Privilege and ageism: The devil is in the attitude

One of the reasons I stepped back from ageism and stereotype activism this year was encapsulated in an apathetic LinkedIn post by a well-known male digital and investor leader.

The intention of shaming and internalised ageism expressed riled me and others up to no end. I couldn’t stay silent. It was not only inaccurate but performative, self-flagellating fallacy dressed up as feminist virtue signalling and grandstanding nonsense.

The attitude expressed in the excerpt below deepens the wicked age discrimination issue, whilst fuelling internalised ageism and illogical gendered and age stereotypes.

“Lots of whyte (sic) men over 50 are on here complaining about being unable to get work once they hit 50. But it’s hard to sympathise. We are the most privileged cohort ever. We should really maybe just pipe down and just do the work.”

Let’s be frank and admit privilege in life does exist. No argument there. But it’s not a one-size-fits-all box that all white men in Australia automatically fit into. And it’s erroneous to assume any group is automatically of a certain behaviour and attitude. And its offensive reverse ageism to demand men over 50 pipe down.

A white male born into a wealthy or high-profile family, sent to elite schools and surrounded by powerful networks clearly has a head start. But that group is a small, shiny sliver of white men over 50. It doesn’t represent the majority.

A vast majority of men who’ve reached midlife haven’t been handed a gleaming silver platter and should not be targeted as if they have. Facing ageism whilst being shamed for sharing struggles is just not ok on so many levels.

In my article, ‘How happy are men in their careers and work? ‘ I explored male vulnerability and career happiness which are still clearly topics often misunderstood and mocked. This post is the iceberg for many others who believe men have no right to express harm and vulnerability.

Privilege isn’t one-size-fits-all

There’s an ongoing narrative, especially in some feminist and activist spaces that all white men in Australia are inherently privileged and complicit.

While this aims to highlight systemic inequities, it oversimplifies and erases crucial context. It’s fallacious and ignores vital variables including, but not limited to:

• Family and upbringing: Not every white man grows up in a stable or nurturing home. Abuse, neglect, addiction, and trauma cut across every demographic.
• Socio-economic status: Wealth or lack of it, shapes life and outcomes. The professions often pursued are due to parental income privilege. Financial access is often generational and community influenced. Not every man has that on a platter.
• Educational opportunity: Attending elite private schools creates a lifelong buffer of networks and grandiose perception. Judging intelligence or worth by ‘esteemed educational institutions’ perpetuates deep discrimination against those who didn’t get the same chance to achieve the ostensible better education.
• Disability (visible or invisible): Living with physical, neurological, psychological or sensory disabilities. From mobility limitations and sensory impairments to chronic conditions, these realities are often completely overlooked in assumptions of privilege.
• Expectations and sexuality: Many white men, especially from traditional or conservative families, are expected to suppress emotions and tough it out. That’s not privilege, its emotional suppression.

This ideal also assumes heterosexuality. For LGBTQI+ men, conforming to rigid masculinity adds layers of exclusion and discrimination, factors often left out of the male privilege debate.

Now of course all of the above will impact women. And in all areas, what matters is intersectionality with integrity not shallow narratives that assume neat hierarchies of oppression and advantage.

And these variables apply to men from other races and our First Nations peoples but the LinkedIn article derided white men ferociously.

Blanket ageist and stereotype assumptions of any group are lazy at best. At worst, they are dangerous with high impact on mental health especially in careers and midlife. Understanding requires depth, discomfort, and the courage to move beyond binary group think.

Myths within investment and venture capital

In the startup and venture capital ecosystem, discrimination and privilege does clearly exist. But privilege applies to only a small few.

Funding and investors still favour a tight, polished circle, often younger, metro-based, private-educated men (and women) who benefit from inherited access, insider networks and financial safety nets.

Yet many of these men enter the arena having faced redundancy and financial instability. They are turning to start-ups as a means to survive, thrive and contribute. They’re not entitled but trying to trying to rebuild alongside women.

Progress on gender and ageism divides and biases require us to stop lumping people into homogenous boxes. It requires us all to be open minded and recognise the varied experience, behaviours and value within every group.

Progress doesn’t come from performative grandstanding, accusations or shame.

It comes from logic, honesty, nuance and the guts to challenge lazy narratives cloaked in the fallacy of reverse ageism and devil attitudes.

• Sue Parker is a writer and former communications and career strategist.  She recently launched Doggo Apparel & Readywear Ensembles under DARE Group Australia.