Age Defying

“I don’t get this whole age thing.” Shannon proclaimed at a recent dinner. She was referring to our obsession with and fear of aging. To prove her point, she challenged those present to admit their ages. “Let me start, I’m 62.” Next to her, I blurted 42. And most everyone shared how old they are, except for two women, one who looked like she was 18 (though is not unless banks had adolescent executives) and a retired woman who had earlier protested that “one does not ask such questions.”

While I agree with my friend that there should be no shame in admitting one’s age, fact of the matter is, there is stigma attached to growing old. It is thus understandable why many people would rather not be asked how old they are.

The buzz word for this is Ageism, which is no spring chicken itself but has only gained traction recently. The term was coined almost 40 years ago by gerontologist Robert Butler. Ageism is stereotyping and discrimination against older individuals due to their age. Butler defined it as a combination of prejudicial attitudes towards older people, old age and the ageing process; discriminatory practices against older persons; and institutional practices and policies that perpetuate stereotypes about older women and men.

This is a cause for concern for more than 66 million Americans 55 years old and over (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006).

Ageism in America lists various types of discrimination suffered by mature individuals. First, personal, as exemplified in instances of exclusion based on stereotypic assumptions; physical abuse; and propagation of stereotypes. Second, institutional, as reflected in such practices as mandatory retirement; absence in clinical trials; and devaluation in cost-benefit analyses. Third, intentional, as evidenced by marketing and media that employ stereotypes; targeted financial scams; and denial of job training. Fourth, unintentional, as seen in the absence of emergency procedures to assist old and vulnerable persons living on their own; and the lack of built-environment considerations (ramps, elevators, handrails). Fifth and last is sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation and ageism deserves particular attention due to the insidiousness of double discrimination.

As Tina Gianoulis explains:

If straight seniors must struggle against becoming invisible as they age, gay elders have been almost non-existent in society's mirror. Since many queers who are reaching old age during the 2000s came of age well before the gay liberation movement, they may have spent much of their lives in the closet without the support of a visible community.

Those who have partners may find their relationships discounted and ignored as they get older. They may be separated from partners and placed at the mercy of unsympathetic family members or nursing home staffs. Little research has been done about the lives of these older gays, even though some researchers estimate that there are between 1.75 and 3.5 million gay men and lesbians over 65 in the United States.

Yet, because of the prejudices in the country against homosexuals of all ages and backgrounds, and the prevailing stereotype that older persons are “sexless,” older members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) community have an exceptionally difficult time being accepted in society.

Federal law does not recognize the legality of same-sex marriages, and when one member of a same-sex relationship passes away the surviving partner loses significant financial ground. Partners in a same-sex marriage are denied Social Security benefits that married couples receive when one partner dies. By contrast with heterosexual married couples, they face heavy taxes on retirement plans and are subject to an estate tax if they inherit a home, even if it was jointly owned. As a result, same sex partners also risk losing their home when one partner enters a nursing home. While federal Medicaid law permits a married spouse to remain in the couple’s home, this does not hold true foraged same-sex partners.

Everyone should get this old age thing. After all, we all age whether we like it or not.

Image from FreeFoto.com

Comment on Being White

Through Facebook, a friend responded to the post To assimilate or not to assimilate:

It is funny about the white thing, because as you know if you are Hispanic you can consider yourself, White, Black, Asian or Indian (not in the Sub-continental sense) In my experience everyone who can will say they are Hispanic and white unless it's glaringly obvious they are not. Although in the case of Lulu's birthmother, who indicated she was white, it is only the absence of Mayan surnames that made her white! In places like Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Dominican (and really all Spanish speaking places) there is a distinct white and black hierarchy or where there are Indians white/mixed/Indian. Not so different from the US!

What is interesting to me is Middle Easterners and those of Middle Eastern ancestry. Certain countries: Greece, Turkey, Lebananon, Israel, etc seem to be accepted as white, but not in the WASPY sense that is valued in the US. Tom's family is from MI and all the well-to-do communities at the time would not allow blacks, Greeks or Jews to move in. In the town I grew up in there were not too many WASPs (a lot of Puerto Ricans and African Americans). The kids who were WASPs were the only ones that considered themselves to be white. Even though I was as Caspar as they come, I was too ethnic looking to be accepted in the white clique.

My friend is of Greek descent. She and her husband (Tom) have adopted two adorable girls from Guatemala.

To assimilate or not to assimilate

Christian Lander’s The Definitive Guide to Stuff White People Like has got me in stitches as well as thinking. Apparently, I very much like a whole lot of things White: Coffee; Religions Their Parents Don’t Belong to; Film Festivals; Farmer’s Markets; Organic Food; Diversity; Barack Obama; Nonprofit Organizations. And that’s just from the beginning of the list. So what does this make me then? A coconut, brown on the outside, white on the inside? Based on the book’s test “How White Are You?” apparently so – I am 54% white!

While the guide parodies highly educated, upper middle class Whites safely and securely sequestered in their enclaves, it does reveal the extent of my assimilation.

So does signing up for Facebook. As friends and schoolmates from over 20 years ago and 3,000 miles away find me, I have come to realize how far I have come. Not only in distance but culturally as well. Aside from shared history and ethnicity, there is not much in common.

Is my immigrant experience shared by other foreign-born individuals? Is assimilation inevitable? Should immigrants assimilate?

Based on numbers from the Urban Institute and the U.S. Census Bureau, the Migration Policy Institute estimates that in 2006, there were close to 36 million individuals in the United States who were born overseas.

In terms of actual assimilation, the Manhattan Institute released a report earlier this year which measures immigrant assimilation. According to its author, foreign-born residents are:

Perfectly distinguishable from natives when they are not citizens of the United States.

Much more likely to be married to another foreign-born individual.

Much less likely to be able to speak English.

Less likely to own their residence.

More likely to have larger numbers of children living with them.

Overrepresented at the low and high ends of the educational distribution; and underrepresented in the group of individuals with no more than a high school diploma, or with some college education but no degree.

Less likely to be unemployed or absent from the labor force.

Less likely to be veterans.

More likely to be working in historically higher-paying occupations but earning less than natives working in those occupations.

As expected however, there are differences among subgroups. Based on the assimilation index developed for the study, people from Mexico, El Salvador, China and India are least assimilated; while those born in Canada, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Korea, the Philippines and Vietnam are most acculturated. Immigrants from Vietnam, Cuba and the Philippines scored the highest.

Becoming American is a process and is not necessarily inevitable. In urban settings, it is not difficult to find pockets that live in isolation. Within these ethnic enclaves, immigrants stick to their kind, not venturing far from their zones of familiarity and safety (except for jobs). They appear to have no interest whatsoever in participating or being part of the larger community.

This has been a source of concern for some native-born people. As Howard Husock wrote in the New York Sun:

It is a mistake, though, to think that Americans are more worried about who has a green card than they are about immigrant assimilation, a less discussed matter. The idea that immigrants should, and can, become Americans has been a powerful one, a reflection of the fact that ours is a society based on values and laws, rather than a single faith and a common blood.

Lately, discussing immigrant assimilation has become less than acceptable in polite company out of a concern that assimilation imposes Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture on others. But the majority thinks that newcomers should learn English, which is endorsed by 87% of Americans in one Rasmussen survey, and become American citizens. This makes clear that, notwithstanding the affection for multiculturalism among elites, average Americans still believe in the melting pot.

I share affection for multiculturalism and very much value diversity. I think that it is important for immigrants as well as later generations of Americans to remember and be proud of their countries of origin and cultures. The wealth, strength and vitality of the United States are born out of the hard work, resilience and dreams of immigrants.

Nevertheless, we are now part of American society. We chose to come here. We sacrificed a lot to be here. We should thus make the effort to belong, not just economically but culturally and politically as well.

Photo: Nicolai Schäfer in Wikimedia Commons.

Nickel and Diming Charity

A Salvation Army truck backing into a building had emblazoned on its sides “Doing the Most Good.” Who does the most good? Among nonprofit organizations, it is nowadays determined by who has the best answer to another question: how much of a donor’s dollars is spent on program.

This metric reflects the nonprofit sector’s “professionalization,” its embrace of the business sector’s practices and to some degree, culture. It also signals Americans’ abiding trust in capitalism. And numbers.

Often, an organization’s effectiveness and efficiency is measured by how funds are allocated among administrative, fundraising and programmatic costs. A webpage captures the various responses to the all important and encompassing query.

What percentage of my donation actually goes to help horses?
Habitat for Horses - In the past four reporting years, an average of 90% of all donations are spent on the horses. The other 10% is being spent on administrative and fundraising cost.

What percentage of my donation goes to administrative/operational costs?
Greenville Hospital System - None. 100 percent of your donation goes toward the program or area of your choice.

What percentage of funds raised by NamasteDirect actually goes into loan funds?NamasteDirect - Not less than 70 percent. We are committed to keeping administrative costs to less than 25 percent and to retaining up to five percent for reserve funds to meet special borrower needs.

Based on Charity Navigator’s criteria, all of the above are sterling agencies. Charity Navigator claims to be the largest and most utilized charity evaluator in America. It measures the health of over 5,000 nonprofits through “an unbiased, objective, numbers-based rating system.” It scrutinizes how responsibly an agency functions daily and how sustainable programs are. Basically, organizational efficient nonprofits are those that spend less money to raise more. Fundraising and administrative costs are kept at a minimum in order that a majority of its spending is on programs and services. A good agency gets four stars while a bad one, one star.

It is commendable that charitable organizations are held accountable. However, experts caution against using the discussed metric as the ultimate and only measure of a nonprofit’s health. A professor and senior fellow at a think tank emailed:

Percentage of dollars for overhead is a commonly used metric but it is very blunt. There may be very good reasons why the percentage is high for some nonprofits. And there can be reasons to worry if the percentage is too low. I would urge great care in using this measure. There are a good number of people who have written about this.

A deputy director of a national program that educates family foundations and individual philanthropists wrote:

Hi – my opinion is that such a measure might be interesting, in that the relationship to success may not be there at all. My bias is toward operating support and to not linking a NP’s success to dollars purely designated to programs—because the presumption and general practice of most funders is toward programs, to the detriment of operating support. Beyond that fact, the least interesting (but most often cited) so-called NP measurement vehicles like Charity Nav and such use this operating to program $$ ratio as an indicator of success and positive value. I would disagree with the premise…and would be cautious about giving any more credence to it.

While donors have the right, and indeed the responsibility, to ask nonprofits how donations are spent, they have to go beyond mere dollars and percentages when gauging success. They ought to probe deeper and ask more questions. What do people and communities being served really need and want? How can these needs be met? How can agencies mobilize their resources? What do staff require to do their jobs better? How can board members become more engaged? How can executives be more inspired and effective leaders? What is needed to fulfill a nonprofit’s mission?

Answers to these questions will vary. Narrowing it all down to percentages and cents does not give anyone a clear picture.

Local Food, Local Hunger

Since we first met them a year ago, a couple has been encouraging me and my partner to turn locavore. The Urban dictionary defines a locavore as “someone who eats food grown or produced locally or within a certain radius such as 50, 100, or 150 miles usually for ecological reasons.” Another entry adds “Noune (sic). A person whose diet focuses on foods grown and produced nearby, typically 100 miles.”

A few days ago, they had us over for dinner and we sampled locavore cuisine – they served us vegetables grown in their community patch, steaks from half a cow with a Mennonite farm pedigree, and ice cream churned from the milk of a free-range heifer. Indeed, we could taste the difference between their food and the provisions we pick up at Giant or Safeway.

The other day, the New York Times featured this growing trend of buying and eating local. The author’s angle was from that of lazy locavores – folk who’d like to get on the bandwagon but don’t have the time, energy or interest in gardening much less animal husbandry. Not quite like our friends, these true blue Manhattanites hire a chef to market for and prepare their local-themed meals or an assistant to tend vegetables in their patios.

Aside from the quality, taste and health benefits of harvesting local and organic fare, an argument for the local food movement is that it makes economic sense. Stephen J. Dubner was asked in his NYT Freakonomics blog if this were indeed the case . Dubner, in a nutshell, answered no because of the huge inefficiencies involved in producing one’s own food (comparative advantage rules).

While it might be well and good that the movement is gaining traction, the Food Research and Action Center reminds us that “one of the most disturbing and extraordinary aspects of life in this very wealthy country is the persistence of hunger.” In 2006, 35.5 million people were food insecure - 22.9 million adults and 12.6 million children. Moreover, those who were worst-off increased to 11.1 from 10.8 in 2005. Black and Hispanic households experienced hunger more than other Americans (United States Department of Agriculture, 2006). One can wager that there would be more hungry Americans in 2007 and 2008.

So while some people get finicky about where their mache is grown, millions of women, men and children skip a meal or two, cut back on the food they purchase and go to bed hungry. More and more families and individuals have also turned to food banks.

And so have these agencies hitched on the local food band wagon.

Earlier this week, USA Today featured an article on gleaning. Gleaning is the process of collecting left over crops from local farms and making them available to people who resort to food pantries. While not a new practice, more organizations are engaging in it as they find it harder to replenish their inventories. Fewer people are donating due in part to rising fuel and food prices. Some who used to donate themselves are now surviving on items found in food banks.

Now let’s get one thing clear: though the produce might come from local farms, it isn’t fresh. And these folk are not locavores by choice.

Illustration by Julia Gran in mspmag.com.

Cold as Ice

While a colleague was working on my computer the other day, he shared his interest in Hip Hop culture and Rhyme. He then rapped a piece he had written:

I've fallen in love and I'm preparing for marriage
working a year of double time for the woman I cherish
convinced that true love is only measured in karats
by a tradition of consumerism, an addiction I inherited

study the trade, you'll see it's colonial heritage
and that a mining of "a diamond is forever" oppressive
linked purposefully with our celebrated weddings
so we'll never think about the hell and death that we're spreading

corporations know cheap diamonds come from tyrants
so they fund their armies so they can ensure that there's violence
to keep the price down and to maximize their margins
so they can make a fortune over what they bought for a bargain

what's even worse is that we've cursed these people
promoted sociopaths and rewarded what's evil
funded warlords who torture and steal
who we support every time we drop to our knees and say,
"will you marry me?"

My friend challenges us to think - to ask why we do things and to consider what our actions could bring to bear.

The United Nations reports that $23 million in blood diamonds are being smuggled into international diamond markets. Blood diamonds have killed over 4 million people and made refugees of millions more (Amnesty International USA). The insatiable demand for the gem has been tapped into by rebel groups to fuel savage wars in West Africa. The market has also funded Al Qaeda (Washington Post, A19, July 13,2004).

Many see a diamond as a symbol of love and commitment, other times of wealth and power. How many see it as causing so much torment and death in Angola, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea and Liberia? How many see it as costing the lives of millions of women, men and children?

An article in Amnesty Magazine recounts the story of Jusu Lahia, a 15 year old that was wounded by an exploding rocket-propelled grenade. At that time, he was a child soldier in Sierra Leone's Revolutionary United Front; the same rebel group that terrorized tens of thousands of people by hacking off their arms, legs, lips and ears with machetes and axes. The insurgents spared thousands of other but enslaved them as prisoner-laborers to dig up gems we covet from muddy open-pit mines.

Countless suffer and die that we might sport a rock upon which our society has bestowed inordinate meaning and value.

“Will You Marry Me?” by David Tansey. “Diamond Skull” by Damien Hirst.

Ricky Nguyen

In response to an earlier post, a friend emailed:

Your blog post about the relatively small number of Asian and Hispanic homeless made me think of this very sad article from my hometown paper. Ricky Nguyen was triply isolated: gay, schizophrenic, Vietnamese. (Though not homeless....barely.)