ecouter-bien:

thoughtfulproxy:

factualfeminist:

crime-she-typed:

femmelillies:

catgotyoururl:

kaiserneko:

phoenixresurrected:

chachibetch:

Heavy…. heavy,

Woah

… There’s a very important conversation to be had there.

If this is being brought up shouldn’t we also addressing the age of the politicians in places of power tho?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

NEVER LET THIS POST DIE

I was just talking about this with a friend yesterday. I totally agree. 

Considering issues like Medicare and the like, this feels ageist. It might not be their future, but it is their present. I would love the idea of the young progressives taking over but I can’t help but imagine this would have wide negative impacts too.

Also, 65 isn’t so old. Many people that age have a solid 20 years left. Like, those people are just hitting retirement… if they Can even retire.

Yeah, this is ageist bullshit. Taking into consideration issues like Medicare (for those in the US), declining healthcare and pension funding for older people (for those in the UK/Australia), and the fact that older women are the fastest growing demographic when it comes to homelessness, they absolutely have a right to have a say about what affects their present and future.

This is also incredibly ableist: older people require more healthcare services, be it for pre-existing conditions or declining health in general, and you’re saying that despite this they shouldn’t have a say in what happens to them?

Stop and think before you say things, people. It’s not heavy or deep, it’s just ageist, ableist nonsense.

(Also, you’re basically co-signing a middle-aged white man’s bullshit, but anywho…)