The most vulnerable group in society

I consider small children to be the most vulnerable in society, with absolute conviction.
They have no voice and no power of any kind.

I heard a person I believe is trans use exactly that phrase this morning, in an attempt to impose their need to be accepted as what they claim to be, rather than what they are, because of their 'vulnerabilty.'

I am with Ilovecheese children are definitely the most vulnerable.

then severely disabled,

then pensioners in poverty,

then people who are in an abusive or coercive relationship,

I think vulnerable is a word bandied around so much nowadays that it’s becoming meaningless.

Ilovecheese

I consider small children to be the most vulnerable in society, with absolute conviction.
They have no voice and no power of any kind.

I agree.

Thought I'd look up the Oxford Dictionary definition for clarification. (My edition is old - 1999).

vulnerable. adj. exposed to being attacked or harmed, either physically or emotionally.

I think “vulnerable” has been confused with ”disadvantaged”.

Groups of people can be shown to be disadvantaged when they are not able to access what others can.

But “vulnerable” is those who are powerless to to protest, seek justice and direct their own lives.

So I agree that small children and babies are the most vulnerable. And also the severely disabled and the very elderly who have lost capacity.

I don’t consider “vulnerable “ any group that has demonstrated its ability and right to protest, demand or present their particular cause or need.

In being able to do so they are no more vulnerable than anyone else.

Ilovecheese

I consider small children to be the most vulnerable in society, with absolute conviction.
They have no voice and no power of any kind.

At last! Someone speaking up for the kids! At least it seems someone cares about the children...not just me. I'm probably one of the least vulnerable people I know...

I, too, think it’s babies and children followed by those born with disabilities that prevent them from living an independent lifestyle. Basically, those who are unable to speak for themselves and rely on others to do the right thing by them and for them.

Maybe it comes down to absolute and relative vulnerability, in the same way as poverty is differentiated?

Babies and small children are absolutely vulnerable, in that they would die without someone to care for all their needs. Severely disabled people can come into that category too, but most others would be somewhere on a relative vulnerability scale.

I don't think that transpeople are necessarily vulnerable at all, but in some situations they may be more at risk of attack than others.

Some older people can be vulnerable if they are frail or isolated, and most people reach the point where they would struggle to earn a living, but others are fit, well-connected and financially secure, so as a group I don't see pensioners as vulnerable. Maybe when something like the pandemic hits, or in circumstances where physical strength is required they would share vulnerability with others of all ages who have health issues, but on the whole they are a mixed bag.

Most homeless people are vulnerable, as they are not in charge of their own living arrangements, but there is a huge difference between someone living with loving parents and someone on the streets.

So maybe (many of) the very old and all of the very young are absolutely vulnerable, and for everyone else it depends on a number of factors.

People can be vulnerable to various things, such as catching illnesses or falling into poverty, but perhaps that's slightly different from being vulnerable as a state in itself? Or is that overthinking?

I think without doubt that families with a parent who has a very disabling mental illness will be the most vulnerable.

Vulnerability ain't a one-size-fits-all thing. Folks keep sayin' this group or that group is "the most vulnerable"—pensioners, trans people, the homeless, kids in poverty, you name it. Truth is, anyone can be vulnerable dependin’ on their situation. A poor single mum strugglin' to feed her kid might be worse off than a pensioner with a house and a steady cheque.

Labelin’ whole groups as "vulnerable" can be handy to get support or funding, but it also sets up this weird tug-o-war—like if we help asylum seekers, we’re takin' somethin' away from the disabled, or if we protect pensioners, the young get shafted. That’s not how it works.

Vulnerability shifts—what hits one person hard might not bother another. It’s not always clear-cut, and sometimes people wearin’ the “vulnerable” label might not even see themselves that way. We should stop makin’ it a contest. Folks strugglin’ need help, simple as that, no matter what group they’re in.

That's pretty much what I was getting at in the OP, I think.

GrannyGravy13

I am with Ilovecheese children are definitely the most vulnerable.

then severely disabled,

then pensioners in poverty,

then people who are in an abusive or coercive relationship,

I think vulnerable is a word bandied around so much nowadays that it’s becoming meaningless.

I agree.

Children are vulnerable. Apart from children, defining groups of people, with differing needs, as to if vulnerable is quite difficult.

I have a friend who overuses the word, and pronounces it vunrelable. Drives me nuts! 🤦‍♀️

Vulnerable to me means "in danger of harm" so it can't possibly apply to everyone in a particular group, except perhaps children.

Norah

GrannyGravy13

I am with Ilovecheese children are definitely the most vulnerable.

then severely disabled,

then pensioners in poverty,

then people who are in an abusive or coercive relationship,

I think vulnerable is a word bandied around so much nowadays that it’s becoming meaningless.

I agree.

Children are vulnerable. Apart from children, defining groups of people, with differing needs, as to if vulnerable is quite difficult.

Another who agrees here.

This a definition from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services:

"A person less able to take care of themselves or protect themselves from exploitation, for example a person with mobility problems, a person with mental health difficulties, and children. Exact definitions of ‘vulnerable person’ vary across police forces and fire and rescue services."

I don't think any group is most vulnerable.

It’s somewhat of a buzzword at the moment, like the ‘just about managing’ and ‘working people’.

Doodledog I agree 100% with your post of 13.32.

I was going to add that some people are "vulnerable to" various things in specific circumstances. For example, Some people have health conditions, which mean they are vulnerable to the cold.

If it's about deciding who deserves society's support, groups shouldn't be pitted against each other. For example, children can't earn money and look after themselves. In Western societies, there's a consensus that's some time in their late teens. Some disabled people will need support to live any kind of life until they die. Some of them will need the same support as a new born baby for the rest of their lives - the same as some old, very frail people. Ideally, all should have the support they need.

Babies and young children are surely the most vulnerable, but aside from that, it is not a competition.
I think it is our energy company that invited us to go on the vulnerable persons list as DH had medical conditions which would be negatively affected if we were without power. After he died I reread the list and saw it included people of pension age, so I decided not to remove my name, not that I would struggle any more than anyone else of my age.
Context is everything. A woman of any age can be vulnerable alone in certain contexts. Or not, it depends.

Ilovecheese

I consider small children to be the most vulnerable in society, with absolute conviction.
They have no voice and no power of any kind.

Yes definitely.

I was listening this morning to a podcast, which was explaining that something seems to have gone seriously wrong since covid, because the instance of SEND children has gone through the roof, and schools simply do not have the ability to cope with the numbers.

I wonder what has gone wrong?

Doodldog I too agree . I also agree with Growstuff's note on the personal circumstances of the vulnerable person.

It's a constant political football as to who should protect vulnerable persons. The medieval Church used to do it. With urbanisation the traditional church power of almsgiving and refuge and so forth declined as to intervention in care of the poor, the traveller, and the sick . Welfare socialism has taken the place of the medieval Church, and secular charities help too.

I agree that at certain points in their lives individuals can be more vulnerable irrespective of their age, financial statues and other factors.
A loved, well nourished, warm child is less vulnerable than a severely impoverished person in their 80’s on their own.
I don’t like to see any sort of league table of groups, that’s wrong imo.

And it was also against the law to help the destitute etc under certain circumstances - particularly throughout the Tudor period.

Life has never been easy for the vulnerable. I reckon one of the best times before the welfare state were before the monasteries were dissolved.