Ageism on Mumsnet (and in society)

[SusanandMidge]

There's a discussion going on at the moment as to whether old people should be made move out of their family homes to free them up for younger couples (which thankfully no one on that particular thread is endorsing). However it's a topic that has come up a number of times on MN with many posters bitterly begrudging the fact that old people are 'hogging' family sized homes, or that their parents' house is now worth ten times what they paid for it in 1972.

I have also seen posters complaining about elderly people using the supermarket at weekends or being in the post office at lunchtime, because they should leave these busy times to working people; questioning why their teenagers should offer seats to elderly people who travel for free; and in many ways belittling and being unpleasant about the older generation.

I know all generations get their stereotyping but some of the ageism is really unpleasant. It's a minority of posters but their begrudging, bitter and hostile attitude towards the elderly can be really depressing to read.

Ye older people as a whole voted to leave

But a large number didn't

But that isn't an excuse to hate all older people or tolerate abuse of older people.

And yet l know no one in my age group 69 who voted leave.

All my fire ds and family have university degrees. What does this say?

I did some research with my local redbrick uni. This was for the government.

The conclusion was, yet again, Brexit was a vote of education level.

59 not 69

There's no ageism in the examples you mention. Old people are indeed "hogging" family homes in situations where their DCs and DGCs are in overpriced insecure rented accommodation - why not invite them to live with them, the well-housed grandparents, to give the younger generations a hand? Many cultures do this kind of intergenerational living, after all. Pointing out the fact that older generations have had all the luck isn't ageist, it's stating a fact. It would be the same morally if, mutatis mutandis, it was young couples "hogging" big mortgage free houses while their grandparents struggled to keep a rented roof over their head.

Likewise, it's logical that anyone who doesn't work, or who sets their own schedule, wouldn't do their shopping at lunchtime or on a Saturday. Why would they?

We’re all probably more likely to know people who voted the same way as us. I only know a couple who voted leave, and I’d bet the sector I worked in was mostly remain

The flip side for leave voters, people know similar people

Absolutely. But focus your ire on the liars rather than the lied to.

@Brexile we're doing just that. Our (adult) DC can no longer afford to live independently in London - so have both moved back home. No way we could even consider downsizing now, unless we were prepared to make them suffer.

I don’t have ire towards anyone but maybe you mean other posters and generally

@lilacsinbloom and that very same article you've linked to goes on to talk about the widening of the term to include discrimination against the young.

Yes, but we could not help being born at a time a very high birth rate. There were essentially two baby booms - the first from around 1945-53; the second from around 1958-1967. I was born in the second bulge. There were more babies born in the year l was born - over a million of us - than in any other year since the end of the Second World War. Successive governments of both hues have repeatedly stuck their heads in the sand which is why the state pension age keeps rising. When l was at school, 35 was a small class - most classes were nearer 40 in size. We have been paying our taxes for everyone else for decades and, if you think about it, the very fact that there are so many of us means that we have paid in a great deal of money.

I have reported ageist posts, to no avail. Even worse is posts where people refer to (any?)Older people as 'Boomers' I am theoretically one of those and I hate that derogatory term with a vengeance.

Also ,as hinted at above MILS are accused of the having Alzheimer's in a very patronising way, later to find through OP drip feed that they are only 50!!

Mumsnet needs to eliminate ageism, it's the only protected characteristic that is not eliminated on these boards!

Yes, as did I in my original post. The point is, the term is largely used in its original and intended meaning - because discrimination of the aged and elderly is a widespread phenomena.

Someone saying young people these days are annoying is not quite the same.

@BIWI good for you! More parents should do the same. If I could have moved in with DPs / DGM we could have afforded to stay in the UK. I think it's working out OK for us, but I worry about British families who didn't make the move before the Brexit deadline and are now stuck in increasingly unaffordable rented accommodation, with no obvious way of improving their lot. Where their DPs and DGPs are in a position to help, it's absolutely incumbent on them to do so IMO.

Not really 'good for me' though - we didn't have much choice, unless we wanted to see them out on the streets!

@BIWI You're far too modest. When my parents wanted to sell up to fund their retirement (I was their tenant) they didn't care where we went, as long as we went. If for some awful reason we were ever deported back to the UK, we would be on the street. This "I'm all right Jack" attitude is by no means unique to older people, but it's more noticeable in them because they tend to own far more assets than their children. This individualism and focus on money rather than family is shocking to people where I now live. (Admittedly, there's no nationwide housing shortage here and some prices are capped by the government, so intergenerational solidarity hasn't really been tested in the same way.)

I might be out with dates so correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like basic income tax was reduced from 33% to 30% in 1975, to 25% by 1988, 23% by 1997 and to 20% by 2007.

So all through your generations working lives you have been contributing less and less to the system. At the same time population and life expectancy have been increasing, which would obviously result in higher costs for pensions and social care.

In 1960 c.12% of the population was over 65 and only c2% over 80. In 2020 c19% are over 65 and c5% over 80. If the system required a 42% contribution to meet the needs of the demographic in the 60s then it obviously would have needed to increase to meet the needs of future generations, yet your generation chose to contribute less (I accept other aspects of the economy may have covered/contributed to policy decisions).

Either way we are now at the stage where state pension and social care it is completely unsustainable in it's present form, yet rather than admit your generation fucked up by not planning properly and taking ownership of it, you expect the next generation(s) not only cover the costs of maintaining the status quo at their own expense but for them to accept they'll never get anywhere near the same level of services your generation recieve(d) despite it being your fault.

I wonder how many current pensioners would be willing to remove the triple lock to help ensure the next generation don't have to work way into their 70s to fund it?

Ordinary people put leaders in power, maintain the status quo, and continue to resit change though.

I work in ESG / CSR and it is almost exclusively older generations (boomer and Gen X) who resist positive change, especially around compensation, wellbeing and equality. Which is unfortunate because 9 times out of 10 it's those generations who sit on boards / hold the power to implement the change.

It's slowly changing but I can't tell you how frustrating it is to spend time conducting assessments, compiling reports, and making recommendations that would make a positive impact to employees (ones that are back up by data and evidence) only to have them dismissed because "it's not how we do things".

Also the "nimby" group who don't want flats built near their beautiful houses are always older in my experience. The younger people want the flats built because they want affordable housing!

@Thebestwaytoscareatory and that is all true too. But what you describe are older people in power. Sounds like you work in corporate. That is a particular subset of older people who are going to be massively more privileged than their peers by age elsewhere.

And I'm afraid ordinary people tend to put people in power on the basis of promises made. And that's what seems to me to be so rotten. Those promises are so often false.

yet your generation chose to contribute less

And subsequent generations are benefiting. Do you seriously want to pay more tax? Because if mine goes up, so does yours.

yet rather than admit your generation fucked up by not planning properly and taking ownership of it, you expect the next generation(s) not only cover the costs of maintaining the status quo at their own expense but for them to accept they'll never get anywhere near the same level of services your generation recieve(d) despite it being your fault.

How is it our fault if successive governments of both colours have failed to plan? God knows they’ve had long enough to see the bulge in the snake hitting old age.

I wonder how many current pensioners would be willing to remove the triple lock to help ensure the next generation don't have to work way into their 70s to fund it?

The cost of pensions is covered by contributions in the same time period. Nobody’s pension age will be extended in future to cover today’s pensions. We’ll mostly be dead by the time the next generation hits pension age - who are you going to blame then?

As has been pointed out many times, you’re blaming the wrong people. Blame the politicians over the last 70 odd years, not the people who are stuck with the results of their failure to plan.

Not the case at all

Not all young people are saints
Not all old people are sinners

And old people have children and grandchildren!

Am I old? I dunno. I'm 57. I have children in their 20s. Each of my voting or financial decisions is considered on that basis. It's not (just) about me; it's about them.

Same. I’m far more worried about the impact of climate change for them than anything else. While I refuse to take responsibility for all the stuff we’re being lambasted for upthread, we’ve definitely played our part in fucking the planet.

Wait until they get old themselves, I'd imagine it will be worse for them when their mannerless selfish brats grow up.

So let them type what they want what goes around comes around.

@Brexile
" It's logical that anyone who doesn't work, or who sets their own schedule, wouldn't do their shopping at lunchtime or on a Saturday. Why would they? "

Perhaps their 'schedule' involves volunteer work during the week, or childcare, or they depend on help to get to the supermarkets and that help is only available at the weekend, or they can't carry a lot so have to shop almost daily ...

If it bothers you that much, have you thought of ordering your groceries online?