychotherapist for a short time (under threat from a social worker), but societal/insurance help will not pay for anyone even remotely qualified when "helping" a kid, and that means no psychotherapists, only social workers. That psychotherapist, by the way, did agree the problem was somewhere else (mostly because unlike the vast majority of troubled kids I am very smart and I could clearly describe why things happen, both why I myself make specific decisions and why others do). He made a recommendation, which people hoped would involve locking me up, but instead it was promptly ripped to shreds before we were even out of the room, never to reach the people it was about. They did succeed in locking me up for a while by the way, but that ended when I threw an attendant off the stairs (to protect a girl, I was 13), and then went on a day-long walk with the girl. You see, when I was 3 the recommendation was to give me an outlet, fighting sports. By 7 I was winning championships, by 12 I had won a championship in 2 different fighting sports and by age 16 in three. Anyway, after that, the social workers involved for over 10 years decided nothing was wrong with me, and I was home and cured half an hour after dinner the same day. I still have the gift the girl gave me.

If what you mean is that social workers, who don't know anything, are very occasionally invited to schools to tell students "drugs are bad, mmm'kay", sometimes while a teacher who forces his students to sell drugs is taking a break in the teacher's lounge. If that is what you call "looking at environmental and societal origins ..." then yes, that happens. Obviously, this practice makes things worse, not better, as the social workers involved have been informed they lose their jobs if a kid saying "Master blah makes use sell pills" reaches the police. There is, of course, no better way to show kids that crime and violence work and can pay. Government workers, which includes teachers, see themselves as above the law, and more often than not, they're right. They are allowed to go much further than anyone else.

I actually like that in Breaking Bad the whole thing starts in a school. If you think about it for 5 seconds you'll quickly realize that in reality this might be a good idea. Schools are both the perfect environment for drugs and a great environment to make them. A captive workforce (the kids), government protection, and hundreds of easily blamed victims, who aren't even innocent, and on top of everything else, who people will be disinclined to believe ... What's totally unrealistic about Breaking Bad, of course, is the idea a drug-dealing teacher won't involve the schoolchildren. School children are the perfect drug dealers. And that the police doesn't so much as suspect the teacher when showing that school equipment was used to make extra-lethal drugs seems entirely on-point though. Extra-lethal? Yes, extra-pure = extra lethal, a fact that would be evident for someone with knowledge of chemistry. So his moral reasoning makes no sense. He both genuinly protects and poisons children for the exact same reason.

By the way: did you know it is actually legally forbidden for child protection agencies to investigate or accuse schools or anyone in them? Oh and neither is the police (technically the police isn't allowed to investigate a child's claim, also hearsay, in other words responding to parents' claims is also not allowed). "Fun" fact, that. Strange, isn't it, how the law supposedly applies to government workers, but there are all sorts of rules that govern how government workers' behavior and crimes are to be investigated, or rather NOT allowed to be investigated, and who can make accusations, or should I say that the victims are forbidden from making accusations. And I guarantee schools will set social workers onto the victim, the kid, and I guarantee what social workers will do will effectively be a heavy punishment for the kid.

Schools, where pretty much every psychiatric problem is created and carefully ignored and left to fester until it explodes. Then we continue with the kids, usually not the one with the actual psychiatric problem, get harshly punished and described as everything from psychopaths to outright evil.

One thing I heard VERY often: you judge people by their actions, not by what they say. Well, this is what psychotherapists, social workers, psychiatry, ... DO. What you claim they say, well, whatever. It's about as realistic as discussing how romantic evenings would be if the moon were painted pink. What I described is what psychotherapists DO, or at least cooperate with. And you are describing pink moon evenings.

Also, given what Freud did his ideas should be thrown out of psychology along with any mention of the man, other than what a horrible immoral asshole he was, his name should instead only be mentioned as cautionary tale in history books like dr. Mengele's name, and the same goes for a great deal of other famous psychiatrists, like Hans Asperger. Like dr. Mengele, any science with any of these names in it in any way other than a huge "THESE ARE MONSTERS" warning, is not worth practicing.

Judith Herman very much considers the role society and society's treatment of minorities plays in trauma.

Can you point to a single case where, when she "treated" someone, she reported a school teacher or official to the authorities for abusing children? Just one?