Biden says he’s ‘too old to stay as president.’ It shows the pull of ageism.

Ageism in American Culture: A Catalyst for Change

A year of intense concern about the fitness of older national leaders to serve, culminating in President Joe Biden pulling out of the White House race, has surfaced what experts on aging see as a snowballing and largely unchallenged expression of the ageism that permeates American culture.

Pressure for Mr. Biden to withdraw probably had more to do with changing perceptions of his capabilities than with how many times he’s circled the sun. But from headlines to memes, the phrase “too old” – which the president himself used at the Democratic National Convention on Monday night – became ageist shorthand.

Why We Wrote This

Intense scrutiny of veteran politicians has prodded America toward greater awareness of how unchallenged ageism affects everyone, not just presidential candidates.

Gerontological advocates and scientists say public perceptions of older people are far too often anchored in unfair assumptions about the meaning of a numerical age. It’s a stereotype as unjust and incorrect as generalizations about race or gender – but somehow still acceptable. And it equates chronological age with poor health, which in turn fans fears of growing older.

Yet even some of those who see rampant ageism also see opportunity in the current moment. “I personally think unless you see [ageism], you’re not going to do anything about it,” says Tracey Gendron, a gerontologist and author of “Ageism Unmasked.” She adds, “I am hopeful that maybe this will be a catalyst.”

How unchallenged ageism damages the public conscience

A World Health Organization report in 2018 targeted ageism as a pervasive global problem – “socially accepted and usually unchallenged.” Its effects, said the WHO, reverberate through economies in added health care costs and lost job opportunities, and it damages the public conscience of older and younger populations who internalize negative age beliefs.

The American gerontology field has understood this and worked assiduously in recent years to scientifically “reframe” aging positively.

Among problems these experts focus on are the effects of age segregation, from solitary isolation to grouping in islands of over-age-55 developments; and the antiaging – or “against aging” – health and beauty culture that pitches fear of growing older, even creating the “Sephora kids” tween market for wrinkle serums.

Some keep an eye on issues of fairness in such things as mandatory retirement or certifications for older people to drive or perform their work, and all concern themselves with how broadcasts of ageism are internalized among old and young alike.

Political reporting often “off the mark” over the past year

Politics have been the source of an “outbreak of ageism,” says James Appleby, CEO of the Gerontological Society of America, who, like his colleagues, spends much time managing misconceptions. “We get so comfortable with [stereotypes] that we never actually see what we’re doing. But for the [gerontological] community, a widespread feeling now is, ‘Wow, can you believe how off the mark some of the reporting can be?’”

Intense focus in the past year on struggling older politicians like the late Senator Feinstein, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and President Biden often conflated their chronological age with missteps, physical appearance, and questions of health and cognition. With Mr. Biden, age 81, out of the race now, there’s evidence the age focus is being turned on former President Donald Trump, age 78. CNN commentator and former Obama White House adviser David Axelrod said before Mr. Biden’s convention speech, “Now the worn-out old incumbent is Donald Trump.”

And this all keeps aging professionals busy, repeating their singular mantra in interviews and op-eds: “If you’ve seen one 80-year-old, you’ve seen one 80-year-old.”

A catalyst for deeper conversations

There is the possibility that Mr. Biden’s pullout, which he referred to as passing the torch “to a new generation … new voices, fresh voices – yes, younger voices,” will give momentum to public policy efforts to define “too old.”

“Should we have age limits?” asks Steve Austad, a biologist and longevity researcher at the University of Alabama. “I don’t think so. Perhaps there are good reasons to have them, but they’re unfair to a lot of people.”

He adds, “I also don’t think it would be a bad national conversation to have … as an opportunity to combat ageism.”

Dr. Austad says he was “intrigued” recently to discover one example of inconsistencies in age limits: There are mandatory retirement ages for judges in 32 states – and two states require forfeiture of retirement benefits if judges don’t retire at a certain age. But none of those states have mandatory retirement age limits for the legislators who set those limits.

Airing and clarifying what “too old” really means – or doesn’t – might raise consciousness about ageism’s societal effects, gerontologists say.

“Internalized ageism” in older people, says Dr. Carpenter, citing studies, “can change their behavior, their cognition, their physical activity, their willingness or desire to pursue certain things in life.”

Conversely, that research also shows that cultivating “positive age beliefs” can significantly change those effects.

Dr. Carpenter and his colleagues worry that ageist messages also influence the mindsets of younger people who, as they age, will also struggle with the gap between stereotypes and scientific facts about healthy aging.

“I am hopeful that maybe this will be a catalyst [that] will open the door to having more serious conversations about what ageism actually looks like and how it impacts us at all levels,” says Dr. Gendron.

This article was written with the support of a journalism fellowship from the Gerontological Society of America, the Journalists Network on Generations, and the Silver Century Foundation.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.4: By 2030, reduce by one-third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.
   • Indicator 3.4.1: Mortality rate attributed to cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, or chronic respiratory disease.

2. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.
   • Indicator 5.1.1: Whether or not legal frameworks are in place to promote, enforce, and monitor equality and non-discrimination on the basis of sex.

3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, or economic or other status.
   • Indicator 10.2.1: Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income, by age, sex, and persons with disabilities.

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making at all levels.
   • Indicator 16.7.1: Proportions of positions (by sex, age, persons with disabilities, and population groups) in public institutions (national and local legislatures, public service, and judiciary) compared to national distributions.

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Analysis

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The issues highlighted in the article are connected to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s content, the specific targets identified are:
– Target 3.4: By 2030, reduce by one-third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.
– Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.
– Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, or economic or other status.
– Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making at all levels.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, there are indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets. The indicators are:
– Indicator 3.4.1: Mortality rate attributed to cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, or chronic respiratory disease.
– Indicator 5.1.1: Whether or not legal frameworks are in place to promote, enforce, and monitor equality and non-discrimination on the basis of sex.
– Indicator 10.2.1: Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income, by age, sex, and persons with disabilities.
– Indicator 16.7.1: Proportions of positions (by sex, age, persons with disabilities, and population groups) in public institutions (national and local legislatures, public service, and judiciary) compared to national distributions.

These indicators can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets by collecting relevant data and analyzing the trends and changes over time.

4. Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: csmonitor.com