Strange ideas about age, ageism on S&B.

[Pangolin44]

A bit of a mangled thread title, but I'm always slightly agog when it comes to age on this board.

So many 'Can I wear X at Y age?' threads. So many comments about 'age-appropriate' attire. Mutton-dressed-as-lamb always rears its head. Granny shoes, frumpy coats, 'I'm 35 am I too old for mini-skirts?'.

And don't get me started on hair! Bejeysus.

And this is women, talking to other women.

It makes me sad more than anything else, people are obviously posting on this board because they're interested in clothes and style, why close off any area of style because of age? The thought that women think they can't express themselves physically due to an imagined arbitrary cut-off.

I would love to free women from this idea, what's the worst that can happen?

What style means to me is the opposite of quirky. If you like quirky, that’s fine, but the most stylish women don’t. Also stylish people don’t always stand out. They aren’t the centre of attention.

I disagree. Anyone who is stylish is going to stand out - otherwise they aren't "stylish" they're just merging into the background with everyone else.

Stylish does not have to include quirky but it certainly does not exclude quirky. See Tilda Swinton.

www.thecut.com/2012/12/tilda-swinton-look-book.html

I would like the word "frumpy" to be banned from the S & B boards.
I find the footwear threads, especially the trainer threads especially vicious.

I'm not a teenager. I don't want to wear chunky trainers, yet if you dare to mention Skechers you get a load of sneery grandma comments.

I suspect that if you removed the logos from the oh so trendy trainers that some of the extremely fashion conscious might actually like some of the "frumpier" brands.

Tulsa Swindon is stylish not quirky.

Quirky is Irregular Choice shoes.

Or, rather she’s edgy rather than quirky. Very different things.

If you say so, although I'm not convinced.

65 ain't elderly

Actually, by most demographic measurements, it is. It's "young elderly" just as people speak of "young middle age."

But there is nothing wrong with being elderly. Objecting to 65 year-olds-being referred to as elderly is just another example of ageism. It's the word people dislike because we have given it negative connotations.

Also stylish people don’t always stand out. They aren’t the centre of attention.

Is Tilda Swinton an exception then? I think she's fabulous but she always stands out.

Quirky is like that Sjoern Gudrun. Lots of mad colour and jumpers and felt. With hand made shoes.

65 ain't elderly

I'm 66. I am elderly and I am a pensioner. Both facts and both fine. What is not fine is using 'elderly' or 'pensioner' as code for 'ugly person with shit taste in shoes'.

To someone with English as a second language, "frumpy" doesn't sound old, just... dowdy. Is dowdy ageist too?
I certainly think young people can be frumpy and dowdy. I never associated it with age until I came to S&B.

My granny carried a little handbag like the queen and had rollers in her hair every few days when she was 65 and wouldn't have been seen dead in trainers. My mum who is 65 now wears on-trend jeans and has a spiky, almost shorn hair. My kid is going to grow up with a very different idea of what a granny looks like than me.

Tilda Swindon has her own way of dressing and wants to stand out! She’s an actress. She’s photographed. Few few get away with dressing like her. Few are so thin! So for most of us, classy dressing isn’t about being photographed on a red carpet. It’s about wearing styles that people can see are tasteful. Well put together. Great accessories. It’s not necessarily having an obvious individual style. It’s not melting into the background either. You notice style when it’s an ordinary woman. Plus haircut!

I object to use of the term elderly. If its necessary to reference the age of an individual or group, then there are factual and objective ways of doing so that don't have negative connotations or rely on the subjective view of the speaker. 65 year old woman, people over 80, man in his 70s, all do the job.

I think 'elderly woman' is factual and I see nothing wrong with it. What I object to is ascribing dodgy clothes and shoes to me because of my age.

I’m really torn here. Thinking about MN only, but often I see someone posting in S & B for, say, wedding guest outfit advice. It doesn’t take long before the very predictable (could almost believe it’s a bot or advertising spam) ‘Nancy Mac jumpsuit’ or if you want to be edgy One Hundred Stars kimono, or some really bloody (sorry!) frumpy outfit not flattering at all for the OPs age. I read and just think nope! But then again I don’t think MN is the place for style advice or inspiration generally, posters are just trying to help.

So whilst I don’t like the idea of us women agonising over age appropriateness etc, I do get why the word ‘frumpy’ crops up in here. There does seem to be a large contingent of very conservative, classic dressers who trot out quite boring suggestions regardless of OP’s age.

There used to be a brilliant series of threads called MN Vogue which was much more genuinely style focused, with a broad range of contributors and tastes.

Is it factual?

I think there's an element of subjectivity to it and I can't think of many situations where it's hugely relevant - outwith the really big ticket items for national or local government to deal with such as "caring for our elderly population"

And even there I'm almost 64 but I'm in full time employment with no health or mobility issues. My husband is 69 and has to be careful about heart related issues (but so does one of my work partners who had a heart attack at 48) but otherwise no health or mobility issues. There's nothing that distinguishes us from, well anyone else.

I accept that for statistics and future planning national and local government need to know what percentage of the population is over 60, over 65 etc, etc, but for what other purpose does the word "elderly" need to be used?

It doesn’t take long before the very predictable (could almost believe it’s a bot or advertising spam) ‘Nancy Mac jumpsuit’.

Indeed.

It might not always be necessary to use it ('elderly') but I just don't see the point in avoiding it, any more than we avoid saying 'young'. If people have prejudices about age then I think we should challenge those prejudices rather than find a different word. What pisses me off isn't the word itself, it's using it as an insult as if being old is a character defect.

I don't feel that strongly about 'frumpy'. I don't use it about people but I've no objection to it if it's describing clothes. But I know a lot of people disagree.

As the progenitor of this thread under a different name.

I am absolutely of the belief that that one has to dress as they wish. With swagger.

You need to fucking swag it.

And as long as you do. You can wear whatever the fuck you like.

I think 'elderly' is a frame of mind, almost a choice @NatashaDancing. 60's are nowhere near 'elderly'. My husband's grandmother, who died at 96 after a short illness was certainly 'old' but she was never 'elderly'.

Here's my Dad, he was born in '47, just turned 75. I think you'd be hard-pressed to describe him as 'elderly'.

And yes @Floisme, some clothes are frumpy.

I read that Telegraph article, I actually thought it was the writer's hair that didn't work with any of the outfits. It was too polite. Almost apologetic.

Well I don't think we disagree very often ProstituteHair but we do about 'elderly'. As far as I'm concerned it's a life stage, nothing more and nothing less, and I think every life stage should have a word to identify it. What 'elderly' doesn't do is describe your personality or your dress sense.

Anyway going back to clothes - and now I'm going to be really controversial - if it's the same Telegraph article as the one I saw then I thought the problem with that outfit wasn't the Miuccia Prada socks but the length of the skirt. I think mid calf length, whether skirts or trousers, is always tricky (unless with knee boots). If the skirt had been fractionally longer then I think the socks would have been fine.

This article?

Hmm … If anything the socks could be a bit longer and the skirt slightly less voluminous. But it’s the shoes that are unconvincing.

However, overall I don’t really understand the choice of photos - would one really have to make some determined, age related decision in order to wear those clothes at 53? They’re all rather bland. Is that the argument (I only saw the first paragraph) - that you try not to wear anything noticeable?

I liked the skirt, but agree the hair is too neat and headgirlish to wear socks with it too.

Plus is that really catwalk fashion that you might be ‘too old’ for? To me it looks like fussy long sleeved tops with fussy long skirts. The same outfit in different colours and patterns.