Why do we have to label everyone? Why are certain personality traits considered nobler than others, even when on the surface they appear to be neutral statements of fact, like having light or dark eyes, hair or skin? I felt a pang of sympathy for the author of this article:

https://www.cbc.ca/parents/learning/view/dear-everyone-please-stop-calling-my-kid-shy

Shyness in kids, or adults for that matter, is often innate. It may also be cultivated or reinforced by well-meaning parents, teachers and others who give them advice or instructions like "Don't talk to strangers," "It's not polite to make personal remarks" or "If you can't say anything nice about someone, don't say anything at all." Then there's the fear of negative repercussions if they dare to contradict or disobey someone in authority, or who is perceived to be in authority. But is shyness, in and of itself, necessarily something that must be conquered or overcome?

We also love to rush to judgement of others. And sometimes of ourselves too, in the form of guilt and regret. Here's another example, again coming from a parent:

https://www.cbc.ca/parents/learning/view/expectation-vs-reality

"Aspy" types are somehow considered cool these days. And if they get called out for floundering in social situations or failing to read certain social cues, they go on about how it's fine for the rest of us "neurotypicals" who, they believe, come by their social savvy through some sort of gene or instinct. Well, I'm here to say that everyone needs to learn stuff in life - and it's not limited to academic subjects either!

I can't help but feel that it would be a nicer, kinder and more comfortable world if we could all just be ourselves. And if we didn't constantly get on our high moral horses about others who do just that. Perhaps I'm showing my age here. Some say we tend to get more compassionate as we age. Personally I do feel freer to be my authentic self now that I'm out of the employment rat-race. And I don't care as much about what people think of me.

Maybe it's all a matter of changing the story as we experience it. I'll leave you today with this article on aging and narrative identity:

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how-aging-shapes-narrative-identity?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Today, October 1, is National Seniors' Day in Canada. It's also the day designated by the United Nations as the International Day of Older Persons:

https://www.un.org/en/observances/older-persons-day

And the UN didn't stop there. They've also designated 2020 to 2030 as the Decade of Healthy Ageing:

https://www.who.int/ageing/decade-of-healthy-ageing

There's a wealth of resources on these sites, far too much to delve into in this post. So I'm going to devote the rest of this entry to a brief discussion of nomenclature.

What do we call people who are more "d'un certain age" whether that age is 50, 60, 70 or 80? Are we seniors? Senior citizens? Elders? Elderly people? Oldsters? Old Folks? Older People? The Aged? Troisieme Age or Age d'Or? And of course there are those who insist on calling somebody "99 years YOUNG" as if to be old were a terrible fate.

Then there are the words that allude to current or former employment status like retirees or pensioners. But if you've been a homemaker, non-employed parent or student or unpaid volunteer for most of your adult life, you may not feel that these terms apply to you.

Ditto for words that refer to generational status like grandparents, although certainly grandparental roles are often assumed by people who are not biologically grandparents or even parents.

Words like "snowbirds" used to refer to people who overwinter in sunnier climes tend to conjure up visions of people in their later years, though that may not always be accurate.

There's a wide range of lifestyles and health statuses and other life circumstances amongst the old. And I think old age is usually not a single demographic. As someone in my mid-sixties, I still consider myself to be in the "young old" demographic.

I won't go so far as to say that you're only as old as you feel. I think biological age (as distinct from chronological age) really boils down to a pottage of genetics, environment, lifestyle, fate, attitude and je ne sais quoi.
Tomorrow is back to school for most of the students in the area. There's also the beginning of a nip in the air, particularly in the evenings as the autumn equinox draws near. But fall is also my favourite season, for a number of reasons. I've always looked on it as a time of new beginnings.

For me, it marks the beginning of my life as a senior citizen, qualifying for free transit on Wednesdays and Sundays, monthly OAS and CPP payments, reduced admission fees for museums, art galleries and tickets to certain events. I'm a great believer in aging in place, remaining at home and relatively independent for as long as possible - though I'm certainly not averse to hiring certain support services to perform task I'd rather not have to bother with, like snow clearing and lawn-mowing!

Gerontologists offer plenty of advice on healthy aging, but they all seem to mention two things: being physically active and being socially active. Oddly enough, mental and intellectual stimulation seems to get shorter shrift, with the possible exceptions of learning a new language or musical instrument.

Some people manage to accomplish the physical and social components in one fell swoop - they join a fitness club or take fitness classes and work out as a group. But that's not really my thing. I do get out for a walk almost every day, whether to the park, the grocery store, the bus stop or in inclement weather just around the corner to check for mail. I also try to do a short yoga routine most days. But the idea of group exercising is really not very appealing, even though the Arthritis Society woman (whom I sometimes speak with at my rheumatologist's office) thinks it would be a good idea. I think the last time I was involved with anything like that was Lamaze classes in the early 1980s!

What about social activities? I'm certainly not a life-of-the-party type, although I do enjoy outings with friends or visiting with our kids and grandkids. As far as more structured activities go, there are my weekly Toastmasters meetings (usually followed by a series of little errands I do on my own) and my memberships in Quarter Century Club, the Retired Members Club of my union, CARP, Ex Libris, Federal Retirees, etc. - which come to think of it is quite an extensive list - but I only participate in their activities if I want to or if my schedule permits, and many of them are only annual or semiannual anyway. I also sometimes enrol in Carleton's Learning in Retirement courses or one-time lectures, and there are several coming up that look tempting.

So I guess you could say I choose social activities according to my own interests and preferences. I've never seen the point of socializing for its own sake. I'm also not very good at or not very interested in casual acquaintanceships or striking up conversations with strangers the way some people are. I really need and value my alone-time and if I don't get enough of it, I want to scream "I can't hear myself think!!!" The way I sort out a thorny problem is to really sit by myself and focus.

It's almost an article of faith that the safest neighbourhoods are the ones where you know your neighbours. But while I'm not averse to exchanging the occasional friendly word or helping out if someone is in a bind, I'm just not up to the physical, mental or emotional effort I would need to expend to maintain regular ongoing ties with other people living in the neighbourhood, people with whom I may have little in common other than geographical proximity.

And of course there are all those basic personal maintenance activities that seem to take over more and more of your life as you move up the age-ladder. I'm overdue for blood tests and should be scheduling a mammogram, and then there's that eye appointment at the Riverside coming up in October... but well, it beats the alternative!
69-year-old Dutch TV personality and "positivity guru" Emile Ratelband wants a kind of age-change operation, or procedure at least - to legally change his date of birth. He argues that if you can legally change your name or your gender, why not your age as well?

He's gotten a lot of media mileage out of his request and I'd say age jokes are something of a cultural cliché. One of the lab technicians who processes my bimonthly blood tests often asks my date of birth (presumably to ensure she's got the right patient sitting in front of her) and has been known to joke "I guess that hasn't changed since I saw you last." But in spite of all that, my understanding is that a legal change of birthdate is not totally unheard of.

When I worked in the library of Citizenship and Immigration, I was asked to do a literature search on precisely that: under what circumstances could the date of birth on a birth certificate be altered?

Throughout history, there have been people who genuinely did not know their exact birthday. I've known a few of them, too. But these days, it's difficult to access the services we need without official documents. And the documents we need can only be obtained if we can first produce the original document "proving" our existence - our birth certificate. I have a birth certificate, therefore I am.

If for whatever reason a birth certificate was not issued at or very close to the time of the baby's birth, it could become necessary for a parent or guardian or adoption official to offer a sort of best guess. Does this look like a 3-month-old or a 10-month-old baby? A ten-year-old or a twelve-year-old or a fifteen-year-old? Alternatively, a parent or other relative or friend could be deliberately lying to conceal some shameful (in this person's eyes) personal or family secret. Or to make the child school-aged or not school-aged, depending on the preference. Or to have them treated as a legal adult or a legal child. Then there's the whole "birth tourism" phenomenon.

But subsequently, it could become apparent that the original document must be erroneous. The "experts" would be called in to make a new determination and a new certificate with a new date of birth would be issued, and the old one cancelled.

Clearly that wasn't the case with Emile Ratelband. Rather, he seems to be saying that you're only as old as you feel. Is it really as simple as that? And how exactly are we to establish somebody's identity, or prove our own, if we're all identity-fluid?

If we allow for race on a birth certificate or other official document, we're accused at best of racial profiling or at worst of out-and-out racism and bigotry. Yet if race-fluidity is a reality, then why do people get so up in arms about, for example, performances in blackface? Or if we adopt certain practices or styles of dress that are statistically more likely to occur in people of other cultures or colours, why are we then accused of cultural appropriation? It seems diversity is only to be embraced in a restricted set of circumstances!

We're shaped by our experiences in life, some of which we may choose and others which may more or less be thrust upon us. Of course, we could travel a little farther down the philosophical road, debating the merits of fatalism, determinism and free will, but my concerns are of a rather more practical nature.

Last I heard, the Dutch court had ruled that Ratelband would not be allowed to legally change his date of birth. I don't know if the decision could be appealed.
It's interesting how the texture of time changes as you get older. I tend to remember the 1970s, the 60s - even the last couple of years of the 1950s - in minute detail. As for the 80s and 90s... well, I know they were the years of nesting and child raising and career-building, so I know at least the KIND of activities I was involved in. The years since the turn of the century and the millennium? They've passed by in a blur. I'm startled when I read about something that happened in 1994 and realize that's twenty years ago. For example, I recently reread Gloria Steinem's essay "Doing Sixty" and realized that this year, she's doing eighty!

Of course, a young child's horizons tend to be quite limited, so reflecting on the most distant past I can remember is a bit like looking through a magnifying glass. I see a more limited AREA, but the grain and the details are writ large. And it's not just the sense of sight that's involved, but the senses of sound, taste, smell and touch (which according to today's Quirks and Quarks is probably several senses in itself) - in short, the TEXTURE of life.

I've no idea how much time is left to me - I don't really WANT to know. But as I've no particular reason to think the end is nigh, I'm optimistic that there should be two or three decades to go, hopefully with quality along with the quantity!
Page generated Jun. 8th, 2025 05:34 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios