Ageism, politics, and a lot of misconceptions

 

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about aging—and I’ve been discussing—arguing?—with two people near and dear to me—my wonderful son-in-law and my Canadian daughter. It all began over wine one night when Sue described President Biden as “ancient” and said he’ll be eighty at the end of his term. I heard an implied judgment that he is too old to be useful, although Christian says I am too quick to get my feelings hurt. I don’t think it was so much that I was offended for myself as it was that I was angry that Biden would be discounted because of his age.

Sue later explained in emails that yes, he has done some great things and will have a strong legacy. But she is talking about electability. Christian reinforced that later by saying people of a certain age—he chose over eighty—generally have problems and aren’t as sharp. At eighty-four, I really did take that personally, and he hastened to add, “not everybody.” But that, to me, is the problem.

America suffers from ageism, the habit of judging people by their age. It involves a prejudice against certain groups because of age. I of course see it primarily as a prejudice against the elderly, some of whom are much sharper mentally than many people in middle age. But the truth is that ageism is a factor at any point in life. Ageism does generally refer to the elderly; reverse ageism refers to the young.

I have six teenage grandchildren (one of the original seven aged out and is now in her early twenties). They are as different as can be, but each is a good kid, pursuing his or her own goals, leading a good life. To try to generalize them as teenagers would be to miss so much about each of them. Yet I am aware of the stereotypes of teenagers—lazy, irresponsible, not planning ahead, not reliable. It’s simply not true if you look at individuals and not the group.

Many of us strive daily to counter racial and gender stereotypes, yet we accept the prevailing wisdom that people over eighty are pretty much without value. When I pointed out all that President Biden has accomplished a great deal on behalf of the average American, Sue countered with, “Yes, but I see him in daily gaffes.” So today I saw a clip of a gaff: In a speech, Biden said he son Beau died in Iraq, although he fairly quickly corrected himself. Beau Biden died in Maryland, I believe, of a glioblastoma, probably traceable to exposure during his service in Iraq. The misconnection was easily made because Biden associates the death with Iraq, as do I. The thing is Joe Biden is noted far and wide for gaffes—he’s been making them all his long political career. They aren’t the sign of a failing mind or increasing dementia—they are what happens when a lifelong stutterer must weigh every word he utters and think carefully about it. Political opponents, however, have been quick to jump on his gaffes as signs of dementia or senility, and I hear it repeated, parrot-like, on social media.

Part of the problem with Biden is style. He’s a keep-your-head-down, plow-ahead, do-your-job kind of person. His humor is dry and understated, and he’s not at all pretentious. Americans have become accustomed to political bombast, politicians who yell and accuse and point fingers, tell outrageous lies, use fear to control people. It’s like poor Paul Pelosi being hit in the head with a hammer every day. And there is no humor or wit. But I’m afraid Sue is right. Americans won’t see this. In 2024, they’ll see an old man who should be put out to pasture.

I’m no stranger to stereotyping. I’ve needed a walker now for five years, going on six. In addition, I don’t hear well. I’ve found two distinct reactions: some people are so courteous and helpful that it reassures me that the world is still full of good people. Other people ignore me. Because I don’t drive, I usually have someone with me, and too often the salesclerk, the receptionist in a doctor’s office, the official in the DMV where I got my official non-driving i.d. talks to whoever is with me, ignoring me even though we are there because of my business. I want to wave my hand and say, “Woohoo! There’s still a pretty good, functioning brain in here.”

Americans need to get over stereotyping and profiling of all kinds. For me and my generation, ageism is especially offensive. I’m afraid a sea change in attitude may not come in time for Joe Biden and the 2024 elections or perhaps even in my lifetime. But I’m going to continue to do everything I can to fight the stereotype. And Joe Biden? Don’t count him out yet.

Just for grins, read this: 80 Over 80: ranking the most influential 80-plus-year-olds in America. (slate.com)

Me, you, and our differences

 

Me and my children
I post this to demonstrate how different they are.
Each is their own person, 
and you cannot describe them adequately as Judy's kids

Tonight, a random thought struck me. I wasn’t going to blog—again, two nights in a row! Was I losing my touch? But it seemed not much was going on. Then there came this thought: my grandson is taking STAAR tests (or whatever tests a high school sophomore takes) tomorrow. He’s a great kid, smart as can be, but he isn’t particularly interested in academics, and what occurred to me was that those standardized tests might be a poor picture of his academic—and non-academic--achievements in life. (He is a star on the varsity golf team and a genuinely nice kid!).

Take that one step farther, and it leads to what I’ve always thought about standardized testing, though I have not investigated it. I think that mindset is part of the problem. Was it Ross Perot who made standardized testing mandatory and a requirement for participation in extracurricular activities? Anyway, fie on whoever did that. It forces teachers to teach to the test and not to the student, and it assumes all students are alike and progress at the same level. And just as the size and height of sixteen year-olds can vary wildly, so can their scholastic ability. Teachers lose the ability to wander from the prescribed curriculum and use their own creativity and experience in exciting students about learning.

Take that yet another step farther, and it points to a serious problem in our culture today—the lack of consideration, and respect for the individual. Human beings come in many color, sizes, abilities, interests, personalities—you name all the ways we can differ. Somewhere along the way, we’ve lost the respect for that. We expect everyone to measure up to (or fail) one standard of perfection. As far as I can tell right now, that standard is white, male, Christian, Republican.

Abortion is such a hot topic currently that I hate to even touch it, but perhaps nowhere else is this standardization more evident. The various states who either have already enacted strict laws (Texas, O My Texas!) or have trigger laws on the books make no exception for rape, incest, or medical emergency. Old white men in their wisdom assume that all pregnancies go along smoothly and result in happy babies. They refuse to consider ectopic pregnancies, which can kill a woman; deformed or dead embryos, which can kill a woman; any other of myriad medical emergencies that endanger both child and embryo. In their righteous authoritarianism, they are blind to the fact that almost all abortions are done in the first trimester; those done after that are almost always for compelling medical reasons. It’s the compelling medical reasons that have me reeling tonight. I cannot imagine letting a woman die of a complication of pregnancy that could easily be controlled medically because it is against the law. What kind of Orwellian world have we wandered into?

Now some states are even making spontaneous miscarriages a crime. What gives them the medical knowledge to do that? I read today of a woman who went to a doctor, not knowing she was pregnant, because she was cramping and bleeding. Turned out she had already miscarried, but she said the tone of the doctor changed dramatically when that fact was confirmed. Of course it did—he/she was afraid of being complicit in an abortion. Having once miscarried myself before I knew I was pregnant, I can fully sympathize with this young woman. Eventually her doctor concluded she really didn’t know, and all was well. But what about a less humane doctor?

My whole point here is less about abortion than it is about life. We have somehow lost respect for each human being as an individual. Think about fingerprints. No two of us have identical fingerprints—not even, I believe, identical twins. No two of us are alike, and we must stop treating people that way. We must re-learn the art of appreciating the individual, with all of his or her own glory. It goes beyond stereotyping or profiling. Such respect means really looking at, listening to each person as they tell their story.

May those who lead us stop thinking of people as herds of cattle (even they are not all alike) and start seeing a crowd of many individuals—in the US, in Ukraine, in Russia, anywhere there is oppression of groups or classes of people. Not in the US, you think? Guess again.

Losing our heroes

If certain “volunteers” have their way, we Texans are going to lose all our heroes. A volunteer committee has been making recommendations to the State Board of Education on “streamlining” teaching. A red flag shot up in my mind—who are these volunteers and why are they qualified to make recommendations?

They did not start quietly. Their first suggestion was that seventh-grade teachers should omit the word “heroic” in referring to the defenders who died at the Alamo. Talk about jumping on a Texas icon! I know they say politics makes strange bedfellows, but I never thought I’d find myself in bed with Greg Abbott and George P. Bush. But they are apparently as outraged as I am.

The explanation was that heroic is a value-oriented word. I’m not sure I understand the concept of value-oriented marketing completely, but it has to do with a customer’s perceived value of an item vs. its real value. All that says to me in this case is that the customer (student?) perceives value in describing the men at the Alamo as heroic. I do—I “perceive” courage and loyalty and determination, all kind of qualities we want our children to learn about.

I think I know part of the thinking—and it’s sort of appropriate in this day and age when harsh immigration policies have demonized our neighbors to the South even more than usual. It’s an effort to counter the stereotype that all Mexicans are evil, and all Anglos are pure and white. But instead of attacking our heroes, why doesn’t the committee teach the whole story—many Mexicanos fought alongside Travis, not against him.

The committee also recommended teachers mention but not teach Travis’ famous “Victory or Death” letter. Where, pray tell, does one draw that line in the sand distinguishing between teaching and mentioning? The board of education apparently didn’t accept that recommendation.

Also on this committee’s hit list: Hillary Clinton and Helen Keller. There is apparently some kind of point system by which candidates are judged. In spite of being the first woman to lead a major political party in a presidential campaign, Hillary fell short. Keller came closer, but she too missed the mark.

You know all those Confederate statues torn down in a frantic effort to erase history rather than learn from it? This is just another way of tearing down statues. I for one think those volunteers need to get a life.