To hate the word 'underprivileged'

[fackinell]

It's been used a lot on Children in Need tonight. It sounds so old fashioned and patronising. I much prefer 'additional needs' which shows a person is in need of something extra. Underprivileged is right up there with 'handicap' for me; which I was informed by my senior SCO was from a time when some disabled children were sent out to beg. Am I alone in hating this?

I agree.

We use "additional needs" in Scotland because it was felt that "special" needs was too narrow.

"Additional needs" can encompass social, learning and any other needs. - so it's not limited to a narrow set of needs.

I don't associate being underprivileged with having additional needs. To me it is to do with luck, privileged children are the fortunate ones. It can be about social background and opportunities, not necessarily needs.

I'm in Scotland too. Privileged to me sounds spoiled and entitled, underprivileged sounds like a pat on the head and a bit 'aww poor soul' in a patronising- you have nothing- kind of way. I've cringed every time TW has said it. I know strong and feisty disabled people full of self worth, a close friend is terminally ill and facing leaving her two young children. They're not underprivileged, they've been bloody unlucky on the latter front and making the best of their abilities on the former.

Roshbegosh agreed. "Underprivileged" are surely those children who in luckier circumstances would be doing better. Having wealth for example can gloss over a multitude of parenting sins, that coming from an impoverished background wouldn't.

I don't like 'privileged' but for different reasons to you.

It implies that anyone who isn't using a food bank is privileged, and to me, privileged means public school and old money, therefore the vast majority of us must logically be underprivileged.

I'm not sure if 'additional needs' is specific enough to refer to the group of people who are currently referred to as underprivileged, as that to me comes across as a physical or mental disability that is unrelated to socio economic status.

So what would be a suitable word in everyone's opinion? To me, additional needs could mean food, shelter, emotional support, nurturing; Anything under Maslow's hierarchy of needs I suppose.

I get what you mean, but how do you say unlucky, dealt a poor hand in life, impoverished, inadequately housed, and/or suffering from poor parenting (whether due to neglect, alcohol, drugs or simply poor education) in one phrase.

You could say that most of DDs school friends are privileged. They have educated supportive parents, warm houses and enough money to enjoy extracurricular activities.

Their lives are on another planet to the DC abandoned by her young mother with broke, not always sober and poorly educated extended family in an overcrowded house.

Compared to the rest of their peers this child is very under privileged.

I don't think additional needs is right in that context.

I have cut and pasted two definitions that match what I think underprivileged and special needs means. It is different to a few other posters . I don't find either term old fashioned or patronising.

Underprivileged
: having less money, education, etc., than the other people in a society : having fewer advantages, privileges, and opportunities than most people : poor or disadvantaged

Additional needs
Definition of additional needs is when children and young people have a physical, sensory, communication, behavioural or learning difficulty, or have a long term/life limiting condition. This may also include children with emotional health and wellbeing needs where there is an impact on their daily life.

I have a DD with a (non physical so not always obvious) disability. I don't care what term people use it all means the same thing it's just people tip toeing around the child (and parent) in fear of offending.

Is 'disadvantaged' better? I think 'additional needs' is misleading, tbh.

FWIW, according to Snopes, the begging connotation of handicap is a false etymology.

www.snopes.com/language/offense/handicap.asp

It is tricky.

You need a snappy phrase that encompasses all but the term underprivileged is used a lot and inappropriately. Really there is no such thing as underprivileged. There is the privileged few and all that is associated with being in that group and then there is the rest of us.

Its one of those words to make the better off feel 'better' as it doesn't acknowledge discrimination, prejudice, low wages, unfair taxation, two tier health and education etc.

It puts the 'blame' or cause and stigma of 'underprivilege' with those who are labelled as such and allows the better off not to think about how the way they live their lives has impact on others.

Maybe the 'dis' words would be better ...disadvantaged, discriminated, disabled which all indicate that life would be better for those concerned if others didn't 'dis' them?

But then it wouldn't be quite so easy to sell...

Tricky.

I don't think there are a privileged few and then everyone else is underprivileged. Certainly there are a small percentage of people who are very privileged indeed. But there is a much bigger group who are normally advantaged. Being born in the UK and speaking English as a first language are massive trump cards, coming from a loving, stable background, having access to a reasonable standard of accommodation and education and not suffering from significant ill health or disability.

Then there are an important minority who are disadvantaged (or underprivileged) - underprivileged doesn't mean disabled or ill, but being so can make you vulnerable and disadvantaged. I think disadvantaged is the better term but also we must recognise that most of us are fortunate, privileged or advantaged in some ways.

" To me, additional needs could mean food, shelter, emotional support, nurturing; Anything under Maslow's hierarchy of needs I suppose."

I think that this must be a Scottish thing, tbh.

That top list gives what perennial responsibility is, so they are the rights of a child, not additional needs.

You need to look at this from a SS and the Children Act POV. A lot of the Charities and Providers given money under Children in Need, we're set up as services for Children In Need, under Section 17 of the 1989 Children Act, to further explain.

The definition given by "IAlways"
: having less money, education, etc., than the other people in a society : having fewer advantages, privileges, and opportunities than most people : poor or disadvantaged

Sums it up well, it isn't just about disadvantage. If you look at the Every Child Mayters agenda, then that explains it further.

The words used tie in with how Service Provision and the Laws and LA Policies are written.

Both words, privileged and under are saddling terms.

Encouraging victim mentality or superiority mentality.

I don't think additional needs is the right terminology here either, as we now associate it with special needs, or disability.

Disadvantaged seems more self explanatory...

"You need a snappy phrase that encompasses all but the term underprivileged is used a lot and inappropriately. "

This wasn't a random phrase, Disablef Children are Children In Need" under the Law, the Disabled in the Uk, useless they become disabled whilst having a large income, or savings, or are born disabled into money, are going to be underprivileged.

Disabled people suffer greater poverty, a lack of provision etc, when compared on average to mainstream society.

It shouldn't be dressed up, or understated.

Life is still tough and getting tougher for Didabled Children, especially under the Government.

I would consider my DD, as underprivileged, because she is disabled, even though she has better parenting and more given than the children in my immediate area, her life chances/choices etc have been cut down upon, because if her disabilities.

Duck, I see what you are saying, but I can't completely agree. Things like speaking the language of the country you live in and being born to stable parents aren't advantages. They are just normal minimums that everyone should have.

I don't feel like I have an advantage over anyone else just because I have the basics, and as with underprivileged, the term disadvantaged implies that having the basics in like is an advantage. It isn't, it's just a reasonable starting block.

I think these terms take responsibility away from adults, and foster a belief that adults have no choice about the lives they bring their children into. I think that's a dangerous road to be on, because until we credit adults with responsibility for the lives they provide for their own children, there will be too many people blaming others for their own personal choices.

"Disadvantaged"

It's the negative connotations of that, that make it unsuitable and people who know very little about the problems of others, question and catirgory she why disadvantage exists, usually wrongly thinking it is the fault of the (bad) patents, which makes them less likely to donate.

"I think these terms take responsibility away from adults, and foster a belief that adults have no choice about the lives they bring their children into.I don't feel like I have an advantage over anyone else"

I think that many are forgetting that primarily "Childen In Need" started as a Disabled Children's Charity, before the DDA, DLA etc.

I certainly didn't choose (or cause) my DDs disabilities, or consider that she would become underprivileged through a lack of investment in services.

Having two children with hidden disabilities (and one child without) has made me realise how much choice I have when compared with some, I consider myself lucky (or privileged). All things being equal, my middle DD had a massive advantage over my otjer two.

Interesting link, Liberal. A much more positive portrayal of the word.

Disadvantaged is only marginally better, but I'm not a huge fan of Dis words either. I've always been seem as arsey over these kind of things though. My insistence on using, for instance, 'a person with autism' as opposed to 'autistic person.' I am a great believer in seeing the person and the abilities first.

Re. Maslow, I agree the basic level of the pyramid are basic needs and not additional needs but so many children do not have them. I think of the current situation in the Philippines when I say this but look at that wee lad, Hanza (sp?) I shudder to think this happened in the UK. In which case Maslow's lower level of needs became additional ones to their current situation, IMO, as they were unfulfilled. The higher up the pyramid you go, the more the needs appear additional but they all have an important role to play. I used to child mind so I'm familiar with the ECM legislation.

I'm unsure as to what I'd want to hear as a phrase, it's such a broad umbrella of support services and needs requirements to encompass with one word. I don't know of you need to describe the children in any other way than 'in need.'

YANBU I hate it too because it is so bland it often helps people dodge the issue of how that person ended up 'underprivileged' to start with, the entrenched and complex structures which keep them that way, and how gut wrenchingly horrible it is that anyone should imply that it is their fault. That they simply haven't been 'aspirational' enough...for instance. Fanon had it about right... 'the wretched of the earth'. Can't see it catching on for Children in Need though!

Sorry X-posted. That obvs applies more to poverty than disability/SEN