Will we blanch at this twenty years from now?

Driving a familiar neighborhood route yesterday I was reminded that within a few months I will be visited by a representative of an insurance company who will evaluate my mental acuity and my driving ability. I am scheduled for this evaluation because of one and only one factor: my chronological age.  I experience this event with pain and with anger for the implementation of unmasked ageism that it is.

The context is this: the insurance company with which many – and my own – religious congregations do business recommends this testing as a part of their risk management strategy. Clearly the insurance company values holding down expenses. A valid and responsible goal. Clearly the congregations engaged with this insurance company want to keep expenses down and want to keep members safe. Again, a valid and responsible goal.

Let me share a story here told to me several years ago by a Chicana Sister in Texas. Every year in the elementary school she attended, there was a ‘lice check’ on the first day of school. This was the procedure:  every Latino student, and only Latino students, were called out of the classroom to be examined by a nurse.  Shocking. Shameful. Children, based on their ethnicity and only on their ethnicity were treated in a discriminatory manner. The practice is clearly racist and would never even be considered in today’s culture. Our society is more ‘woke’ to such blatant racism.

No one in the school system, I am sure, set out to act in a racist way, in a way that denigrated a class of students, that brought shame and embarrassment. The school system had a goal of maintaining good public health.  Again, a valid and responsible goal. The error in this 1950s practice was the means by which a valid and responsible goal was sought. A noble end never justifies a racist means.

A noble and valid end never justifies an ageist means either. There is assuredly no ill intent on anyone’s part in this present practice of driving evaluation based solely on chronological age. Simultaneously there clearly is no awareness that it is an prejudicial, age-shaming practice.

Some Sisters shrug and say ‘it’s okay’, which can be read as evidence of internalized ageism: ‘I’m not quite as worthy a person as I was when I was younger.’  ‘The very fact of my chronological age lessens my value.’ This is the age-shame that accompanies internalized ageism, an all too common reality among elders that is entrenched even more deeply by overt ageist policies.

As warriors for social justice, Sisters have stood with the oppressed and marginalized in countless ways and places throughout our history. At times we have also succumbed to the values of the broader culture in practicing racism, for example. (See NY Times “Nuns Who Bought and Sold Human Beings”). Awakening to an awareness of this social sin of not honoring the rights and dignity of the other, Congregations of Sisters have taken public action to express their contrition prejudice as and to ask for forgiveness.

Ageism is an insidious, harmful-to-all-of-us prejudice. It harms our future selves and negatively impacts achievement, health, longevity, and well-being as Becca Levy’s research has consistently shown.

Called to a prophetic, counter-cultural stance, can we Sisters awaken to such instances of ageism, recognize that the end does not justify an ageist means, and seek an insurance solution that honors fiscal responsibility, safety and the simultaneous dignity of the individual?  Yes, we can! The first step is naming the issue.  Done!

 

 

 

The Martha Stewart – Sports Illustrated Swim Suit Issue: What Is the Message?

The news cycle is past. Martha Stewart, an 81-year-old well-regarded public figure, successful business woman and author is on the cover of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue. The oldest woman to be on that cover.

How is one to read what such an event means? Is it a positive event, taking another step forward in fighting ageism?  Will it mean progress for women in society generally and in the workplace specifically, resulting in less of a sense of invisibility and exclusion?

Several commentators have opined about Martha Stewart’s latest venture. I offer my own here as a gerontologist, an anti-ageist activist and as one who continues to try to unlearn my internalized ageism.

I see lots of denial. The whole matter is premised on the accepted physical/sexual attractiveness of women in swimsuits. Beautiful women with beautiful bodies in swimsuits. What is the social construct of a beautiful body in our society.  In other words, what does society say is appropriate if one is to be considered beautiful, pleasing, suitable?  In all cases, the answer is youthful beauty.  Youthful beauty is the standard. Period.

What does an organization (Sports Illustrated) do, then, to sell the maximum number of copies of its magazine with an 81-year-old in a bathing suit on the cover?  Look at the poses and the swimsuit chosen for Martha Stewart. (Once at the website, keep scrolling down.)

Compare them with the poses of subjects in earlier Swimsuit issues. Younger models are posed with more body showing. It’s just that simple.  And it’s also logical if one accepts the belief that youthful beauty is the standard.  Take a look and judge for yourself at a randomly chosen  swimsuit issue, 2020:  One is reminded, looking at these swimsuit photos, that they are intended for the approving male gaze.

Martha Stewart cooperated in this venture, telling interviewers that in “accepting the challenge”, she succeeded. She engaged in Pilates exercises three times a week.  She increased the frequency of her four-decades long practice of weekly facials and serious skin care regimen. (She said she has “good skin doctors”.)  Responding to negative comments, she denies ever having plastic surgery, while admitting that she does use a little Botox and some fillers to address the ‘fine lines’. Martha reports that she got a spray tan and a total body wax in preparation for the swimsuit photo session. She abstained from alcohol during these months of preparing for the photo shoot and didn’t eat bread or pasta for a couple of months.

Why all this? Because in a swimsuit photoshoot, one does what one can to make an 81-year-old body appear young, to be acceptable in a society that values only a youthful body and youthful beauty, to submit to what is acceptable, particularly to the male gaze.

Another obvious reality in all this is that Martha Stewart and other women of means can afford weekly facials, expensive skin care, cosmetic surgery, etc. Joy Behar of “The View” made that very point saying, “If you have enough money, you can afford to ‘look good.’”

In the end, having an older woman take part in a public ritual that our society says belongs to those with a youthful body has inherent risks. In this case, the risks have been addressed by the older woman making every effort to look young and the organization choosing poses and clothing that do not match that of its usual models: women of a young age in which their youthful bodies are photographed to their greatest visual advantage.

Sheila Callaham says it well in a Forbes article: “Sorry, but aspirations to stay young or young at heart are based on age denial, which is the foundation of ageism."  

Being 81 and posing in a swimsuit is not the issue. The issue is that in the Sports Illustrated case it is an instance of ageism being sold as age inclusivity.

 

 

 

Ageism attacks all ages

 I'm watching my DVR recording of  "Good Morning America" with Johnathan Karl. He reported the arrest of a "21-year-old National Guardsman for allegedly leaking a treasure trove of classified material, for allegedly sharing hundreds of classified documents on Discord" (a voice, video and text chat app that Karl says is popular among "young gamers".)

Lindsey Graham, Senator from South Carolina in being interviewed by Karl immediately went to the question which I have heard repeated every day since the leak was exposed:  "How does a 21-year-old airman . . . have access to all this information?"  

There it is! Judging a person based on age!!  It's ageism.  Blatant, Categorial ageism!

Whatever the issues are in this serious, perhaps dangerous and unfortunate leak of classified information, as long as it focuses on chronological age as a valid factor in the leak is ageist.

That's it.  A short blog post because the expressions of ageism in the news around this issue  is undeniable.

It's that Loathsome "D" Word Again

Sister Christine Schenk, CSJ is  a highly regarded person for her activism in working for women's equality in the institutional Church. In fact, she is an author and the co-founder of Future Church; she served several years as its founding Executive Director.  Her words and actions rightfully carry much weight within the circle of justice-seeking persons.

In a piece published by the National Catholic Reporter on March 24th, Sister Christine wrote of her post-surgery experience and subsequent reflections upon living with her "Senior Sisters" in the Motherhouse.

As is all too common an occurrence, this feminist, finely attuned to and responding to the inequalities of sexism in our Church, fell prey to the  unacknowledged, socially acceptable construct of ageism.  

She writes: "For the past three weeks, I have been gimping around with our senior sisters, each of whom is dealing with diminishment and the frailty of aging."

It is all too common to equate aging with diminishment, even though it is such a false, totally ungrounded reality. Additionally, the concept of personhood "diminishing" with the experience of longevity is  a dangerous and harmful concept to each and every living person. 

To diminish means to become less than. Because I have less physical stamina, am I "less than"  I was when I did not experience this physical decline?  Because I can't so easily use the stairs to reach third floor at the convent complex, because I choose to use the elevator instead am I diminished as a person?  Absolutely not.

What we often read, hear, think of and speak of as "aging" is usually only the biological aspect of aging: the physical, bodily changes over a lifetime. This biological aging is called senescence. 

Aging is more holistic and complex and "is the universal lifelong biological, psychological, social and spiritual process of developing over time according to Tracey Gendron, Ph.D., author of "Ageism Unmasked."

Increased Oversight of Antipsychotics: A Good First Step, Not a Substitute for Enforcement

 

wednesday, january 18, 2023

What I have with this entry is a copy of the letter sent out by an  advocacy organization, Long Term Community Coalition.  It  addresses the all-too-common use of  anti-psychotic medications to "control behaviors" of residents living with  dementia.   Anti-psychotic (AP) drugs are designed to aid persons with  psychosis. Dementia is not a psychosis. These AP drugs are used as chemical restraints when prescribed for persons living with  dementia.  Beyond the sedating impact of these drugs (They're  sleeping, so they are not a problem – or so the thinking goes) there  are other harmful side effects. Why am I sharing this on this blog?  For anyone who loves someone living in a nursing home, if you have any responsibility -- moral or  legal – this information is important. For those Congregations of Sisters who depend on licensed  nursing home care, whether that care is provided by the  Congregation's own nursing home, or in another public licensed  retirement center, this information is vital information. Quality of life is of the essence in this issue as well as quality of care,  considering serious negative side effects and the inappropriate use  of these chemical restraints. In desiring and in expecting the highest quality of life and the  highest quality of care for our Sisters, as mandated by Federal  and State Nursing Home Regulations, those Sisters who have the appointed responsibility for their Sisters receiving long-term care  must know what those standards are in order to be effective advocates. And here is the letter with links as provided in the original letter.   Good morning,   Today, CMS announced it is taking additional steps to strengthen  nursing home safety and transparency by increasing oversight of inappropriate antipsychotics use. These steps include: Targeted auditing of nursing homes to determine accuracy of  schizophrenia diagnoses, and Posting citations under dispute on Care Compare. The inappropriate use of antipsychotic (AP) drugs and other  psychotropic drugs to chemically restrain nursing home residents is a persistent and widespread problem. In particular, AP drugs are too often used on residents with dementia because a facility is unwilling to hire sufficient staff, with the appropriate competencies, to employ non-pharmacological approaches to dementia care (as professional standards of care require).   We and other advocates have been calling on CMS to improve  oversight and accountability for many years. This has resulted in some improvement, but not nearly enough. As found in our recent report, "A Decade of Drugging," ( A Decade of Drugging - NursingHome411)  approximately 20% of nursing home residents are currently receiving these dangerous drugs. That report cites an October 2022 federal report which found that a shocking 80% of nursing home residents are receiving some form of psychotropic drug.   In what other setting would we allow so many living things to be drugged into submission? If it was discovered in an animal shelter, it would be all over the news and heads would roll. But when it comes to nursing homes, we not only accept the unthinkable, we bankroll it: super-rich investors and operators are making millions, thanks to a steady stream of public dollars and minimal oversight. Meanwhile, residents suffer  avoidable pain and degradation.   CMS's announcement  ( Biden-Harris Administration Takes Additional Steps to Strengthen Nursing Home Safety and Transparency | CMS )  is a good first step.  By cracking down on false diagnoses of schizophrenia, it has the potential to help address one of the ways in which nursing homes hide the inappropriate use of antipsychotic drugs. However, it is not a substitute for vigorous monitoring and enforcement of longstanding minimum standards of care.