4.2 Article

I know it exists ... but I haven't experienced it personally': older Canadian men's perceptions of ageism as a distant social problem

Journal

AGEING & SOCIETY
Volume 36, Issue 8, Pages 1757-1773

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0144686X15000689

Keywords

ageism; older men; everyday life; internalised prejudice; gendered ageism; workplace discrimination; ageist stereotypes

Categories

Funding

  1. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Insight Grant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper examines how older men perceive, experience and internalise ageist prejudice in the context of their everyday lives. We draw on in-depth interviews with 29 community-dwelling Canadian men aged 65-89. Although one-third of our participants were unfamiliar with the term ageism, the majority felt that age-based discrimination was prevalent in Canadian society. Indicating that they themselves had not been personally subjected to ageism, the men considered age-based discrimination to be a socially distant problem. The men explained their perceived immunity to ageism in terms of their youthful attitudes and active lifestyles. The men identified three groups who they considered to be particularly vulnerable to age-based discrimination, namely women, older workers and frail elders residing in institutions. At the same time, the majority of our participants had internalised a variety of ageist and sexist stereotypes. Indeed, the men assumed that later life was inevitably a time of physical decline and dependence, and accepted as fact that older adults were grumpy, poor drivers, unable to learn new technologies and, in the case of older women, sexually unattractive. In this way, a tension existed between the men's assertion that ageism did not affect their lives and their own internalisation of ageist stereotypes. We consider our findings in relation to the theorising about ageism and hegemonic masculinity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available