When “advancing young people” actually means ageism

By Vera Reider

When
"Othello." Photo by the author

I was invited recently – four times, by four different people – to take part in a photography exhibition on the great Russian immigration wave of the 1990’s, marking the wave’s 20th anniversary. I don’t think I have any works to exhibit there, to be honest; but that’s not the point. Even if I did, and even if they were works of pure genius, they wouldn’t have been admitted – because the age of participants is limited to under 35.

I guess I’m supposed to take the fact the organisers “forgot” I’m far beyond 35 as a compliment. Instead, I find myself infuriated. And not just on my behalf.

I personally know at least a few remarkable photographers who are being discriminated by this age bar, but without whom the exhibition would be incomplete. You want to stage a good exhibition, right? Why are you so sure the works of a 36-years-old, 40-years-old, 50-years-old or even older than 70 photographer would be any worse than the work of a 30-year-old?

The usual answer is “we want to advance young people.” But in this case – where do you want to advance them, exactly? Taking part in the exhibition doesn’t guarantee anything, neither money nor employment. Not to mention the fact that a “young photographer” is not someone who’s young of age – although even this criteria is relative – but someone who only recently took up photography.

Frankly, this particular, demonstrably useless exhibition, isn’t all that important. But age discrimination is present, alas, in all walks of life. Whenever you apply for work, for a scholarship or for a grant, you always stumble on these 35 fateful years.

In fact, this approach is profoundly anachronistic. It assumes a social model no longer in existence – one in which a young specialist quickly found a job in his area of expertise, and immediately took it up full-time, with a salary that allowed him to sustain a family. He would quickly advance up the promotion ladder, and by the time he was 50, he will have completely realised his professional potential, without ever moving from the same office, the same city and the same state. By the age of 65, he honourably retired on a well-earned pension, making room for young people moving along the same beaten path. And now, if he wants to take up something he could only do as a hobby, he has the time and money to invest – while grants need to be reserved for young people who don’t have the same means.

That scenario expired years ago. We live in dynamic times, and in an immigrant country. Nearly all people I know have changed professions at least once, or took up two at the same time. Some want to go back to university or conduct a research. But they find themselves blocked by the age bar, which makes it difficult to seek funds, and being immigrants who had to start anew as adults, they don’t have any savings to spare. That’s quite apart from the fact that work conditions and salaries of hired employees keep deteriorating as compared to previous generations, while the pension age keeps rising.

And women here form a separate issue altogether. Men in Israel receive higher pay than women, and women are discriminated again when applying for work (Hasbara acolytes are kindly asked to read an annual report or two by the State Comptroller before materialising on the comment thread). When spouses set up a family, the family’s energy is more often than not directed at advancing the man’s career: A new family needs money, and as the man is paid more than the woman, the woman – even if she has a job – takes up most of the housework and the upbringing of the children, while the man brings in most of the income.

But then the children are grown, the woman is freed, and wants to realise her professional potential, to advance her career or to start a new one. She feels brimming with energy and talents. But that instinct is mistrusted by employers and application committee; first they feared she would miss work because of her children, now they are wary of her age.

Of course, everything I’m saying is general, and situations vary. But this seems to me to be the trend; and because of all of the above, I support a recently floated proposition – taking the full date of birth out of women’s IDs.

On the other hand, we need to take a harsh, critical look at the slogan of “advancement of the young.” Beautiful words like “advancement” and empowerment often conceal a much uglier idea: Exploitation.  When an employer announces he wants his workers to be “young and dynamic,” he’s very likely to actually mean he wants to squeeze them dry for a lesser pay and without any social benefits – a game he can’t play with an older and more experienced professional, whose education and experience also cost more on the salary slip. So we should be careful not to be too glad to see “Wanted” sections filled with ads calling for “young, dynamic” candidates. We need to know our workers’ rights and fight for them.

Vera Reider is an Israeli publicist, activist, and Russian-language blogger.