BetterMost, Wyoming & Brokeback Mountain Forum
Our BetterMost Community => BetterMost People => Topic started by: Front-Ranger on October 20, 2017, 02:48:26 pm
-
“Indeed, many old people themselves are ageist, having spent their lives absorbing the same anti-aging messages as everyone else.” our friend Katharine wrote in the Star-Tribune. http://www.startribune.com/challenging-ageism/451306873/ (http://www.startribune.com/challenging-ageism/451306873/)
What a great story! I thought this would be a nice subject for our forum. I'm sure I have several ageist notions I would like to exorcise.
-
I'm sure a lot of people have ageist ideas/thoughts.
-
“Indeed, many old people themselves are ageist, having spent their lives absorbing the same anti-aging messages as everyone else.” our friend Katharine wrote in the Star-Tribune. http://www.startribune.com/challenging-ageism/451306873/ (http://www.startribune.com/challenging-ageism/451306873/)
What a great story! I thought this would be a nice subject for our forum. I'm sure I have several ageist notions I would like to exorcise.
Wow, FRiend, I just saw this! (I really need to start getting out more. :laugh: ) How nice of you to mention my story! Writing that one has made me much more aware of how deeply ageism is embedded in our culture.
-
(I really need to start getting out more. :laugh: )
:laugh:
-
I was at the doctor yesterday and she recommended that I start taking Lipitor for cholesterol. I was surprised to hear that because last year at my annual exam the doctor didn't ask me to start taking meds, even though my "bad" cholesterol was 20 points higher. When I pointed this out, the doctor said that because of my age, I now fall within the higher risk category. That's it, just because of my age. I'm not going to go on strong meds just because of a statistic!
I know from my mom's experience that any med will probably lead to high blood pressure, constipation and dizziness, which will result in more meds. Besides, hasn't cholesterol been largely exonerated as a disease creator? The real culprit is lack of exercise, as it nearly always is.
-
When I pointed this out, the doctor said that because of my age, I now fall within the higher risk category. That's it, just because of my age. I'm not going to go on strong meds just because of a statistic!
I don't blame you one bit. there is no reason for you to take meds for something that "may" happen to you, just because it happens to other people.
-
My cholesterol was always between 5 and 6 (Possibly US measurements are different, not unusual) and the recommendations are about 3 to 4. I did not worry as my mother always had high cholesterol (yet died at 97 and not from heart problems). Then mine shot up to 9 so I began taking tablets. It has come back and stayed around 5 to 6. I cannot get it any lower despite using cholesterol lowering margarine and avoiding fatty foods and I exercise quite a lot, even when working as a teacher I was mainly on my feet. I do not panic if I miss my tablet, being at night it is easy to forget. Some time (perhaps 15 to 20 years ago) a colleague suggested I take Lipitor and I had reactions (cannot remember what) but my medical records say to avoid Lipitor. I take Simvastatin, The only problem is I must avoid grapefruit and I love grapefruit. I occasionally sneak some in a hotel when on holidays. :)
Before I began taking cholesterol reducing tablets, I began on blood pressure tablets. I was having dizzy fits driving to work and after some experiment I have been on 2 tablets each morning(which is easy to remember as I also take 4 or 5 vitamin tablets with my fruit juice before breakfast). I would make sure I never miss these and the only times my blood pressure has been slightly up at my 3 monthly visit, I have been able to guess the reason, some stressful situation. When I gave up full time work I suggested to my then doctor that I could drop the tablets but she said "No way"
My other main tablet is for reflux and I am having problems with that but that is another long story.
It probably helps that in NZ I only have to pay $5 for 3 months supply of a prescription tablet.
In the last year my sugar levels have gone to borderline pre-diabetic which has been more difficult as I have a very sweet tooth. I gave up sugar in my 4 cups of coffee a day and none on my breakfast cereal (which is sugar free)and it went back down but has crept up again.
It was fairly easy to reduce fat and I never add salt in cooking but sugar is very difficult.
However 20 points up for cholesterol sounds a lot but I guess the measurement is different.
Old age is no fun. I have been walking on Monday afternoons with elderly people since I moved to NZ eight years ago. Gradually they have got slower and slower and now they are mainly in their late 80's and the walk is painful. I am the baby (at 73) of the group. I no longer want to go (I walk with a group my own age on Tuesdays)/ I would like to stop or reduce to once per month but they rely on me for transport and look forward to their "walk".
-
Tthere is no reason for you to take meds for something that "may" happen to you, just because it happens to other people.
Family history is important. If you have a very close relative, especially a parent, who has or had a particular condition, such as heart disease, statistically, you are more at risk for developing the same condition. Of course, that does not mean you will develop the condition, but your risk is greater. (I once shocked a cardiologist by mentioning that you cannot say that something will happen to an individual based on a group statistic; he responded, "You get that!")
Because of my father's severe heart disease, on my doctor's recommendation, I've been taking an 81-mg aspirin a day for more years than I can now remember, and I think nothing of it.
By the same token, so far I have never had a colonoscopy because there is absolutely no history of gastrointestinal cancer in my family. My mother died of a stroke, and my father, as I mentioned above, has severe heart disease. In my own opinion, I am at greater risk for heart disease than I am for gastrointestinal cancer.
I guess my father's pancreatic cancer qualifies as "gastrointestinal," since he's now under the care of a gastroenterologist, but that has nothing to do with his stomach or intestines, and in March he will be 88 years old. My own opinion is that it's more likely that his heart disease will kill him before the pancreatic cancer will.
Of course, anyone has the right to refuse to go on any medication (my father refuses chemotherapy for his pancreatic cancer), but that does not mean the doctor is wrong about risk because of age, especially if a parent had the condition in question.
In my opinion, this is not an example of ageism. This is responsible medical practice.
ETA: I should have said that my comments are based on what I see on my job. However, I stand by my opinion that this is not an example of ageism.
-
Sometimes I wonder why I seem to be invisible, or I'm in a group and say something and it just seems to go into a black hole. This is particularly true in my permaculture group. I'm the president and all but one of the other board members are 20- or 30-somethings. And the other person is a 50-something. They don't really ask my opinion on issues most of the time but of course I give it anyway. It just seems to fly into thin air. Looking back later, I have to remind myself that I'm a different generation than these people and a woman, to boot (permaculture is sadly dominated by men). It's something I just have to accept. But when I look at the group in my mind's eye, I see myself as their peer. I have the same values as 30 years ago, but more experience. Way more experience. But I still have the enthusiasm and experience has not made me bitter.
-
Practically all of my life I've been invisible in groups. Even in my leather club, when I was the presidential officer, unless I was presiding over a meeting, I was practically invisible. :( Your point is well-taken, FRiend, but in my own case I can't attribute the invisibility to age. For me, it's always been that way.
But when I look at the group in my mind's eye, I see myself as their peer. I have the same values as 30 years ago, but more experience. Way more experience. But I still have the enthusiasm and experience has not made me bitter.
I don't wish to seem harsh, but with regard to your "invisibility" in this group, it seems to me that the important thing may not be how you see yourself, but how the 20-to-30-somethings see you--and this I would, indeed, call ageism.
I've only ever met one person in that age range who seems to see me as a peer, and that's because he's an Old Soul in a 30-year-old body.
-
When I go into my one job a couple of times a week, I usually go with people from my former team. Most of them I don't know well because I left that team before they got there (my new team is much smaller and people usually eat at their desks). They're mostly in their 20s and early 30s, maybe a couple are 40ish. They seem to genuinely like me and pay attention to me and laugh really hard at my jokes. They're seriously amused, not just being polite. Which surprises even me.
I didn't get that response from my former teammates (almost all since quit or laid off). Their average age was probably a bit older than these people. Most of them were nice enough, but nothing special. A few were outright snooty to me, which I could only explain as weird ageism.
So I'm not sure what the deal is. The team's unofficial social leader is a gay man of 29 who is extremely outgoing, funny and charismatic. He got everyone involved in cubicle-wall magnetic Scrabble game. Last week he started an office pool to guess the brackets in the NCAA tournaments (I only know to call it that because that's what was at the top of the page, and he made me fill it out, too.) He seems to really like me -- listens to what I have to say, gets my jokes. Than there's a really nice Muslim woman who, though pretty Westernized in appearance and dress, is active at her mosque and has never had a sip of alcohol. She and I get along really well, too. And I'm on a pretty decent basis with most of the others.
So sometimes it might just be a matter of chemistry, I guess.
However, my stepmother said something chilling not long ago. She's 75. Now retired, she rose from secretary to VP of a Fortune 500 company (which I don't think anyone could even do these days). She's very active in the local arts scene, and sits on the boards of several major arts institutions. She was chairman of the Guthrie Theater board when it planned and executed a move from the building it had occupied forever to a fancy new building overlooking the Mississippi. (The Guthrie is a venerable multi-stage regional theater.)
Anyway, what she said was that she still goes to the board meetings, but younger people are in charge now. They give her something to do, but she no longer feels relevant. That was her word. She's just as smart and capable as ever. Just no longer treated as relevant. :(
-
I think that younger people may not know it, but they are dismissing older people. I believe that there is a stereotype of older people that they are not as mentally "there" as younger people.
I also think that this will decline. It seems that older people are staying in the workforce, and taking care of their health in better ways. When I see commercials, I don't see older couples, bending over, as they walk with canes. They are being portrayed as more active, healthy, and mentally together than they used to be.
This commercial uses both, not necessarily the active part, but definitely the health and mentally together parts.
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL8ycSiVhCU[/youtube]
-
I think that younger people may not know it, but they are dismissing older people. I believe that there is a stereotype of older people that they are not as mentally "there" as younger people.
I agree, there certainly is that stereotype.
I also think that this will decline. It seems that older people are staying in the workforce, and taking care of their health in better ways. When I see commercials, I don't see older couples, bending over, as they walk with canes. They are being portrayed as more active, healthy, and mentally together than they used to be.
I hope you're correct about the decline, but I fear that you're being overly optimistic.
As for commercials, I think you really need to look carefully at what is being sold, and to whom. Of course you're going to see happy, healthy, active older people if the product being sold is something supposed to keep older people healthy and active.
I remember a particular commercial (I think it was for Ensure) that featured an older couple driving down some highway in a convertible, healthy and happy--and using Ensure.
On the other hand, if the product is some sort of medical alert device, then you're going to see a "I've fallen and I can't get up" type of commercial.
-
I hope you're correct about the decline, but I fear that you're being overly optimistic.
I've written about this, too. The less ageist you are, the less likely you are, when you get old, to suffer from dementia and pretty much all other age-related health issues, longitudinal studies show.
Ageism is often called ironic because it's a prejudice that the ageist young person will eventually be the target of -- if they're lucky. It's prejudice against one's own future self. But in this piece for the New Yorker, Tad Friend argues that's not ironic at all, it's the whole point. Ageism embodies buried fears about one's own decline and death.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/why-ageism-never-gets-old (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/why-ageism-never-gets-old)
Friend's article came out a month or two after mine. He used literally the exact same sources. Mine didn't end on quite such a bleak note, however.
As for commercials, I think you really need to look carefully at what is being sold, and to whom. Of course you're going to see happy, healthy, active older people if the product being sold is something supposed to keep older people healthy and active.
I remember a particular commercial (I think it was for Ensure) that featured an older couple driving down some highway in a convertible, healthy and happy--and using Ensure.
I work for the company that makes Ensure. Or rather, the Fortune 200 company that bought out the Fortune 500 company I started working for in 2014. Abbott's whole brand theme is "life to the fullest," so their commercials feature people doing things like finishing marathons, peaking Mt. Everest or at the very least just leaping into the air at the beach. (In addition to Ensure, they make baby formula and other health-related products.)
A retired former coworker (mid-60s, I'd guess) got in a bike accident a while back. He's recovering, but he mentioned on Facebook that he'd been taking Ensure. I said, that's great because in no time you'll be finishing marathons, peaking mountains and leaping into the air at the beach. He said that coincidentally during the past year he had done all three of those things. I said, in that case you'd better lay off the Ensure, or you'll be taking up parkour and skateboarding in the X-games.
Boomers are ultra-sensitive to aging stereotypes ("Hope I die before I get old," sang Roger Daltrey, now 74). So they're helping "change the face of aging," which is actually an AARP slogan. They're more active, both physically and at work and other activities, than their predecessors.
However, they also may be heading toward a clash with younger generations over funding SS and Medicare.
Also, boomers are still "young old." The oldest turn 72 this year. People in their 60s and 70s can be quite vibrant and active. After 80 or 85, it's much more unusual. But we'll see.
-
I've written about this, too. The less ageist you are, the less likely you are, when you get old, to suffer from dementia and pretty much all other age-related health issues, longitudinal studies show.
I'm not sure I'm following this. Is it saying that the less ageist (less prejudiced against older people) you are when you are young, the less likely you are to suffer from age-related health issues when you get old? (I'm not disputing the point. I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly.)
A retired former coworker (mid-60s, I'd guess) got in a bike accident a while back. He's recovering, but he mentioned on Facebook that he'd been taking Ensure. I said, that's great because in no time you'll be finishing marathons, peaking mountains and leaping into the air at the beach. He said that coincidentally during the past year he had done all three of those things. I said, in that case you'd better lay off the Ensure, or you'll be taking up parkour and skateboarding in the X-games.
:laugh:
But you're not really disputing my point about advertising, are you? I mean, if Abbott's brand is "life to the fullest," they're probably not going to show someone with Parkinson disease, walking with a cane and bent over with "dowager's hump."
-
It's funny that this thread is active today.
I wish I could find it online, but on the news at work today was footage of seniors competing in a 50 or 100m dash. Those guys could still book it!
I laughed and said I wasn't gonna make fun, because if I was in that race with them now, they'd all beat me!
-
Thanks for that link, Katharine. Somehow I missed that article when it was published. There are a couple of things that stood out: Friend talks about seniors' mental health being better than twenty- or thirty-somethings'. I agree, looking back. I was terribly lonely and confused in my early years and now I have a sense of purpose and an inner calm.
-
I'm not sure I'm following this. Is it saying that the less ageist (less prejudiced against older people) you are when you are young, the less likely you are to suffer from age-related health issues when you get old? (I'm not disputing the point. I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly.)
Yes, there's a correlation between ageist attitudes and age-related health problems. The most famous research has been done by a Yale prof. named Becca Levy. If you scan her list of publications you'll get the idea: https://publichealth.yale.edu/people/becca_levy-2.profile (https://publichealth.yale.edu/people/becca_levy-2.profile)
But you're not really disputing my point about advertising, are you? I mean, if Abbott's brand is "life to the fullest," they're probably not going to show someone with Parkinson disease, walking with a cane and bent over with "dowager's hump."
I'm not disputing your point; of course commercials involving health products for old people are going to show them being happy and active. But when Abbott bought St. Jude Medical, which is where I worked, the messaging became trickier. Because whereas Abbott makes products to enhance the lives of already reasonably healthy people, SJM makes therapies for more seriously ill people.
For example, SJM does make a product for Parkinson's. They drill a hole into the top of your skull, run some lead wires into your brain, affix them to a device that's implanted under your skin on your chest. The device generates electrical signals that causes the wire to stimulate specific areas of your brain.
Sounds gross, but its effect on Parkinson's is amazing. I've seen videos of people with the device who are either not shaking at all or are barely shaking. Then they turn off the device (it works wirelessly with an iphone-like controller). Suddenly their arm is jerking all over the place. People go from not being able to lift and drink a cup of coffee to living reasonably normal and active lives.
There's a similar product they implant in your spine to treat chronic, debilitating pain. It sends electrical pulses into your nervous system to block the pain signals from reaching your brain.
Another product they make is called an LVAD. It's a thing they give you to keep your heart pumping if you for some reason can't get a heart transplant. As you get close to needing it, you can't walk from the couch to the bathroom without stopping twice to rest. Eventually, you'd be dead.
People like that aren't exactly climbing Mt. Everest (although a coworker did see a guy at her gym with an LVAD -- it's a fairly bulky, noticeable device and you have to carry extra batteries around at all times). So for those ads, they might show people having coffee with a friend, or walking their dog, or celebrating a birthday or, at most, riding a bike. Something enjoyable, that they formerly wouldn't have been able to enjoy -- not performing some amazing athletic feat that most people can't even do in their 20s.
-
Yes, there's a correlation between ageist attitudes and age-related health problems. The most famous research has been done by a Yale prof. named Becca Levy. If you scan her list of publications you'll get the idea: https://publichealth.yale.edu/people/becca_levy-2.profile (https://publichealth.yale.edu/people/becca_levy-2.profile)
I'm not disputing your point; of course commercials involving health products for old people are going to show them being happy and active.
Thanks! Glad to know we understand each other. :)
But when Abbott bought St. Jude Medical, which is where I worked, the messaging became trickier. Because whereas Abbott makes products to enhance the lives of already reasonably healthy people, SJM makes therapies for more seriously ill people.
Curious. Any connection to St. Jude's Medical Center, the hospital for kids with cancer for which Marlo Thomas raises money?
-
Thanks for that link, Katharine. Somehow I missed that article when it was published. There are a couple of things that stood out: Friend talks about seniors' mental health being better than twenty- or thirty-somethings'. I agree, looking back. I was terribly lonely and confused in my early years and now I have a sense of purpose and an inner calm.
Purpose and inner calm is good!
-
Curious. Any connection to St. Jude's Medical Center, the hospital for kids with cancer for which Marlo Thomas raises money?
Danny Thomas founded it! I didn't even know that until just now -- I knew he'd been deeply involved in fundraising, and wanted to make that point. But I didn't know he actually started the place until I looked it up.
https://www.stjude.org/about-st-jude/history/how-we-began.html (https://www.stjude.org/about-st-jude/history/how-we-began.html)
As a young man, Danny Thomas had a simple goal: to entertain people and be successful enough at it to provide for his wife and family. But work wasn’t easy to come by.
As he and his family struggled, his despair grew. He wondered if he should give up on his dreams of acting or find a steady job. He turned to St. Jude Thaddeus, the patron saint of hopeless causes. “Show me my way in life,” he vowed to the saint one night in a Detroit church, “and I will build you a shrine.”
That prayer to St. Jude marked a pivotal moment in his life. Soon after, he began finding work, eventually becoming one of the biggest stars of radio, film and television in his day.
And as one of the world’s biggest celebrities, Danny used his fame to fulfill his vow to St. Jude Thaddeus and to change the lives of thousands of children and families. [Continues ...]
But no, there's no connection. I'm sure many employees over its 40 years wished they had named the company something different because people always ask that, or even assume it.
I'm not sure why a company that started out making pacemakers and other heart devices would have named itself after the patron saint of hopeless causes. ??? But obviously it worked for Danny Thomas.
-
I'm not sure why a company that started out making pacemakers and other heart devices would have named itself after the patron saint of hopeless causes. ??? But obviously it worked for Danny Thomas.
That's kinda creepy.