THIS CHAIR ROCKS

pushing back against ageism—which affects everyone

HOME  |  BLOG  |  WHAT IS AGEISM?  |  ABOUT ASHTON APPLEWHITE  |  APPEARANCES

Yo, Is This Ageist?

Self-Ageism

Hi there,
Here’s something that just happened to me:  
A few days after turning 80 this month I was approached about leaving my position on the local Zoning Board to become Chair of our somewhat troubled Historic Preservation and Architectural Review Board.
I imagined the local newspaper announcement would carry my name followed by my age, (newspaper articles always carry the subject’s age - why is that ?  I guess folks want to know !)
I decided that it would sent the wrong message to a town that is looking for change on the HPARB.  
“AARGH - an 80 year old ???? “
I just didn’t want to carry that flag and will stay on the ZBA.
Am I Self-cancelling or just practical ?
Congrats on turning 80, and on being offered the position as Chair. Clearly they think you’re competent, and clearly you’ve earned this through years of service. If you didn’t want to carry that flag because you didn't’ want your age in the paper, I’d say that’s internalized ageism. And of course taking on the job and doing it well would be the best way to challenge ageist assumptions on the part of folks who might think an 80-yr-old couldn’t make change. OTOH, the position sounds problematic. If you turned it down because you didn’t want to take on a big headache, or be a fall guy, or just don’t want to work that hard, those reasons are practical and completely legit.
About newspapers naming people’s ages age: they do so out of habit, and it’s a bad one. Readers may indeed want to know, and that’s another bad habit. Age is seldom relevant, unless it’s an obituary or a story about prodigies or an exceptional physical achievement. Not long ago the Associated Press revised their guidelines, telling journalists to “use ages only when necessary for context.” Undoing bias means unlearning habits. Newspapers used to name people’s races too, and no longer do, Progress!
From Aga: Yo, is this ageist and ableist? Why make assumptions about why people use wheelchairs? Plenty of people have invisible disabilities. Aga makes a good point: who’s to say what is or isn’t “wheelchair fraud”? The trek to the gate can be over...

From Aga: Yo, is this ageist and ableist? Why make assumptions about why people use wheelchairs? Plenty of people have invisible disabilities.

Aga makes a good point: who’s to say what is or isn’t “wheelchair fraud”? The trek to the gate can be over a mile and a half long, and all kinds pf people need help navigating it. Many appear non-disabled, and can walk onto the plane without apparent difficulty. I was one of them twice this year, once when feeling fragile after brain surgery, once when sick as a dog with a stomach virus. The wheelchair was great and I was grateful.

I didn’t notice any hostility coming my way, possibly because I’m not observant and probably because I’m old. Giving me a pass might be well-meaning. It’s also ageist and ableist. Plenty of olders can sprint through an airport and plenty of youngers require mobility aids.

We want to believe that people in wheelchairs need wheelchairs. Otherwise they’re betraying our trust, using a service that others can’t do without, and possibly fueling suspicions that other wheelchair users are “faking it.” Please don’t be one of them. Same goes for a friend who boards early because she has white hair. Please don’t. Pre-boarding exists to level the playing field, It’s an accommodation, not a perk.

When in doubt, which is almost always the case, be quiet. People who need accommodation shouldn’t have to justify it, to the fairness police or anyone else. What about the fakers? They’ll rot in hell.

Shelters Won’t Let My Mother Adopt a Dog. Can I Pretend It’s for Me?

From a weekly New York Times column: 

 My mother is in her late 80s and lives alone in a house with a big fenced yard. She’s sharp, mobile and surrounded by friends. She has always lived with a dog, and she gave her last one a wonderful life until his recent death. She’s ready to welcome another older companion who fits her lifestyle.

When she recently tried to adopt, though, several rescues refused because of her age. A few of her younger friends — myself included — have offered to act as a front and adopt on her behalf. She sees this as unethical.

If a dog were to outlive her, I’d gladly take him or her in. And I can’t help thinking that the companionship, exercise and purpose a dog provides far outweigh the small deceit it might take to bring one into her home. Which is the more ethical course: honoring the system’s ageist rules, or bending those rules in service of compassion? — Name Withheld

Ethicist Kwame Anthony Appiah’s reply is spot on:

Given the shortage of homes for pets in shelters, a blanket ban on adoptions by older people seems bonkers. For one thing, a 25-year-old adopter is statistically more likely than an older adult to undergo the sort of life upheavals (job loss, relocation, marriage, breakups, etc.) that could make someone unable to keep an animal. For another, a suitable adopter who has advanced in years will have given thought to a succession plan should it become necessary. Part of what’s wrong with ageism is that it involves treating individuals according to group stereotypes.

I’m inclined to think that there’s a decent case for doing what you propose: It would benefit the dog, your mother and maybe you. But there’s an even better case for telling shelters that you’d be the designated backup adopter were your mother to become unable to care for the dog; if desired, you can sign a document to this effect. Many shelters accommodate these plans (in some cases as part of a “seniors for seniors” program, involving older pets); it lets them check a box and lets an older person get a rescue. As your mother probably told you at some point, lying, even for a good cause, is best avoided.

ebasham asked:

Just listened to an opinion video on NYT dated Oct 17, 2025. It is titled "Thanks a Lot, Boomers". The video is quite well done in terms of design and production. It places the blame for all our nation's ills on Boomers. I am quite distraught that this was written by a member of NYT's editorial board and highly promoted. A substantive rebuttal would take hundreds of words, but I am counting on your wisdom and experience to respond to this. Thanks for your commitment-

Oy. The NYTimes Editorial Board should know better than to endorse this misguided and wildly ageist video. The passage of time will wipe the smirks off those young faces, but that’s no comfort.

Americans born soon after WWII were indeed demographically fortunate. That’s about the only incontestable fact in this litany of resentments—and it shouldn’t make them the enemy. Blaming all America’s ills on baby boomers divides us and distracts us from the actual culprits: the ultra-wealthy. They have shaped an economy and political system that benefits them at the expense of the common good. It’s not about age. It’s about class and power.  

The benefits of the postwar economic boom were not evenly distributed. The same is true of the Great Wealth Transfer, which is moving an unprecedented $124 trillion from older to younger Americans. Although high- and ultra-high-net-worth households make up only 2% of American households, they’ll receive over half that wealth. 

Both the 1% and the 99% are made up of all ages. The story we need to tell isn’t about boomers vs. millennials. It’s about the rich and powerful vs. the rest of us.

This article in Greater Good magazine asks, not very grammatically, Are Older People Dating Younger Ageist—or Just Practical?  What do you think?

The way the question is posed is itself ageist, because it assumes people want to date younger. In fact plenty of people in search of emotional maturity and/or financial stability seek out an older partner. That’s as practical as seeking out someone younger because they’re likely to outlive you.

Just as it’s racist to swipe right because of skin color, it’s ageist to base dating decisions on age. (The exception is if you’re looking to start a family, in which case age does matter. Not just the woman’s, however, and less than it used to because of advances in reproductive technology.)  

Basing dating decision on age is also a dumb idea. Because most of us spend most of our time with people our own age, we assume that’s why we get along. In fact, class, race, gender and ethnicity all shape affinity far more than age does—not to mention personality or playlists. Nor is age a reliable indicator of attributes like health, or reliability, or wisdom. The more time we spend in mixed-age company, the more obvious this becomes.  

Is age something to factor into dating decisions? Sure. But don’t give it more weight than it deserves.

A friend museum-ing in Berlin spotted “The Fountain of Youth” by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1547). Her comment: “"Ageism in 16th century! Sexism, too. The men don’t do the fountain of youth but wait for the old ladies to emerge youthful! Ugh!” Don’t...

A friend museum-ing in Berlin spotted “The Fountain of Youth” by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1547). Her comment: “"Ageism in 16th century! Sexism, too. The men don’t do the fountain of youth but wait for the old ladies  to emerge youthful! Ugh!” 

Don’t miss the Wheelbarrows of Decrepitude, bottom left.

agingmeg asked:

Hello, Ashton. I aw this image on LinkedIn today, (reposted by someone who works in aging services). I was saddened to see that it had some 650 “likes” and more than 80 reposts. Although I’m glad they attempted to reframe perspectives of the sadly ageist generational stereotypes, they went ahead and made more stereotypes. I would love your feedback.

image

As you suggest, Meg, positive age stereotypes are still stereotypes. They’re every bit as baseless and divisive as their negative counterparts. For example, some Gen Xers are calm under pressure and some get anxious, just like members of every other age group. Gender, ethnicity, and background—not to mention personality—all play a far bigger part in shaping our behavior and aptitudes than birth cohorts do.

Here’s why I’m no fan of generational labels in particular, whether in the workplace or anywhere else.  As this article in Inc. and many others attest, “A boatload of science shows generational differences are overblown. The real problem is clumsy stereotypes about age groups.”

What’s the “real doom loop”? San Franciscans are growing older. Think failures of governance or the absence of affordable housing or the lack of family leave have anything to do with this demographic trend? Blaming older people for an array of future...

What’s the “real doom loop”? San Franciscans are growing older. Think failures of governance or the absence of affordable housing or the lack of family leave have anything to do with this demographic trend? 

Blaming older people for an array of future ills is like blaming immigrants for “crime surges” and “taking jobs.”

From Sister Imelda Maurer: We have work to do! This is just one example of the STUFF (using a nice word!) Sisters are often exposed to from speakers versed in the spiritual life in the name of Aging and Spirituality!!! It is an example of how ageism...

From Sister Imelda Maurer: We have work to do! This is just one example of the STUFF  (using a nice word!) Sisters are often exposed to from speakers versed in the spiritual life in the name of Aging and Spirituality!!!  It is an example of how ageism seeps into everything – with horrendous consequences. What an insult to The Creator!

bonnie216 asked:

CSA in Charlottesville, VA posted an opening for a CIO. One of the final questions - required to submit your application - was the question "What generation are you a part of?" Then it listed each option witht he birth years included, so Baby Boomer 1946-1964, GenX, Millenial, and so on ..

Obviously the question is ageist. It’s on the application so employers can make assumptions on the basis of age. That’s the essence of ageism. Generational labels, which lack scientific basis, are inherently divisive, misleading, and problematic. Also, although not categorically illegal, the question makes employers vulnerable to lawsuits. It can be used as evidence of bias if the applicant doesn’t get hired.