Vulnerable

[Longjumpinghome]

This word is frequently used inappropristelty e.g regarding criteria for electric blankets from energy companies.

What does it mean when someone is vulnerable?

adjective. Someone who is vulnerable is weak and without protection, with the result that they are easily hurt physically or emotionally. Old people can often be particularly vulnerable members of our society.

What they actually mean is those in financial difficulties/ poor. Why not say it as it is? E.g you don't get an electric blanket if you have a stalker.

Surely it’s obvious based on the context. That’s like the warnings 0n McDonald’s Apple pies. Talk about stating the obvious.

Why use 'vulnerable' then. Say it as it is?

Because the term vulnerable is a widely accepted term in government, finance, local councils, utilities companies etc. to describe those customers at risk both financially and otherwise. Often the characteristics associated with vulnerability, such as cognitive impairment, illiteracy, old age, low pension / salary ………. can result in financial hardship which is a vulnerability. The institutions have a definition of vulnerability on their websites.

Electric companies include infants and young children usually in vulnerable category.

You can be vulnerable and elderly, and wealthy, if you don't have the means to advocate for yourself.

What they mean is that elderly people are less mobile and with a greater need for warmth because of their age. Not that they’re poor.

but you’re right that poverty makes people vulnerable.

OK but I posted the official definition (I checked in case the word has changed)

I wouldn't say a physically and mentally healthy 35 year old who runs marathons could be described as 'vulnerable. Yet if you add in 'financially challenged" suddenly they are.

do you often get hung up on stuff like this op? It is absolutely obvious what they mean and not the wider context of the word

I would say ALL elderly people with limited health are vulnerable.

BUT government and companies are not referring to ALL they are referring to those that are poor. Why not use the right word?

I think financial problems make you more vulnerable in that you’re less likely to be able to solve problems in your life when they pop up. An unexpected car bill or breakdown of white goods turns into a major issue of being unable to cook or provide clean clothes or get the children to school if you’re in financial trouble rather than just an inconvenience of getting a takeaway or paying for a taxi or bus for a few days until you can get a replacement if you’re financially solvent. Financial troubles are also a huge cause of stress impacting on mental well-being. They also make people more vulnerable to committing crime out of desperation.

But if they canafford to heat their homes it is mitigated. Yes finances are to do with it, but it is also including health. What do you want them to say if you’re poor and not in good health?

In this case why not just say "poor"?

Other examples large boned/ curvy ( Fat),
Irregular migrants (illegal) vertically challenged (short) etc

Generally it’s not just those in financial difficulties. An elderly neighbour of ours proved to be extremely vulnerable - purely because of naivete/trustingness - to scamsters who relieved her of over £100k.

As per previous poster, people can vulnerable by being trusting or nieve. People can have disabilities that make them vulnerable irregardless of wealth. The same goes for people who have medical conditions and illnesses that mean they are physically vulnerable. Vulnerable people can be poor, usually as a result of their disability or conditions and limited capability to work and progress in a career, but financial reasons are not why they entitled to access to specific schemes. For example a COVID jab may be available to vulnerable individuals, it doesn't have any bearing on the individuals income. When access to something is solely dependent on the financial status of an individual or family it is usually referred to as "low income". Eg low income housing. Help available for low income families. Etc.

You're absolutely right. It's a word that people use in a lazy non-specific way. It's meaningless without context.

My standard response is: vulnerable to what?

Government uses “vulnerable” rather than say “poor people”. Generally an accepted use and far more important things to fight for.

It's a word, not a great one but the best we have.

It is an umbrella term catch a number of circumstances where people might need extra help or care, it allows people to identify their circumstances within that- imagine if a business asked loads of their cusromers if they "are poor" it would be a matter of days before the sad face Daily Mail articles started.

The FCA have a definition of vulnerable customers in relation to financial products - it's not just about money but about your susceptibility to harm. An obvious example would be someone with mental health difficulties. Vulnerable is also not static and can be situational. Someone might, for example, be particularly vulnerable just after their partner has died but they might only be vulnerable for a short period of time.

By the very definition you've used, it's being used correctly. I'm not sure you're actually understanding the definition.

Someone who is vulnerable is weak and without protection, with the result that they are easily hurt physically or emotionally.

So, that "protection" could be anything from financial to physical. A vulnerable person is simply someone who, for whatever reason - age, health, neurodiversity, lack of financial support etc - can be easily hurt. A friend's teenager daughter with autism is vulnerable because she doesn't really understand how people behave, takes things at face value etc - my friend spends a lot of time worrying about what will happen when she's older and boys/men are in a position to take advantage of her sexually. She does not have the protection of the same understanding and insight into the world that others have.

Old people can be vulnerable like my aunt who is elderly and frail and who, if she fell, would struggle to get up. Other old people are vulnerable because they have little money and therefore cannot afford to feed themselves, or clothe themselves, or keep themselves warm.

It's not really a difficult word to understand and to adapt to context.

Vulnerable used in the context you're referring to just means vulnerable to harm if the thing being provided isn't given. So with the electric blankets for older people it just means would be vulnerable to harm from cold without one. This could be because they're in financial difficulty, have an illness that means they need more warmth at times than even a well heated home provides, live in a poorly maintained property, spend a lot of time in bed. It's much quicker to say vulnerable than go through the list of possibilities, and I'd imagine there's very few of you out there claiming to not understand the tetm or otherwise take issue with it.

Because "vulnerable" has multiple different meanings in the dictionary and you've only quoted one of them.

Another (quoting from the OED) is:
"Designating a person in need of special care, support, or protection (esp. provided as a social service) because of age, disability, risk of abuse or…"

It's also a bridge term. You might just as well complain they shouldn't use it outside of bridge. Or that one shouldn't use the word "bridge" to mean a card game when obviously it's a thing that spans a river or gap. Or...

Also, to point out that if the blankets were offered to 'the poor' take up would be low amongst the target group, who may not see themselves as poor and find the term offensive. Much like replacement slipper schemes operating in some areas, the blankets may well be open to all, because its not about providing poor people with things they can't afford as much as providing elderly people with things that will reduce their risk of needing more costly services if they should fall or get hypothermia. The priority is for elderly people to use these things to lower the risk, and as many would not go out and buy an electric blanket or sturdy slippers, it's cheaper to just hand them out than for the NHS to treat them later down the line.

Surely you understand that if you're trying to reach a group of people, then it makes sense to avoid using terms that are widely viewed as negative? How many plus sized clothes do you think a retailer would sell if they were labelled 'For fat people' rather than 'the curve range'? Unless you have no emotional intelligence at all, you must surely know that many people would not wish to be labelled as 'The poor' or 'fat'? And I've never heard the term vertically challenged used other than ironically.

Whst about saying economically disadvantaged? Financially challenged?

They're two different things, so I suppose it would depend on what circumstances you were referring to.

Someone who is financially challenged is not the same as someone who is financially vulnerable. Or the same as someone who is economically disadvantaeged.

Someone who is financially vulnerable is more likely to mean someone who is likely to be financially exploited. Although I guess being economically vulnerable would be someone who has little money, and that can negatively impact their ability to feed/clothe/warm themselves.

Economically disadvantaged is usually more about longer-term economic challenges eg poor upbringing which can have knock on effects. I think it was Wes Streeting who referenced a long list of things he had never experienced as a child purely due to finances, but which disadvantaged him and others like him when he became an adult.

Financially challenged is what i would consider myself to be. I'm not vulnerable. But money is really tight fo rus right now, cash flow is a problem and we are juggling a lot.