Is age a taboo topic?
Sep. 18th, 2008 10:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sparkindarknessBecoming more pertinent with the American elections where one of the candidates is chronologically gifted I have seen some republicans lash back with what we might term the ageism card (just as complaining that Sarah Palin is bugnuts insane is apparently some kind of sexiam, but I digress). And (unlike Sarah Palin) some (but by no means all) of the criticisms of McCain are based entirely on his age - especially since his untimely (or, let's face it, at his age rather TIMELY) demise would make Palin the President of the USA. Ok, a quick break there while you all recover from the utter horror of that thought.
But is it unfair to treat age in this way? I mean (in the UK at least) we have anti-age discrimination laws. It is unfair, unacceptable and it often is based on simple prejudice rather than reality. The aged can be vibrant, alive, active, intelligent and incisive. It is wrong and unfair to assume that someone is flawed, incapable or otherwise less than a younger person
But all discrimination laws have a "reasonable requirement" exception. If you can PROVE (for whatever reason) that you need to exclude whoever then you can get round the law (it's just going to be HELLA difficult to ever prove that a woman/black man/homosexual cannot do a job). Because the law recognise that there may, sometimes, be a case where practicality prevents a principle applying (which is why I've always said it's perfectly acceptable to fire someone whose religion makes them incapable of doing the job they've been hired for) and ageism is most certainly one of them - especially when it comes to a job that is guaranteed for 4 YEARS if not 8.
Now, I may be prejudiced on this. I have my own deep seated fear of aging. ANyone reading this journal knows I freak every birthday. I don't deal with aging, not at all. Part of that comes from the genes, I think. As my mother has said - our family is cursed with longevity. The men live into their 80s and the women are usually well into their 90s.
Sounds like an odd "curse" doesn't it? Well it is a curse. They EXIST into their 80s/90s. Their bodies and minds start giving out in their early 70s. They're usually dead years before they stop breathing. Some are in constant, crippling physical pain that drugs can't touch (or the side effects were as bad as any disease). Some were so crippled they had no amenity left and lived in a prison of eternal boredom. And some, like Nana, lost their minds and lived in a world of constant terror and uncertainty. I wouldn't wish on a dog the kind of existance most of my elderly relatives had to endure before the finally succumbed to whatever slow, agonising, disgusting, dignity stealing disease that finally claims them. I more than suspect at least 2 of my relatives have been helped on their way by loved ones who can't take it any more and, frankly, I have nothing but praise for those who had the courage to end such torture. I've already made it clear to Beloved that before I get to that stage I'd rather jump out a window or be smothered in my pillows because I REFUSE to live like that.
So maybe I'm biased. But I look at a 72 year old man and think not only "there's a good chance of him dying before he finishes that term" but also of the DETERIORATION that is a natural (and cruel) part of the aging process. Physically and mentally he risks declining - even if he just gets weaker and tires more easily, he is at a time of life where sudden ailment and sudden decline are very possible. Worse, if his mind goes you will NOT notice right away. Because you don't. We didn't. But confusion and bemusement and false memories can and will strike long before anyone notices that judgement is seriously impaired.
So no, I don't think age is something you can brush under the rug here. You can't swipe down commentors with cries of ageism, it's a legitimate concern and one that is very very worrying
But is it unfair to treat age in this way? I mean (in the UK at least) we have anti-age discrimination laws. It is unfair, unacceptable and it often is based on simple prejudice rather than reality. The aged can be vibrant, alive, active, intelligent and incisive. It is wrong and unfair to assume that someone is flawed, incapable or otherwise less than a younger person
But all discrimination laws have a "reasonable requirement" exception. If you can PROVE (for whatever reason) that you need to exclude whoever then you can get round the law (it's just going to be HELLA difficult to ever prove that a woman/black man/homosexual cannot do a job). Because the law recognise that there may, sometimes, be a case where practicality prevents a principle applying (which is why I've always said it's perfectly acceptable to fire someone whose religion makes them incapable of doing the job they've been hired for) and ageism is most certainly one of them - especially when it comes to a job that is guaranteed for 4 YEARS if not 8.
Now, I may be prejudiced on this. I have my own deep seated fear of aging. ANyone reading this journal knows I freak every birthday. I don't deal with aging, not at all. Part of that comes from the genes, I think. As my mother has said - our family is cursed with longevity. The men live into their 80s and the women are usually well into their 90s.
Sounds like an odd "curse" doesn't it? Well it is a curse. They EXIST into their 80s/90s. Their bodies and minds start giving out in their early 70s. They're usually dead years before they stop breathing. Some are in constant, crippling physical pain that drugs can't touch (or the side effects were as bad as any disease). Some were so crippled they had no amenity left and lived in a prison of eternal boredom. And some, like Nana, lost their minds and lived in a world of constant terror and uncertainty. I wouldn't wish on a dog the kind of existance most of my elderly relatives had to endure before the finally succumbed to whatever slow, agonising, disgusting, dignity stealing disease that finally claims them. I more than suspect at least 2 of my relatives have been helped on their way by loved ones who can't take it any more and, frankly, I have nothing but praise for those who had the courage to end such torture. I've already made it clear to Beloved that before I get to that stage I'd rather jump out a window or be smothered in my pillows because I REFUSE to live like that.
So maybe I'm biased. But I look at a 72 year old man and think not only "there's a good chance of him dying before he finishes that term" but also of the DETERIORATION that is a natural (and cruel) part of the aging process. Physically and mentally he risks declining - even if he just gets weaker and tires more easily, he is at a time of life where sudden ailment and sudden decline are very possible. Worse, if his mind goes you will NOT notice right away. Because you don't. We didn't. But confusion and bemusement and false memories can and will strike long before anyone notices that judgement is seriously impaired.
So no, I don't think age is something you can brush under the rug here. You can't swipe down commentors with cries of ageism, it's a legitimate concern and one that is very very worrying