This usually happy ager has been a bit on edge lately. I am going to try very hard, readers, not to turn the entirety of this post into a rant. Fingers crossed, through the process I’ll be able to gain an enlarged perspective on what I think is a very important topic for aging adults. There’s a lot to unpack here, so bear with.

The Context
On Wednesdays, my husband brings home a Seven Days weekly local newspaper. Seven Days, which is published in Vermont’s Queen City, is the only paper worth reading now that most news organizations have gone digital and have cut back. It’s full of actual news, commentary, and information on food and the arts. My husband usually gives me a Cliff’s Notes version of the stories as he drops the paper and his pizza box on the kitchen table. As the March 6 issue landed, he told me this week’s From the Publisher editorial was called “Senior Moment” and it introduced a year-long focus on Vermont’s aging population the paper was calling “This Old State.”

The Rant (stay with me)
Let me start by saying that I do understand rants (including but maybe especially my own) often represent an extreme viewpoint that, upon reflection, needs personal mediation. So please don’t stop reading here. But when I heard the focus of my beloved weekly paper, my hackles went up immediately. Leading up, during, and after (oh God, let’s face it, it’s every day) the Super Tuesday Primary, I was bombarded with news story after news story about Biden being TOO OLD. Ageism is the current ism darling of the media. But the sensitive, cautionary reporting reserved for the other rampant “isms” (and rightly so) is NOT afforded to the discussion of advancing age. Apparently if you are a politician, 70’s are okay, but once you break into the next decade, the alarm bells ring. When the President of the United States becomes the punching bag for rampant ageism, it all but screams, “Come one, come all, the bandwagon has plenty of room, folks!” Breathe, Linda.

Ageism has not only become socially acceptable, it’s become the gateway drug of both political parties and their pundits who look to place blame for a myriad of societal ills. “Boomers”are the problem, according not only to news outlets (digression: in Senior Moment, Seven Days publisher, Paula Routly, refers to half the “Boomer” population in Vermont as the “bad kind” who are selfish, resource consumers— the other half as aging hippies who made an “admirable choice to live simply”), but also to most Tik Tok videos that portray “Boomers” as ghouls who won’t give up their homes,“which they bought for peanuts,” and should just go someplace else so young families can buy their houses. What is further maddening to me is these media platforms at the same time are targeting these same generations with a barrage of information on lifestyles, supplements, and a smorgasbord of advice on LONGEVITY! The Blue Zones, green powder, and anti-aging (okay, let’s just point out that the term “anti-aging” is also ageist) medical advances messages are clear: “You, too, could be a centenarian!” That’s right folks. These messages scroll in the same feed as the stories about the problems created by an aging population. Neither is helpful in addressing serious and urgent issues.

Rampant ageism is a hot topic on the psychology front, too, turning some researchers into activists. In the APA’s Monitor on Psychology March cover story, Ageism is one of the last socially acceptable prejudices. Psychologists are working to change that, the author Kristen Weir points out that “most organizations now have diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) departments to tackle issues such as racism and gender bias. Even in those departments, age bias is seldom on the radar. “Ageism is this odd ‘-ism’ in that it’s still socially acceptable in many ways,” said Joann Montepare, Phd.” The article goes on:“What’s more, the negative stereotypes that fuel ageism often get aging all wrong. “When we say aging isn’t all negative, it’s not that we are putting on rose-colored lenses. This is based on rigorous science,” said Manfred Diehl, PhD, a professor of human development and family studies at Colorado State University who studies healthy aging.”

Yes, once again, “rigorous science” is there to point out what the news media is slow to report (or rejects out of hand): “The negative view of late life isn’t just false. It’s also dangerous. ‘The narrative that age is decline, age is burden, hurts everyone: individuals, families, communities, and society,’ said Nancy Morrow-Howell, PhD, a professor of social policy and expert in gerontology at Washington University in St. Louis. ‘Some older adults do need support, but mostly they’re giving it,’ she added. ‘They make important contributions to the workforce, including paid work as well as volunteering and caregiving. Those contributions to society are a resource, not a luxury.’” The article goes on to point out what some of those dangers are (I urge you to read the full article), along with some solutions.

One of my personal solutions to combat ageism is to listen carefully to language — including my own. I am trying to interject myself into conversations that equate age with competence and character. As much as I’d like to think of myself as wise and virtuous, I couldn’t merely chalk that up to turning 65 or any age thereafter. And that would be true for incompetence, etc. as well. It’s mythology. We need to decouple such appraisals, the positive and the negative, from aging. In Don’t call me “old”: Avoiding ageism when writing about aging, Stephanie Morrison, writing for the National Institute on Aging, offers helpful language advice, what to use and what to avoid, to ensure your own communications are not ageist (and to red flag/call-out those that are):

DO:

• Choose neutral terms such as “older adults,” “older populations,” and “people over age X” to describe groups of people.

• When possible, describe the population or age group more specifically, such as: “This study focused on disease risk in Black women between the ages of 65 and 75.”

• Use “we” and “us” instead of “they” and “them” when appropriate. We are all aging, and many issues that affect older adults also affect younger populations.

DON’T:

• Don’t use words that may have negative connotations, such as “the aged,” “elderly,” “senior,” “senior citizen,” and “boomer.” (Working on this.)

• Avoid the term “elders” except when referencing American Indian/Alaska Natives, for whom this term may be preferred and culturally appropriate.

• The term “geriatrics” refers to the branch of medicine that deals with the medical care and treatment of older people. Avoid using “geriatric” to describe individuals or groups of people.

• Consider that terms including “aging well” and “successful aging” imply there’s a right way and a wrong way to age, placing the responsibility for healthy aging on the individual. (Guilty here.)

• Euphemisms like “of a certain age” might suggest there’s something shameful about aging. (I need to watch this one!)

Cause and Effect
Now back to where we started with Seven Days and “This Old State: Getting On” . After being really rubbed the wrong way by the editorial, I tried my best to have a more open mind toward the inaugural article in the series. The reporter, Colin Flanders, covered a vast landscape of issues facing my state, sometimes tying them to Vermont’s older population. And we are a tour de force here. We are the third oldest state, falling behind only New Hampshire and Maine. By 2030, 1 in 3 Vermonters will be over 60. Having such a population creates challenges, but you cannot blame older Vermonters for being the cause of problems such as worker shortages, housing shortages, and understaffed health care and emergency care systems. As the article points out, a bigger issue is retaining our own younger people as citizens and attracting more families and businesses to the state. The failure to grow those populations is not caused by the over 60 population. If younger people don’t want to stay and new people don’t want to come to the state, that has to do with the economy, vibrancy, opportunity, and resources of our communities. That requires planning that most communities just aren’t focused on. We have had ample time. State leaders have trotted out this problem for decades without much impact, policy-driven or otherwise. And more recently, the pandemic has really impacted our capacity to think forward creatively, not to mention exacerbating all the problems outlined in the article. There is a plan to draw 200,000 new Vermonters to our state by 2035. Adding to our current population, is that the right size for everyone to have quality of life in this state, considering that 1 in 3 of those people will be over the age of 60?

As I read through the article, I still struggled to not feel “called out” as an older adult Vermonter. My husband pointed out to me that I was reading the article feeling sensitive that the article is blaming older Vermonters for our state’s problems. Hard not to when the editorial by the publisher asked, “At what point does your independence become someone else’s burden?” Ouch! He urged me to consider whether the article wasn’t simply pointing out the effects of having a disproportionately older population. Perhaps that is what the article is trying to lay out. We’ll see what the bias of the subsequent “This Old State” (come on, isn’t that title inherently ageist?) articles might be. I want to remain open minded, but I have no tolerance for perspectives that marginalize.

Reframing for Change
The aging population (and BTW we are ALL aging) should neither be a source of disdain nor discrimination. Both can only lead to greater marginalization, scapegoating, and problem-admiring. The “effects” (let’s use my husband’s word choice instead of the pejorative “problems” —which still feels too blamey for me) of aging populations are of course not unique to Vermont. By 2030, 1 in 6 members of the global population will be over 60. The World Health Organization (WHO) points out these Key Facts:

• All countries face major challenges to ensure that their health and social systems are ready to make the most of this demographic shift.
  In 2050, 80% of older people will be living in low- and middle-income countries.

• The pace of population ageing (sic) is much faster than in the past.

• In 2020, the number of people aged 60 years and older outnumbered children younger than 5 years.

• Between 2015 and 2050, the proportion of the world's population over 60 years will nearly double from 12% to 22%.

It is critical that we work as hard as we can, in whatever ways we can, to change the systems and the structures of society that discriminate and marginalize — and that includes the systems and structures that are inherently ageist. One way to do that is to envision inclusive communities that both center and respond to voices and needs of older adults, specifically those 65 and beyond. In 2009, cultural anthropologist Phillip B. Stafford released the book, Elderburbia: Aging with a Sense of Place. The book addresses the same demographic shifts and resulting effects (and needs) that the Seven Days article and the Age Strong Vermont plan attempt to address 15 years later, only in a much more comprehensive way and with great examples of communities that are both inclusive and “elder-friendly.” The book is laid out to address Four Domains of Elder-Inclusive Community: 1) address basic needs; 2) optimize physical and mental health and well-being; 3) promote civic and social engagement; and 4) maximize independence. The premise of the book is not to isolate the needs of any one generation, exclusively, but to look at the collective needs from an intergenerational perspective. The book is an engaging and valuable resource for planning to address issues  now and in the future in responsible, respectful, and inclusive ways.

Perspective Gained
I often use writing to explore ideas and perspectives. Writing is an incredible processing and therapeutic tool, especially when I am struggling to move from a place of emotion to a place of understanding. I have always been more of a change agent than a problem admirer, and that is where I choose to land when thinking about the current and future impacts of the demographics of my state. The challenges as well as their solutions will continue to get tied up in all the “isms,” and I feel all of us need to be vigilant about that. I know my ageism lens is hyper-focused right now…and I am offering no apologies. I know we need to stay present in discussions about the challenges of an increasingly aging population. I just want to ensure we are conscious about not being ageist in these discussions. That said, I remain hopeful, readers, that I will find ways to stay informed to fully engage with the issue through some level of activism. Thank you all so much for hanging in there through this long post. In the Comments, I would love to hear your ideas on some of these issues, both how they impact you (or your country, state, province, or community) and your experiences with or perceptions of ageism.