Cleveland Women's

Counsel

The following article was printed in Prime Time and was written by Marjory Collins. Prime Time is the official magazine for older women and their problems, and Majory Collins was the Editor. 'Unfortunately, due to lack of funds, Prime Time was forced to close down and now is sending some articles to New Directions for Women. Since there must be equality for all women, this article will provide food for thought from the perspective of the older woman in our society. ·

A couple of years ago I got very angry. I got angry because a lot of things started to happen to me that can happen to any older woman.

First of all, I got phased out of my job when my company relocated--along with all the other women over 35. Shortly thereafter I had to go on welfare to have an operation. When I went back to reapply for unemployment insurance, the interviewer asked me if I intended to stop work permanently. This remark, made in a droning impersonal voice, came as such a shock that I found myself trembling all over --having always hoped I would "die with my boots on."

When I did get back on unemployment insurance for the additional weeks then provided after the first 26 weeks were exhausted, it did not last long. Suddenly one day I, along with 90,000 other citizens of New York State, were abruptly cut off without forewarning or explanation. It was not until several days later that I read in the paper the reasons for this action: Extensions had been canceled because the state unemployment rates, although higher than the previous year, were not 20% higher!

This 20% stipulation is the kind of cruel condition written into legislation by a bunch of men down in Washington who could never, for a moment, imagine what it's like to be a woman or man without an

income, at an age when getting a job that pays a living wage is virtually impossible. Although I had known for a long time that older persons are downgraded in this society, it had never happened to me before--at least not in such heavy doses. I got angry because I had no control over my life, at least where money is concerned. And that's pretty damned' important in a money society. But it was good to get angry--because anger either destroys you, or drives you to do something about the situation. It was anger that motivated me to start Prime Time.

It was about that time that I first heard that newly coined word--Ageism. Although it is a recently isolated concept, every one of us has suffered from 'ageism long before we started to analyze its nature. In looking back, I remember an incident when I was 35 and was being sent out on a job interview from an employment agency. "Of course you'll lie about your age,' the personnel woman said. Since 1 Page 10/What She Wants/March, 1978

p.o. box 18472

cleve. hts., oh. 44118 321-8585

looked about 20 at the time, I was able to laugh this off. I suppressed my fear of ageism for many years to come. But never again did I tell my age, either socially or in the work world. Only a few close friends knew how old I was. It was only last year at a feminist party, where I was surrounded by supportive women, that I declared myself: "I'm 60 years old!" I blurted out. Then I burst into tears -partly from relief, but also because I felt there was nothing good about being 60 in America.

As older women, we ought to be very angry about ageism. Because, as women growing older, we are its most plagued victims on every front. When a man reaches the peak of his success in middle age, a woman is considered to be going downhill. Why shouldn't all our years be best years? No matter how strong and productive and creative we feel inside, why does the world see us on the way out? What are the factors in our culture that downgrade women as they grow older?

Sociologist Pauline Bart attempts to probe this question in a study comparing the position of middle-aged women in six widely differing cultures. She analyzes each of them on the basis of established, interrelated factors that determine whether the status of women rises or falls with age. Needless to say, our culture falls into the last category. According to Bart, women are downgraded in cultures where the following conditions exist: The marital tie is stronger than other family ties; sex is an end in itself; the maternal bond is weak; the roles of grandmother and mother-in-law are not institutionalized; residence isolates women from kin and grown children; and youth is valued over age. There is no doubt that all these factors apply to us.

Now let's look at the opposite side of the ledger. After reading Bart's study, all I could think of was: Oh, to be a Lovedu! Of the six cultures she studied, the Lovedu (whose habitat is not mentioned) are the most favorable to middle-aged women. Here, the mother-son relationship is stronger than the marital bond. Older women form liaisons with young men. For over 150 years the Lovedu have been ruled by a rainmaker queen on whom they depend. Lovedu wives have economic power through ownership of their own fields and grain stores. Older women have

political power as district heads. Old women are respected as midwives who bring children into the world, and, as they reach the peak of their lives, they are waited on by their daughters-in-law. A Lovedu mother gives her son permission for his first act of intercourse. She controls his wife and feeds and clothes his children, who spend as much time with her as with their mother.

The life of Marquesan women is quite a different story. Their culture, also studied by Bart, falls on

our side of the ledger where status declines in middle age. Marriage is polyandrous, and the erotic skills and attractiveness of women in keeping all the husbands happy and manipulated are highly valued. The most attractive women are the most Their powerful--until their beauty fades.

#

reproductive role is minimized, and the nursing period is short in order to preserve the beauty of their breasts. Old women do most of the work while the younger ones entertain the men. The Marquesans have no respect for age; a son outranks his father at birth.

Does any of that sound familiar? In the conclusion of her study, Pauline Bart points out that significant roles for middle-aged women--here and now-do not require a return to the extended family and kin closeness, even if that were possible. She believes that the opening up of intrinsically satisfying jobs and work for women is the answer. In other words, economic independence.

In another study on Depression in Middle-Aged Women, Pauline Bart defines role as the concept that links the individual to society. As we well know, the roles assigned to women in this society.. motherhood, wifehood--consist of ministering to others. And the roles assumed outside the home-whether it be volunteer or paid work, are more often than not extensions of the same: helping others as social workers, nurses, community workers, secretaries, and so on. According to Bart, the fact that some women perform these roles at the expense of actualizing themselves is often the cause of their depression after their child-rearing duties are over.

"If one's sense of worth comes from other people rather than from one's own accomplishments," she writes, "one is left with an empty shell in place of a self when such people depart. . . . The women's liberation movement, by pointing out alternative life styles, by providing the emotional support necessary for deviating from the ascribed sex roles, and by emphasizing the importance of women actualizing their own selves, fulfilling their own potentials, can help in the development of personhood for both men and women."

I agree with Pauline Bart that the women's movement is the healthiest thing, around, and that, through it, we can eventually abolish ageism. But first, we must fully understand its nature. Then, as older women, well versed in its detrimental effects, we shall have to impart our understanding to younger women to whom ageism may only be a shadow lurking in the future. Ageism, like sexism, must be fought by a united front of all women--and men. But especially by angry older women.