Why is ageism accepted/tolerated on MN?

[IntermittentFarting]

I reported a post earlier today that the poster actually prefaced with "Sorry for an ageist post..."
wherein elderly people were moaned about for having the temerity to go shopping and stubbornly pissing everyone off with their very existence.
After a while I had an acknowledgement about my report, and saying that MN would take a look.

Well... it's still there.

Whether or not the post is ageist is not up for debate: the poster themselves even said it was, and intentionally posted an acknowledged ageist post.

Can you tell me why MN accepts ageism?

Generally speaking, while we do delete posts that we think are offensive, or designed to be so, we try not to take a blanket approach to terms or points of view. As a discussion site, Mumsnet has always hosted a broad range of perspectives so coming across views that do not chime with your own or that you find offensive is inevitable to some extent

Ageism is not a "point of view" FFS

Someone on here actually started a post not too long ago suggesting it would be better for older people to have access to legalised euthanasia in the uk so that they don’t have to go through “unnecessary” treatment. Absolutely disgusting.

I would like to see a middle ground, instead of outright deletions of posts, (unless they are so horrifically offensive and abusive that they simply must go)
There's a good example above.

If posts that are using the “wrong” terms, or being “ist”, I would like to see Mumsnet highlight them in a particular colour.

This would hopefully have the effect of informing others, who may not yet have formed a view, and also showing the prejudiced people up, big time.

I like that idea, @Giggorata , but the same problem would still exist: the consistent, timely and reasonable application of such highlighting.

We'd be on site stuff bemoaning the lack of or inappropriate use of highlighting!

I reported the post you're refering to myself prior to seeing that you'd also reported it OP. Like you, I'm astonished to see that it still stands.

It's clear that blatant ageism is allowed on MN. Even the poster herself said it was an ageist post at the beginning... as if that somehow makes it OK. Sadly the poster is absolutely right... as far as MN is concerned it absolutely is OK.

Ageism is awful in both directions. Apparently we’re all gaga by 65 but equally useless when we’re 25 on MN.

And both of those are wrong.

I report but they are generally not removed. A favourite is the suggestion from DILS that they set up their MILS to think they have dementia.Many MNers think it is such a laugh to make someone think that they have a terminal disease. However, the suggestion that they punish a friend by suggesting that they have a brain tumour or breast cancer is met with horror.
Sadly women are more likely to be affected by dementia than men. Yet there are no campaigns on here to fight for more research into this terrible disease.

Please explain what's disgusting about that? If someone is very ill, treatment will do nothing so is unnecessary. Why can't they choose assisted dying if they want. Why shouldn't we campaign for that choice for them?
Do you think old people shouldn't be listened to on this (most of this campaign is coming from older people) or don't know their own mind?

the ageism I object to most on MN is that targeted at young adults.

All lazy 'snowflakes' who expect everything to be handed to them on a plate by all accounts.

Its tedious

This is what really grinds my gears ! Also when people retire to some idyllic countryside out of the way location then surprise surprise they get older and all the health services family and friends are far away !

FunnysInLaJardin · Today 13:47
the ageism I object to most on MN is that targeted at young adults.
**
All lazy 'snowflakes' who expect everything to be handed to them on a plate by all accounts.
**
Its tedious”

Yes it is. Given particularly the shite our young people and their friends and colleagues have had to tolerate the last few years, I really believe that most young people today are pretty extraordinary. Hard working, ambitious, optimistic and kind. Which given the doom and gloom al around them is quite something.
We’re really hopeful for the future, based on the young people we know.

@FunnysInLaJardin I agree. It's everywhere. As highlighted a while back by the poster objecting to their office being too hot because a colleague wanted the AC off due to their inappropriate workwear. Every single ( or at least the huge majority of) posters assumed said colleague was a youngster, followed by a huge pile on about how completely useless all young adults are in the workplace. It turns out that this colleague was not a youngster at all when OP came back with more information. But this didn't stem the tide of negativity. And it's widespread.

Over a lifetime, people can become disabled. Does that mean disablism should be acceptable as well?

The contemptuous way so many people have a go at 'Boomers' for a start.

Why do you think it applies only to old people? People of any age can suffer from a terminal condition which makes their life intolerable.

Campaign for assisted dying by all means (I'm all in favour of it, knowing the sheer hell and prolonged suffering my DM went through) but don't make it about 'helping old people to die'.

I find the ageism astonishing and pretty offensive. People are so ignorant, and we're just supposed to put up with it.

I was born in the last year of the baby boomer which makes me the devil incarnate.

Apparently I have a gold plated, defined benefit pension - wrong! Compulsory work pensions weren't introduced until 2018. And I don't know anyone on a DB pension.

I retired at 55 and spend my days eating lunch at garden centres or going on cruises - wrong! Still working full time in my 60s.

I must have bought my house when women stayed at home and let their husbands pay the mortgage - wrong! I never married!

I am selfish and have drained resources leaving nothing for the next generation! Wrong! Despite working full time, I spent 10 years also volunteering for a search and rescue team. Still do misper consulting for the police and work for free as a parish councillor because no-one else would do it.

It really can get very tedious.

I agree that is also wrong but most of the ageism here is aimed at older people.

I don't think it only applies to old people.
Given that the older people get the more likely they are to pick up medical conditions along the way, assisted dying is more likely to be taken up by the old than the young. The average 25 year old in the UK is going to typically be a lot fitter and healthier than the average 85 year old. I don't know any younger people (thankfully) with under five years to live and suffering enormous pain from multiple health conditions and living in terror because of dementia. I know a good few elderly people like that though. This is probably because of my age and the age of most of my friends, our parents generation is now very old.

I disagree, I think it's mostly aimed at the young. Both on here and in society in general and especially in politics. The 'grey vote' is massively more important than the young vote and government policy reflects that.
Signed - an old person.

@CaptainMyCaptain I don't think that's the case actually

I would be quite happy to have any negative generalisation based on age banned.

Such as the never-ending threads about state pensions being too generous.

There's a particular poster who frequently starts threads about pensions.

It's outrageous. They shouldn't be allowed in the first place.

Could you explain exactly why, thinking state pensions are to generous, and wanting to discuss that, is ageist?
I know state pensions will only affect older people, but child benefit, for example, only affects young people. Should that also be off limits for any discussion if a poster thinks that's too generous/shouldn't exist?

I do agree with PP that ageism against younger people is just as unacceptable, but this thread started as a response to an instance of ageism against older people that MN deemed acceptable, so that’s why I hadn’t mentioned that specifically. Also, I do believe that ageism against older people is more prevalent on this site, as well as in society at large.

But there you have it. There’s nothing that can be done because as you can see from the post from @HebeMumsnet above, not only will MN allow all but the very worst of ageist posts to stand, they don’t actually even know what ageism is!

It is NOT, as is claimed, just a different point of view.
It is NOT merely the mention of “generational difference”

Given that age was, like sex, race and sexual orientation, deemed a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality act, ageism should be just as frowned upon and unacceptable as sexism, racism, homophobia… but on MN it’s not; it’s regarded as a good discussion point instead.

Shame on you Mumsnet. Seriously.