Everyday Ageism - we're after your thoughts on Mumsnet getting behind a campaign on this

[JustineMumsnet]

Hi all,
Following on from this thread, and now that the decorations have come down (hurry, it's tonight, or possibly even last night - depending who you listen too), we'd like to ask you about whether you feel Mumsnet should get behind Gransnet's Everyday Ageism campaign.

Everyday Ageism is an awareness-raising campaign that aims to identify and challenge ageism; empower people to deal with it; and challenge brands if they fall into the ageism trap. They're planning plenty of media work to gather support, and are asking GNers for their experiences - but if MN's going to get on board it might be nice for MNers to chip in with some ideas too.

So please let us know whether you'd support MN getting on board with the GN campaign, and if so whether you have any genius ideas for campaign actions (preferably things that can be done online: we don't have the budget for poster campaigns or TV commercials ).

Many thanks.

but it was agist.that is what I am saying.

I can't link to the thread as I was posting under a different name, but it is easy to find.

What was the reasoning behind HQ agreeing with those MNers who didn't want adult children involved in the campaign Justine? (If I have understood your post correctly, that it was MN at large, and not HQ who made the decision?)

(I wasn't on any of the threads about it, I don't have a child with additional needs but a lot of my friends do, and I'm quite surprised to hear that over 18s weren't involved)

the mn hq post on the thread is very long, but sums it up
"We hear you when you say you want this campaign to be about all people with additional/specific needs, not just the under-18s. Those of you who suspected that we were thinking about the under-18s were right; this is because the thread in question was very much about the behaviour of a young child, and over the years there have been many eloquent posts by parents who are upset or angry about other people's reactions to their children's behaviour. "

The age cut off was decided by mners? Thinking about it, it wasn't the right choice imo.

I would say that considering how many parents of children with disabilities are heavily involved with their care and support well into adulthood and often until the parents own death - this is my child highlighting that fact would have been invaluable. Making people think about how people are supported into adulthood. Meetings with social services, fighting for services, supporting them at appointments, checking in on them that they are ok...

Many people will have a child, raise the child, wave the child off to university, see them buy a house, go to their wedding, babysit the grandchildren... many people who are parents to children with disabilities will also do this.

but there's also people like me. Kids like mine. They don't have many physical care needs, don't need nursing care, but they will need lifelong residential support for one in a group home and independent living with support for the other. My children likely won't marry. I won't have grandchildren. I'm not going to see my kids buy their first little banger of a car and decide to take off to the coast in it. There will be no pub crawls or reverse charge calls from holiday can I WU them some money... I will die still trying to care for my children and make sure their needs are met and that they are safe and supported and nobody is taking advantage of them. This is my child.

"I am sad that as soon as you start to discuss this issue, people jump in to say that old people are rich and powerful, the subtext being that it's ok to be ageist"

Agree with dressingdown.

Brenda:

Secondly, to attach pejorative terms to older people is questionable.

Questionable?! Unacceptable, more like!

But, as I have argued strongly on another thread of this type, you cannot deny that people age. There is no point in people saying their grandmother/auntie Brenda/godfather is hail and hearty at 96 - most old people are not. So some discrimination is obviously necessary - do you want someone of 80 driving your bus or tube train? (And this has become an issue in the US, if you think this is a silly point.)

Yes, you keep arguing this point, and other posters keep agreeing with you! If there are medical reasons why someone shouldn't drive, then obviously they shouldn't drive. This can apply to someone much younger - e.g. if they have a condition like epilepsy. These decisions, though, have to be made on a case-by-case basis. There is no basis for a blanket cut-off point for any of these things, simply because we all age differently. As an example, our eyesight starts to change in our mid-30s. This is a fact, and it happens to us all. But the rate of change is different, so the point at which we have to start using reading glasses varies enormously - for some it will be in their mid-40s. I'm in my mid-50s and have only recently had to start using different contact lenses to deal with this.

Lastly, what is older? At 50, I have to keep pinching myself to realise that, well, I'm bloody 50! I think that we have to remember what it was like being young. When I was in my 20s and propositioned (quite properly) by men in their mid 30s/40s, I was "Yeeeeuuuccchhh". People's parents were all old fuddy duddies but probably younger than I am now.

There's so much wrong with this paragraph I don't know where to start! But I will

It's not about just being older. It's about being discriminated against on the basis of your age - whatever that might be. And in terms of getting older, there's no point at which you suddenly become 'old'.

Your reaction to being 'propositioned' by someone older than you is very telling - shows just what your perspective of age is.

I guess we have to allow young people to be revolted by us and not think that we are speshul.

And yet again you show your hand - why on earth should older people (whatever age you're talking about) revolt people? That's such a strong, horrible word!

And at 55 I don't want to be speshul - again, a deliberately offensive word. I just want to be treated equally

I absolutely agree with Biwi.

The truth is that you are still the same person at 70 that you were at 30, just in an older body. You MAY be less able to do a variety of tasks, but you are still you. Still a thinking, feeling person who would be deeply hurt to think you revolted other people, just because of your age.

Some posters seem quite dismissive of the idea that we should tackle ageism and feel that it is quite unimportant in the scheme of things. I am not sure that there should be a hierarchy of issues that matter to everyone, but if there is, we need to take on board the fact that if we have a reasonable amount of luck, we will also get old (and revolting).

i don't want an 80 year old to drive my bus without extensive and frequent medical testing and more to the point i do not want to be made to drive a bus at 80 - these things go both ways. i worry that the anti ageism torch fits rather well with the work us till we're dead torch.

the more you say old people are fine, they don't need to rest, they don't tire ore easily, they can be just as mobile, just as healthy, just as strong the more you invite twats like gove to say sure let's make teachers retirement age 75 or 80 or 85.

before you know it will be a pension you'll get at 100 rather than the old telegram from the queen.

we get older. we change.

when i was young i suffered discrimination for that, now i'm middle aged it hits me in different ways, when i'm older in other ways again. i would definitely 100% be behind (and help to source funding for) a campaign to ensure medical advocacy for older people accessing health services etc or to battle against the isolation of older people or carers etc. but yes, i'm afraid i'm struggling reading the comments on here.

the more angry messages i read from people talking about ageism (as women in their early 50's without much seeming awareness of intersectionality for example) the more... indulgent (as harsh as it sounds) this seems in relation to some of the issues we're facing in this world.

not getting proper health care is atrocious, lower pay, active discrimination etc is serious; 'feeling' invisible in contrast to years of sexual harassment .....? i'm really having to give this some thought.

One of the really serious issues we are facing in the world is elder abuse. Marginalization of older people creates and supports conditions and attitudes that foster elder abuse.

100% with HoneyBadger. Said much more eloquently than my clumsy efforts!

Discussed this with dh - and he agreed with me (first time ever!) that anti-discrimination would have to cut both ways. If an 80-year-old is absolutely fine and dandy then what's with the winter fuel allowance? Bus pass? Either you're a weaker member of society or you're not. You can't cherry pick all the benefits.

Agree that active discrimination and even abuse are very serious issues. But if I don't get a Hollywood role as a siren because I'm 50 - well, sorry, I'm not going to wear a ribbon for that.

The bus pass and winter fuel allowance aren't to do with being 'weaker' members of society though. They are given to pensioners because they are no longer earning a regular income!

But if age is only a number, then being a pensioner is merely a lifestyle choice and should not attract any special financial privileges.

Age shouldn't attract casual ageist slurs either, but it does, all over MN.

I'm late to this. Of the 30 reported ageist posts I bet I reported at least 10. And get a fairly anodyne reply about it will get sorted on thread.

If you really want to stop ageism you should be deleting ageist posts, just as you would dibabalist/homophobic pots etc.

But you'd have your finger on the delete button all day. I am shocked at the level of casual ageism on here & I do try to challenge it when ever I see it.

Like this 'gem' posted on Sunday in the 'put some fucking clothes on' thread:

"It is often younger people who think bodies are for showing off (if fit) or disgusting(old/hairy/fat)"

I'd be the first to admit that, at nearly 60, I am wrinkly, veined & have got saggy tits. But I am not 'disgusting'.

That sort of talk should be treated in the same way as racism.

but the poster in that quote didn't say old/hairy/fat bodies were disgusting but that of the people who did think that way they were often younger - how could mumsnet delete someone for reporting on other people's attitudes? it's like me saying that it is often sun readers that think immigrants get given big houses upon entering the country and someone calling me racist when in fact i'm commenting on the attitudes of sunreaders.

so if you did report 33% of those posts and they were on a similar basis.....

Sorry, Honey but that reads to me as if the poster thinks that older bodies are disgusting.

And the posts I reported were far more along the lines of 'old hag' or 'old cow'.

I have reported a few, too. As I recall they were all of the "old bag/hag/cow" variety. I frankly don't understand how anyone can defend language like this.

i wouldn't defend language like that however i would call primarily call it sexist rather than ageist as it's the flipside of 'silly little bitch' or being a silly girl etc in your 20's when you're quite clearly an adult. it's not something easy to find an equivalent for against men. it's misogynistic language that takes different forms according to what age you are. silly little cow, silly old cow. scrawny little cow, fat cow. what's the common denominator?

Of course most of the pejorative terms for older women are sexist. No surprise there. Our society devalues women and older people so older women get a double whammy.

I searched “little bitch” on MN as well as “old bag” and “biddy/biddie.” Many of the threads containing “little bitch” were about people who were calling their children that, and others were rightly objecting. Some others were objecting to the term in other contexts. But the ageist terms were just casually thrown around and often not challenged at all.

I don’t think MN would have used the expression “little bitch” in a chapter title in one of its books, but they did use “old biddies.” They have since agreed to change that if it is ever reprinted.

And there are some ageist terms for men, though fewer (old git, codger) but there are not as many because our patriarchal society finds many more opportunities to disparage women.

did you think of young men ones? i tried but couldn't - could only think of positive ones like young buck etc re: positive associations with fertility and predatory capabilities.

didn't know mn had used 'old biddies' as a chapter title btw

I expect Justine has run away screaming from this idea now! In light of this thread, if MN are still considering it, I'd recommend taking a tight focus rather than general ageism e.g. the invisibility thing - could be called something like 'Still here' and throw a spotlight on how older women are represented (or not) in the media, plus a wider sweep on how invisibility affect in other spheres particularly workplace.

I applaud MN for considering it; they have really listened to those of us who are concerned about this issue.

Absolutely, Scone.