With a little help from my friends who commented on the aging blogs - thank you!

I have for years delved deep into my own psyche with the hope of encountering novel insights on human nature via learning more about my own nature. And it's become a habit - when I write, that I often burrow down well under my surface thinking to try and uncover ideas that lead me to new perspectives, but which sometimes take me out of my comfort zone. Where I then have a choice between following my nose along the trail I'm trying to 'blaze' or I could claw my way back up to the surface to re-align myself with more familiar, less worrying and generally acceptable ways of viewing a subject.

Therefore, the neuroses levels rise and fall (rise and fall).

But you know, aging, for me, is not the central problem. I'm aware that it's something I've been doing since I was young. The beliefs differ when the aging process starts, some say from when we take our first breath and I recall years ago hearing about studies that pointed to the age of 12, but there does seem to be some kind of consensus on the internet, so in today's world, for around the 30 year age mark, or specifically given here - this article states that the process of aging begins at age 25 for women and age 29 for men.

If the statement is true, I've already spent over 50% of my life, aging. Kind of humbling? Well, only if I was around the 30 year age mark.

My blogs on aging first stemmed from a point of interest raised in someone else's blog, concerned with that someone resisting to take help offered with lifting something heavy, which resulted in a nasty injury. Which, in fact, could happen at any age, but the bottom line in that blog was that the injury was linked with growing old.

While my current position in respect of aging - where I'm coming from - was amplified by Braembel (on 360), which is that I hope to hold together well enough, both mentally and physically, to maintain a place in the workplace up to the time of a pensionable age (with nearly another decade to go) because I have taken a liking to having a regular income.

I'm aware of building health issues these past few years that weren't there before, and I want to stay seated in reality about this.

That others have identified my moving beyond middle age a notch into old age, won't allow me to hide from that reality anyway. But it would be nice for acceptance to seep gently, in. Instead, I had my little kick and scream - and what we perceive, we don't have to like but we do need to make what we see, palatable, to thus fathom our way through to an acceptance of changing states in mind and body.

I have been struggling to find the emotional fortitude to "see", or imagine, myself in the workplace for yet another 8 or so years when the potential for a growing physical disability looms large in my mind. And I hadn't realised how large until I started 'spilling my guts' about a negative reaction I recently had, a symptom I guess of my own fears pushing me to reject a proposition that I've mentally seen - before I'm emotionally ready to take it in.

Although, to learn that my experiences are shared by other people from my generation has been cathartic to some extent.

However, there is the prospect that the transition from one self-image to another, middle age into old age, can be seen as a struggle much like the caterpillar shedding its immature aspect to finally become the butterfly. But to find this standpoint, for many of us, we will first need to revalue upwards the outlooks we have on forevermore losing the bloom of our youth.

Growing old is reward in itself ...

i agree with Ladykatya. I don't like the alternative to growing old. I suppose growing old is the reward in itself. Wow! Pat, I did not know folks felt this way. I was always told to be the gentleman. I did these things with a genuine smile on my face, because, I really thought I was doing the right thing and it did not hurt me a bit. In fact, it made me feel quite well, knowing that I did the honorable thing and maybe made somebody's day. Our Boy Scout slogan was "Do a good turn daily." I don't know what to say. much love

jon
----------------------------------------

Thanks for your comment, Jon.

I think if we arrive into old age without too many impediments to our enjoying life, then growing old would be its own reward .. and a just reward. I'm certainly more contented in myself than when I was younger.

And old age is still a way off for me, I don't get an OA pension until I turn 65, so I'm not ready to embrace a self-image that would cause me to become habitually, more dependent than I already am. Otherwise I'm not going to make it to pension day :)

Reading responses to the first blog in various places, I get the understanding that there could be a fairly widespread attitude among women, when we hit the half century, that we first begin to come up against signs in other people's behaviour (though well meant) that teach us to worry about whether we can take care of ourselves or not. We also become afeared of losing our independence because our bodies are signalling a decrease in power. It's a double whammy which we may well have to accustom ourselves to in, what amounts to, the blink of an eye.

It's not just men being courteous to women any more. Or young people being courteous to older people (hey it happens!) ... and men being polite makes us feel great, whatever our age, so please don't stop that {",]

When as a woman, though, I'm deferred to by another woman - a stranger, and someone whose been sitting quietly by, not being chatty, so there's no other contact that might make her say 'after you' (and we women can be pretty nice to each other too) - that woman being not that many years younger. And it comes to my attention that a pattern has begun to form here because other people have lately become strangely solicitous, then I get to wondering if I've hit the downhill slide. It's at that point, by my appearance, I feel I'm being judged as "fragile" which picture begins to erode my confidence. Two minutes before I had a residual impression of being a strapping woman of 50 plus, capable of doing hard stuff like sweeping floors and meeting work deadlines and bango(!), in my mind's eye, suddenly I'm reduced to being a doddering wreck - because my imagination is often over the top ... yes, I admit it. And, yes, if you said, Pat, you should be instead bathing in the glow of someone's kindness .. and I do, I do, in my heart of hearts. I'm glowing. Look, please see me glow *smiles*.

It's not that people being kind is not appreciated, it's not that at all, but, by the time a man undergoes exposure to these special considerations, he generally is elderly. With women, it starts earlier on - and yes as we have established it is a good thing.

But in their fifties men are still considered hale and hearty no matter that their hair is getting sparse and/or going white or grey (mine hardly is), or their bodies are going a funny shape (moving right along ...) or any other outward thing that symbolises the onset of old age approaching.

I don't know, I do wonder if, maybe, all the way through our lives we women have more adjustments to make in society, than men do, to the ways we see ourselves?

Notice, it's a question not a statement, I thank you.

We’re never too old to learn .. 8.12.07

We’re never too old to learn .. 08 Dec 2007

Rose said: "It's rough to get old. lol!" - She picked up something heavy that she'd bought at the supermarket and quite seriously hurt her back, and the young shop assistant had previously offered to get someone to assist her.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know how you feel, Rose.

When I catch the bus I'm prepared for people to climb on board in the order they arrive at the bus stop although I'm used to men, complete strangers, at the bus stop, saying (or intimating) "After you".

And condescension doesn't play a big role in nature in the wild. Neither may this be the natural order among humans but - moulded by civilisation - our mannerisms symbollically express our cultural preferences and even into the 21st century we've elected to role-play men acting in a way that is solicitous of women which satisfies some ethic or ethics we live by.

It's now got to the point though where women have started to say to me "After you". So same behaviour, different relationship - not male/female but younger/older. The relationship revealing as stronger/weaker, in fact, by the assumed stronger party (whether having a gender or age bias) going on "looks" to determine what the situation requires. In there, then, is someone making a judgment value.

The first time a woman said to me "After you", I declined .. no, no, no, no, that's okay, you go .. but then she became more effusive and I thought, okay, she's doing the nice thing and I'm beginning to make her feel bad. So I clambered on board feeling a bit wierd - like I felt a bit wierd when, for the first time as a young adult, a schoolgirl got up from her seat on the bus and offered it to me. Automatically, I declined the offer (no no, that's okay ...).

As a fifty something, compared to when I was twenty something, I thought I had a better understanding of the world at large, and me in it, but obviously I didn't.

In our social interactions there is a kind of "pageant" that we each have a part in, the popular voice of what we want in our society streamed through the rites and rituals we act out between us. Keeping in mind that these rites and rituals would be screened out of society were they not practised to be kept in circulation.

A first hurdle when moving from one age group to another might be the disconnection from a self-image that we've outlived. This gets harder the older we get because it involves an acceptance of a growing vulnerability - that can be felt but can also be denied. Without which acceptance, however, and in the event of help being proferred, we would not be seated in the reality of the moment and might well over-reach ourselves.

You won't be the first or the last, Rose, you can be sure of that.

That block of dirt of our own - The Dream - 30.11.07

That block of dirt of our own - The Dream - Entry for 30 November 2007

Braembel said:

In the US, liberal is more often applied to the Democrats, who tend more and more to move toward socialism.I would say, I perceive the Clintons to be very liberal, and very socialistic. My opinion of Bush since the last election has drastically changed, but his party the Republicans tend to lean the other way, in some way they tend to atleast pretend to embrace my moral values, but from an economic point of view, it's almost a live and let die.
The economic level that you seem to describe as the norm, seems to be about what I see here. That block of dirt of our own is a large part of the "American Dream". I think it is getting harder here, but I think the wars contribution to oil prices, which affect everything else, because everything we get is moved across the country in petro fueled trucks, and the last couple of years of weather haven't helped our crops. I know there are alot of people who have just been getting by, and with the jump in prices I've seen in the stores the last few weeks, I don't know how they will make it. Back to the subject, I agree, the "haves" liberal or conservative make the policies to their own advantage.
-----------
Thanks for your comment ff, as I may have mentioned, Liberal and Labor traditionally look after different social sectors but Kevin Rudd promised to be PM for all Australians when he gave his victory speech. I hope he's a man of his word because the small business sector, for example, is important to our maintaining our current standard of living and they might well go begging under a Labor regime.

The "Australian Dream" is also to own our own homes. It's a dream, I believe, that builds not only independence into a population but a feeling of belonging, when your shelter and the land it's built on are your own.

I grew up in the UK through the 1950's/60's and, in the UK, it was quite normal for people to live in Council owned housing estates. I did, all of my friends did, and a majority of the kids where I schooled did. We were among the 'baby boomer" generation who were born after the war but close enough to the war years to be living under its shadow, and there was a sudden population increase which necessitated the rapid widespread growth of public funded housing.

Wikipedia places the most commonly accepted duration for the baby boom between 1946 and 1964. It says "The Baby Boom reflected the sudden removal of economic and social pressures that kept people from starting families..." due to the Depression which was then followed by WWII. After which ..." Marriage became again a cultural and career norm for most women — and one result was babies."

Arriving in Australia with its long public housing lists my English-born husband and I elected to rent rather than aiming for home ownership. Then after being widowed I re-married and my Australian-born husband's parents owned their own home, so the jump from rental accommodation to home ownership for him was very small but it took me an age to bend my head around the idea because I'd been brought up in a domestic and social setting that deemed public housing as the 'norm'.

I'm happy to say that hubby and I own our own place now and I realise now how very trapped I was in the post-war socialist vision for the future.

It blinded me to the possibility of owning that 'little bit of dirt'. In particular where I'm an expatriate, aside from my Aussie citizenship certificate, being a home owner is the thing that allows me to call Australia, my country, and see myself as an Australian. To be a home owner is responsible citizenship, to me, and I hope all couples (or singles) can achieve that.

So while the home loan rate rises as a hedge against inflation cannot be blamed on the government in power, these are set by the Reserve Bank, high on a long agenda the new government has, must surely be holding down inflation without stifling business - a hard juggling act - to guard Aussies against the loss of their dreams.

Tags: theaustraliandraem | Edit Tags

That block of dirt of our own - The Dream - Friday 30 November 2007

Isn't the Labor party for the working men and women? - Entry for 27 November 2007

Isn't the labor party for the working men and women there? I kinda got the idea that the one that lost was for the rich because they said here that bushie lost his ally in Aussie. Who do you describe as liberal there? What are they for? LOL. I guess I ask to many questions. Zena P
---------------------------------------------------------------

Intriguing questions, Zena, thanks for your comment.

I think it's probably true that, in earlier times, a worker voting for the conservative party - the Liberals in Australia - would have been considered a class traitor but times change. We tread warily around the concept of class distinction nowadays and, besides, families might live quite well on the proceeds of two or more incomes, workers are also often homeowners and the modern fiscally challenged Australian is generally not destitute in the same horrifying way that his/her counterpart was when the ALP was created in the 1890's.

We even have bathrooms! We ordinary folk are no longer called 'the great unwashed' or the huddled masses - though we might sometimes still be in fact.

And admittedly the reforms that led to improving the worker's lot are due in some large part to the Labor movement. But even under Labor, so that's a socialist government, there still remains a big monetary (and power) gap between the filthy rich and the average income earner. Neither is socialism an antidote to the problem of inequality but it comes with its own inbuilt set of detractions (and keep in mind that Russia was once socialist when it was the USSR).

While whichever party is in power, oddly, due to commercialism, a perception has been, I think, created of a smaller gap between the have's and have not's (which I would put down to the magic of capitalism) when the average Australian worker has not only a job, but often a mobile phone, a car, a block of dirt he/she can call his/her own (or at least a mortgage), perhaps one or more computers along with a host of other electrical gadgetry - our bread and circuses no doubt, which creates the illusion of workers being fairly affluent. We are at least well entertained from cradle to grave even if not born with silver spoons in our mouths.

To answer your question, Liberals today are probably people who have an aversion to socialism. The Labor party is prone to be reformist (and so experimental) and, with its welfare programmes, socialist governments in Australia (and England) have in the past created welfare states producing a sub-culture (over more than one generation) of poor people, dependent on government handouts rather than their learning self-sufficiency, while their lives are strictly regulated by government officials. Often enough, unions become a virtual separate 'arm of government' by force of a tradition that Labor governments treat with union bosses, the unions also providing Labor with some of their rank and file. And because of the opportunism found in human nature, the system originally geared by social conscience to lift the whole of society up a notch or more, does sometimes ultimately grind into the ground, the very people it was originally spawned to help lift their game the most, those who are vulnerable, the poor, the homeless, the old, the young, the infirm. And a Labor party in power either means big government or, in the modern world, outsourcing the work to private firms, but taxes still have to be raised to pay for it all, thus the standard of living can become lowered generally.

So despite that I'm a worker, I'm aware of the pitfalls of socialism in that, in principle it seems to offer a brilliant answer to all of our needs and wants while, in practice, it fails to overcome the flaws in human nature of people often being miserable, selfish, lazy, ruthless and conniving. But then were we all honest and well meaning, there would be no need of govenments.

For our sins, we have to have politicians.

Farewell, John. We will never forget you - 25.11.07

Farewell, John. We will never forget you - Entry for 25 November 2007

The battle lines were drawn yesterday (the 24th November) and the Howard government went down in a screaming heap after the Liberals gave us 11 years of conservative rule (96-07) with John Howard guiding us through what has been a frightening period in world events.

Or should I say yet another frightening period in world events.

Kevin Rudd now stands in John Howard's place at the helm of Australian politics, and I didn't vote for Rudd or his party. But like a lot of Aussies, I felt that the choice was a hard one, something I've not had before. I was tempted to take a pin along to the polling booths and let fate make the choice for me, but decided against this.

It was easier when John Howard came to power, because he was a 'known'. He had a solid parliamentary background and as the "little Aussie battler " he was considered a fighter, someone who had bottle.

While Kevin Rudd's track record in politics isn't well known, even if we’re aware that he’s no newcomer, something that he’s taken pains to point out leading up to the election.

I decided against voting for Labor ultimately because, watching Rudd on tv, I thought he showed a mite too much zeal for getting on with the job of running the country, getting more zealous the closer we got to election time.

It possibly was an unfair bias because he comes across as an erudite and intelligent man but I thought - just what the world needs another bloody zealot running a country. And I'm not traditionally a Labor voter anyway.

Anyway, the Libs conceded defeat to Labor last night and the deed is done.

I sincerely hope the new PM will justify the faith a majority of Aussies have put in him and that we won’t, from hereon, proceed to be be victimised by the unions running the country with their interminable strikes - Australia has done so well without them.

What we know we’re looking at is that the new government will take steps to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol, withdraw troops from Iraq and they’ll rewind the IR laws, and that’s just for starters.

I think we will miss the rule of John Howard. Aussies in the majority have not credited his government with the return of prosperity to Australia – or the Libs would have been returned. Ultimately we may learn that they should have been.

Typically for me, a highlight of the Howard government’s time in power was to do with Mr Howard backing the East Timorese against the Indonesians – his ‘Aussie battler’ streak coming out.

For me, this is what has earned him the title of “Mister”. Saying along with the writer of the following para, "Farewell, John. We will never forget you ...

" East Timor: Despite Australia's cosy relationship with Indonesia over the previous 25 years, in January 1999 Mr Howard signalled to then Indonesian president Jusuf Habibie that Australia would be pressuring Jakarta to allow the East Timorese to vote on self-determination. The vote was allowed but, the day after the August ballot, violence erupted in the East Timorese capital, Dili. Despite being under incredible pressure from the Indonesian government not to interfere, Australia led a significant international peacekeeping force, which stabilised the situation and was vital in ensuring the independence East Timor enjoys today."

The Age
John Roskam
November 25, 2007