How Old Are You?

It seems like a simple, mathematical equation to me - but I keep being told that I'm wrong about it.

In figuring out where I think that "middle age" begins and ends, it seems to me that, well, it should be in the middle of an expected lifespan. Assuming that you'll have thirds labeled "young," "middle aged," and "senior citizen," you'd take an expected lifespan and divide it into 3 parts. Obviously, there are other divisions in those thirds - everything from newborn, infant, toddler to teen to retiree. Still, if you have 3 major categories - young, middle, old - you have 3 equal parts. Follow me so far?

So, I decided on a projected lifespan of 90. It's in most genetic ballparks, and divides easily in thirds. Therefore, my divisions go: young, 0 to 30; middle aged, 30 to 60; and senior citizen, old person, however you want to label the final third, 60 to 90.

I started referring to myself as "middle aged" at 30.

People are routinely horrified by this.

Fairly typical is the conversation I had with friends; a small group, all in their early 30s. They looked at me as though I had just advocated human sacrifice in order to have a plentiful harvest. "NO," one said. "NO. I am young!"

"Well, where does middle age start?" I asked. They were fairly universal in their answer: "40."

"To what?" I wanted to know.

"What do you mean?"

"If it starts at 40, where does it end? It can't just be the one year."

This resulted in a bit of hemming and hawing, but the consensus seemed to be, "Retirement age?"

Well, that's pretty vague. The American Association of Retired Persons accepts members as soon as they've hit their 50th birthday. In my dad's day, 55 was the standard retirement age. That age is now 65. I have a friend who just retired at 54, but went on to take a new job, hoping to retire from it in 25 or 30 years.

"So, you figure people will live as long after they're retired as they did before they hit middle age? You figure that the average lifespan is over 100?" Even this question leaves out the problem of assuming that "middle age" is a shorter time period than youth or old age. If any period were to be disproportionately small, it would be youth. Babyhood, childhood, adolescence, young adulthood are all very short periods of time. It seems to me that the middle, where people do most of their living, working, marrying, raising children, would be the largest portion if life were divided unevenly.

Think about movies, books, any story: you have a beginning, where you meet the characters and set up the situations. You have an end where the story gets wrapped up. Where does most of the action take place? In the middle. If the life divisions are unequal, the middle should not be the smallest.

I pointed that out - a 40 year portion and a 15 year portion and a, what, 20 year portion does not work.

Now the group went from finding me odd to taking offense. Ignoring the mathematical proportions, people fell back on insisting, "There's no way that 30 is middle age!"

The problem here is how people feel about the words "middle age." Many people consider them to be synonymous with unattractive, clueless about fashion, music, and popular culture, boring, and losing their health. This is not the case - this has never been the definition of this term. It means just what it says, the center part of your life.

This aversion to the term, as though it means something negative, reminds me of people's reactions when I use the word "fat" to describe myself. They either say, "Oh, you're not fat!" or, "You're not that fat." Listen, folks, "fat" is not a value judgement. It does not mean lazy, gluttonous, unattractive, or anything else except having an abundance of fat cells. I certainly have them. This does not indicate anything negative about me, any more than my hair color does. When I use the word to describe myself, it doesn't mean that I'm unhappy, or have low self esteem. (It certainly does not mean that I want you to disagree with me.)

"Old" is not a derogatory term, either. I spent most of my younger years saying, "I have no patience with people who feel 'old' at anything less than 70." My dad was 56 when I was born. I learned to spell "retired" in first grade. The idea that old is bad, and that "old" will always be older than you are, annoys me, deeply.

My kids, though, started calling me "old" when I was in my 30s. And not just me; one of my daughters once reduced a dinner party to laughter by referring to a photo of a bikini clad model as "that old lady." I was never ruffled; I claimed it. (I never had a problem being called "ma'am," either.) Keep in mind, when I was 35, I had a 14 year old and a 15 year old, and they were certain that I was ancient and out of touch, with no relevant experience or perspective. If they wanted to call me "old," I'd take it. I'll wear that title, proudly.

The alternative to being old is dying young; never my life's goal.

For years, any time I'd say, "my grandnephew," my son would say, "Who?" I'd say, again, "Andrew. His mother is my niece." And my son would say, "Geez, you're old!" ruffled by the thought that I had a "grand-" anything.

I once had someone pull me aside after I'd said something like, "Well, you know, when you get to be my age," to inform me that I was upsetting another woman in the group. "She's the same age you are, and she doesn't feel old." SIGH. If she's my age, she should be old enough to know that she's not a kid anymore, and that's a good thing. Good heavens, who would ever want to spend their life trapped in adolescence? Adolescents are a stew of hormones, lack of perspective, and angst. It's not their "fault," or a fault at all, but it is a biological and sociological fact, and I would never want to spend any longer than biology dictated that I had to  spend in adolescence.

This is why I do not understand the (fairly new) belief, held by a significant number of people, that "adolescence lasts until you're 30." Oh, good gravy, no. It does not and should not.

One of my dearest friends insists, "No one under the age of 30 should make any important or lasting decisions. They're just not ready." I am not the target audience for this idea. I think that too many people are irresponsible and immature long past when biology would be an excuse. I am, of course, aware that our brains are not done forming until roughly age 25, but that's exactly why I think that mature, responsible behavior should be routine by then. It makes no sense to assume that a person will become more capable and responsible by encouraging prolonged adolescence. We're aware that toddlers do not have fully functioning brains or nervous systems, but we start expecting them to use the toilet, take turns, wait, and other unnatural, uncomfortable things while they're toddlers. We don't say, "Oh, well, this is too tough for them - we'll wait until they're older and more mature. Then it won't be such a struggle." We are aware that the individual and society both benefit if they learn those skills precisely when it is difficult and unnatural.

I've been told that it's futile to expect young adults - let's say 18 to 30 - to be mature, that it puts "too much pressure" on them, and will cause psychological problems. I don't think so. I became very annoyed during the 2014 Winter Olympics, when skier David Wise was described by an announcer as having "an alternative lifestyle" for being married and a father in his 20s. I wrote this: "I mean, if you heard that someone wasn't walking, or reading, or driving, or holding a job, far (in fact, years) past the age that they should be mentally and physically capable, do you think, 'Everyone else should slow down and do it the same way, instead of trying to achieve,' or do you think, 'They should get some pretty intensive counseling and intervention in order to catch up'? In theory, a healthy 5 year old who still crawled everywhere would just be exercising prudence, right, taking all those extra years to mature? Maybe he'll fall less often when he does start walking, right?" ("The Example of an Olympian")

Seriously, how is it that we think that people are mature enough to drive, vote, join the military and go to war, buy a gun, consume alcohol, teach school, be an attorney or a doctor in their 20s, but NOT mature enough to get married or have children?

This is usually when someone says to me (either seriously or facetiously), "Well, we can't all be you." I got married at 20, had 2 babies in the next 2 years, had my first mortgage at 21. I do not think that everyone should be me, but neither do I think that everyone should fear and avoid responsibility, either. Everyone should have the choice to do what I did. I could have studied law, or medicine, or painting, or sculpting, but I didn't - not because I wasn't capable, or mature, but because that wasn't what I wanted to do. If I'd said, "Oh, geez, I really want to be a lawyer, I still hope that I can be a lawyer one day, but I'm just not capable of handling the study and the rigor and the expectations yet! I'll continue doing the same things I did as a kid, in the hopes that, in the future, I'll feel differently and therefore act differently," well, people would have had really choice and unflattering things to say to (and about) me. But when you switch the word "lawyer" for "spouse" or "parent," so many people say, "Good for you! That's the way it should be!" NO. If you decide not to do any particular thing, that's good, that's OK. You should have the option of choosing between many different paths. If you are just not mature yet, well, you'd better be working hard on maturing, and not just counting on maturity to show up because you've waited a long time. If you don't trust your own judgement, that's also an issue.

 I mean, it doesn't seem to me to be a difficult concept, the idea that everyone should be mature enough to make any available choice, not that they should be forced into a single choice - but people frequently tell me that I'm saying that kids should limit themselves. On the contrary - I want them to expand their idea of the available choices. Instead, they hear from society that, for instance, getting married and having a family will ruin their lives and kill their education. That makes no sense to me. I know so very many people like my friend J, who just graduated from medical school and passed his board exams at 30, (after serving a 2 year church mission at 19), while his wife is expecting their third child.

One of my children has been telling me since she was a teen that "nobody is ready to choose a spouse in their teens and early 20s," and "everyone feels like a kid at least into their 30s." Yet, she married someone she met at 19, and dated exclusively, from that time. (She says they've been "officially" together since she was 20.) I find the attitude of, "do as I say, not as I do," and "most people aren't able to do this, but I was," to be far more puzzling and troubling than my stance of, "I'm not that special; this isn't that difficult."

It also annoys me when people say, "Sure, I chose my spouse/school/profession then, but I didn't really commit to them/it for years" as though that's a good thing. I also get very tired of, "Oh, I'm glad I didn't: 1: marry my first boy/girlfriend, 2. keep my first major, 3. stay in my first profession" as a way to negate the idea that young people should be capable of big decisions. Whether or not the average human should be capable of maturity and whether or not you personally adjusted your course are not the same thing.

Neither is the simple math indicating how long you've been alive a negative judgement.

My oldest child turned 30 last year; my second turns 30 this year. Yes, I consider them to be middle aged. Yes, they disagree with me, just like they did when they turned 18 and I referred to them as adults. That doesn't change the fact that, statistically, the first third of their lives are over. And that assumes a lifespan of 90, and I haven't yet found anyone in our family tree who's made it to 90. 80 would be a more accurate prediction, I think. I, personally, am past the age at which AARP will take me as a member, closing in on that last third of my life, and I do not find this to be a negative or worrisome thing.

"Middle aged" and/or "old" does not mean irrelevant, clueless, in poor health, unattractive, one foot in the grave, or anything else negative! It means that you have experience and perspective. Embrace it! I never realized how truly youth obsessed our current culture is until I started watching the mere words cause panic. It's logic. It's math. And it's OK! Really.