Talk:Ageism/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Archive 1

Inconsistent Description of Adultism

In the section "Distinction from other age-related bias" is the following text:

Adultism is a predisposition towards adults, which is seen as biased against children, youth, and all young people who are not addressed or viewed as adults. This includes political candidacies, jobs, and cultural settings where the supposed greater vitality and/or physical beauty of youth is more appreciated than the supposed greater moral and/or intellectual rigor of adulthood.

This is inconsistent. It describes adultism, presumably correctly, as being bias in favour of being adult but then moves on to talking about vitality and youthful appearance being preferred which would seem to be the opposite, i.e. favouring the young.

It seems reasonable that there may be a word for favouring those in their prime, i.e. adults and neither children or adolescents or people in their senior years but, if adultism is it, the description needs to be much clearer. Otherwise the paragraph needs to be revised, probably by removing the comment about vitality and youtthful appearance or explaining what that preference is called as it isn't adultism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve James (talk • contribs) 00:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ywrhea.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Spsjaggy1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The References

Um...where does this article cite its sources at all? Seriously, I don't see any references or even a bibliography. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.27.211.52 (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I semi-fixed the syntax on the references so they'll arrive in the section. This article needs to be rewritten with better citations though, that much is true. - Freechild 06:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I just want to add that the year cited for when Butler coined the term is incorrect. Robert N. Butler states that he "originally coined the term 'ageism' in 1968. As chairman of the District of Columbia Advisory Committee on Aging, I had been actively involved in the acquisition of public housing for older people." Further, ageism more succinctly refers to a systematic stereotyping of and discrimination against people because they are old, just as racism and sexism accomplish this with skin color and gender." This is from Butler's article, "Dispelling ageism: The cross-cutting intervention," published in the Spring/Summer 1993 issues of Generations, 07387806, Vol. 17, page 75-79.

He later adds that "ageism allows the younger generation to see older people as different from themselves; thus they subtly cease to identify with their elders as human beings (Butler, 1969)." Reference: Butler, R. N., 1969. "Ageism: Another Form of Bigotry" Gerontologist 9:243-46. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.91.45.249 (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Old comments

What needs to be included in this article is that whether "ageism" is an invidious form of discrimination is not something on which a consensus has been reached, at least not to the extent that there has been on racism.

For example, P.J. O'Rourke on ageism being a silly concept:

"A person who failed to discriminate between a six year old and a twenty six year old would be insane in almost all circumstances and arrested in some." --All the Trouble in the World

However, there has been enough of a consensus that the article should include a link to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act in the US and whatever other legislation exists. Ellsworth 16:17, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Specific incidents of high-profile ageism (alleged or otherwise) need to be noted. Jane Pauley comes to mind. Mike H 22:00, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

---

Just like schyler? Give me a good explanation and I'll leave it as it is. --Requiem the 18^th_(email) 03:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Youth/Elder differences

Has there been any research/criticism about the bias towards recognising success in younger people rather than older? It seems that someone who attains, say, a PhD in their late teens is more praisworthy than someone who attains it later in life when, all things being equal, all PhDs should held in similar regard. Would something to this effect be worth mentioning in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.248.132.73 (talk • contribs) .

Well it's understandable that someone who accomplishes something at 19 is more praised than the one who does a similar thing with 10 more years of experience and time. It's like comparing someone who does task X in 10 minutes compared to the other who does it in 15 minutes. This is not a way of judging a person, but when judging this accomplishment the younger person is more impressive. It doesn't mean he's more intelligent or "superior". --Sheep Select 00:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Much Point of Viewism has crept into this article

I visited this article for the first time a few minutes ago and found it to be full of absurd statements. Going back through the history, I find that it was reasonably encyclopedic before about 29 November 2006, when it began acquiring statements like "This (meaning Ageism) includes any assumption of familiarity or sameness due to one's age" and "...Parents, by assuming their disconnectedness and Adultist tendencies" (this one was reverted and changed to a statement about ageism against middle-aged people) and "Automatically assuming that infants and small children are helpless, incapable, and ignorant" (that last one is the most absurd -- it is not ageism to assume that infants are helpless, thank you, because infants are helpless). This has gone from an article about the real and invidious phenomenon of discrimination against people on the basis of age to a silly essay that asserts that it is a terrible thing to think that any person's age has any relationship to any other attribute of that person. I am tempted to revert to the revision as of 12:05, 29 November 2006 by KPalicz, which appears to be the last sensible version, but I suppose a few of the changes since then might be justified. --orlady 03:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, mostly because I made the statements that you dislike. However, I would suggest that there is value in leaving the concepts introduced in those statements, e.g. pedaphobia, ephebiphobia, and geronphobia. Maybe I'll try to rewrite these w/o the POV. -Freechild 04:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If your interest is in creating a dictionary of phobias, may I suggest that the encyclopedia entries about the topic of ageism might not be the best place to pursue that interest? Fear is not the same thing as discrimination. --orlady 05:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The relationship between ageism and the phobias cited is encyclopedic; however, the process of vetting Wikipedia entries is simply not worth it to me. Enjoy the revision. -Freechild 05:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

orlady, is it not YOUR POV that is creeping in? By asserting the possible absurdity of such statements because YOU feel it is, thus injecting your POV into it, aren't you making the same mistake you assert freechild to have made? As for the phobia things, I was unaware science with sources was unacceptable on Wikipedia.Theowannabe 06:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Chip

With no discussion on this for more than a month, and with a bit of clean-up, I am removing the POV tag. - Freechild 19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Having studied sociology of aging, I've found that a large portion of reference materials on the topic of Ageism tend to contain a large ration of opinion to fact.

One example from this article that I find particularly alarming is the statement of fact that statistics from the Weakest Link showing that older people are voted off more often than expected proves that the contestents strongly disliked having older people on stage with them. In terms of both hard logic and common sense this conclusion is absurd. In terms of logic, it more or less goes without saying that correlation does not imply causation--that is, just because older contestants were voted off of a game show at what is interpreted to be an abnormally high rate (and this interpretation is entirely determined by Levitt (et al)'s subjective views on the apparently universal strategy that determines how a contestant will vote). More simply put, Levitt makes his conclusions by comparing the statistics that he was given with those of a non-existent control group, its data being a totally subjective result of the writer's assumptions about the game. To be more concise, the older contestants may very well have been voted off early on because of stereotypes concerning age and mental performance. But by the point in the game in which voting against one's true competitors begins, stereotypes are less likely to be used as observations about the abilities of the individual member of the stereotyped group become more relevant. So, as an alternative explanation, even if an older contenstant conforms to a preconceived stereotype of, say, mental slugishness, the average contestant may have noticed that the older competitor was more knowledgable (possibly attributed to his or her longer time being alive, being able to accumulate more knowledge) even if s/he struggled in earlier rounds. Knowing that the final round allows a contestant more time to consider a question, the older peer may be considered a greater threat than a younger person who may instead be more skilled at reflex-type answering or banking strategies.

The explanation that I write there may be totally wrong but my point is that it would be irresponsible to draw the conclusion that typical Weakest Link contestants are instead intimidated by older participants, just as it is equally (or more so) irresponsible to use Levit's unsubstianted assumptions to declare that a great deal of people dislike the company of older people. I'll admit that it serves its function of showing the difference between stereotype and prejudice. But it is simply unobjective AND offense to document Levitt's conclusions as fact unless it is extensively rewritten to indicate the subjectivity of the scenario and essentially stated that the Weakest Link example is being used only as a hypothetical to define the important terminology. The only other valid use for this source/example is as an example of popular beliefs and publications about the role of ageism in our culture.

Again, this is not the only example that I noticed. I point it out in such great detail because I attempted to edit the article to put that example in its proper context but found that I would have to make major changes that I was not only struggling with but also felt that I should not implement without discussion. Please give me some feedback. One final clarification: I don't mean to say that older people are not discriminated against through stereotyping and prejudice in any number of situations. I just believe that this example is a flawed and subjective way to convey that point. I will be reapplying the POV tag until these issues are addressed or if a number of other users disagree. - Korbnep (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

National Youth Administration was not about curing ageism

Kudos to Freechild for so quickly addressing my skepticism about the NYA organization being associated with remedying ageism.

After reading his input, I now am more thoroughly convinced that it does not belong in this article. The NYA was about providing economic opportunity for youth during a time when the economy was not producing enough jobs for any age group, not ending discrimination against youth. Eleanor Roosevelt's comments were also about economic opportunity. The document referenced[1] says (in part; the added emphasis is mine):

The huge numbers of unemployed youth of the 1930s underscored several fears adults had for society. Conservatives saw disgruntled young people as a fertile ground for revolutionary politics while liberals mourned the disillusionment and apathy spreading among American youth. Educators feared that without some type of financial aid, colleges would suffer irreversible damage. ER worried that long-term unemployment and borderline poverty would undermine young Americans' faith in democracy. She told The New York Times that "I live in real terror when I think we may be losing this generation. We have got to bring these young people into the active life of the community and make them feel that they are necessary."(1)

Accordingly, I deleted that chunk from the article. --orlady 16:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't respond directly to your assertion about the NYA, because I don't believe that type of squabbling is conducive to a healthy WP. However, I do not want to loose the effect of the ER quote, so I re-inserted it with a different phrasing. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 16:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This dispute is not about the NYA, but rather about accurate interpretation of information found in cited sources. The source you cite never once suggests (much less states) that E.R. was concerned about discrimination against youth. She definitely was concerned that youth would become disengaged and disenchanted due to lack of opportunity, but there is no hint that she perceived discrimination against youth. When you quote her out of context, it is possible to infer that she was thinking about discrimination, but the context provided by the source does not hint at any such thing. Furthermore, the NYA appears to have focused on giving youth opportunities, not on addressing discrimination on the basis of age. Thus, you can use that quote in an article about youth engagement, but it does not belong in Ageism. --orlady 18:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Your original comment makes assertions about the NYA. The comment above makes assertions about the NYA. However, I am addressing ER's quote - not the NYA. Let's not mistake that. The ER quote is appropriate in the context of the article where I inserted it, and I have not quoted her out of context - she was often quoted expressing her dismay about the conditions young people faced simply because of their age - and that is ageism. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 18:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I definitely don't read her quote the same way that you do. It's easy to read something into two sentences taken out of context: "I live in real terror when I think we may be losing this generation. We have got to bring these young people into the active life of the community and make them feel that they are necessary." She says that youth have a need and that there are serious consequences of not addressing that need, but nothing in that quotation indicates a theory regarding the underlying cause of the situation. I don't know what else she said in the same interview or article, but there is nothing in the article you cited [2] that so much as hints at "discrimination" being the cause of the problems she describes. Rather, the focus of the contextual article is on unemployment and poverty as causes. Furthermore, the material I have read regarding the National Youth Administration focuses on it as an education/training and employment program, aimed at young people on relief. I realize that you perceive the NYA as an outgrowth of American Youth Congress, which makes it a youth voice initiative but not necessarily an anti-ageism initiative. My bottom line is that neither the quotation you have chosen, the reference you cite, nor other information I have consulted provide support for the point that you want to make. --orlady 19:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not care to argue about this with you Orlady. If you don't like the quote, be bold and remove it. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 20:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

But just to answer your mis-perception, according to the National Park Service, the NYA was an outgrowth of ER's relationship with Joseph Lash and the American Youth Congress[3]. And your report that ER was concerned with just the economic conditions of youth - that's not an either/or situation. Lash reported that "Mrs. Roosevelt... was concerned with young people and what was happening to them in the Depression."[4] – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 20:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent edits to the Ageism article, Freechild. --orlady 22:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Yesterday an unregistered user changed all of the spellings of the word "ageism" to "agism", minus the e stating that spelling it as "ageism" is a common mistake. There is little evidence online that substantiates that. Anyone have any thoughts?– Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 16:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)