Except getting them to take you seriously is part of your job in upper management. Age matters but your view of them as old farts makes me suspect you did nothing to gain their favor in other ways. As someone else said, those ways have little to do with job based merit.
I'm not that young anymore. I called them old farts because that is what they were. They discriminated on me based on my age alone, so that makes them old farts in my book. I wouldn't have been considered for the director position without any leverage, the numbers dropped for a good while after I left.
There are respectable old men and women. Just like there are respectable young men and women and there are snot nose kids who discriminate against old people. In general, people who discriminate lose the right to respect from me and I might refer to them in a despective tone when commenting on an anonymous site where I'm answering informally.
But it seems really inappropriate to say this here.
We are discussing the insidiousness of discrimination with the hope of socially being more conscious and finding ways to improve this.
It's kinda like going into a place with victims of racism and saying 'get over' and 'use your white voice/dress more white' when talking about the issue of racism. Or suggesting that racial discrimination is justified. It's out of place, even if the suggestion is coming from a good place of wanting the best for the other person.
P.S. I had a department with large numbers and strong growth on my side for leverage, that is why the CEO considered me in the first place. The numbers took a big hit after I left. If the board would have had more people in their 40s and less in their 70s-80s, I would likely have been accepted. Explaining to me that this is politics is a very pedantic in assuming I don't understand politics.
The fact you're talking about strong growth and large numbers is why I don't think you understand politics. That doesn't matter to the board. It's the foot in the door at best. Did you align politically with the board? Did they know it? Would you be a reliable pawn for them? Did they think they could work with you and get you to do what they wanted? Did you have strong support from other department heads? Did you have strong support from other in higher positions? Did you have any major opponents? Any secret opponents? Did you know of those opponents through your connections? I could go on but point being, that doing a good job is pretty low on the list of things which matters in politics.
Even if my particular case was not about ageism, we can agree it happens against the young unfairly, even if sometimes. Even if I'm too much of an asshole for it to happen to me.
So, my point stands: can you please explain to this self righteous, incivil person who deserves the discrimination he has experienced, why it is OK to discriminate against the young but not the old? Or are you going to admit to being a troll like you did on the other comment when I addressed your weak arguments?
People who engage in age discrimination, against young people, should be fired or fined out of existence.
Discrimination is discrimination.
But I'll address what you are saying:
Insurance can charge people without using ageism.
Before, insurers found that black people needed to pay more. After all, they were barbaric said the insurers. Then it became illegal.
Insurance companies still exist. Doing away with barbaric old practices is a good thing and as has happened when women got the right to vote, or civil rights, or other major positive reforms, the world continued on without falling apart.
It's sad that even in a rationalist place like hacker news, ageism is still something that can be openly admitted to. At least racists and sexists generally have to hide their ignorance if they don't want to be shunned by society.
Or they understand that this site is in the end entertainment. Sarcasm makes it more fun for both the writer and the other readers.
You're projecting how much you care about this issue onto me. Reality is, I don't care about it much at all, it's a mild intellectual diversion to me. You're hurt by this, you're infuriated by this, you're driven by this. I'm not.
1- Rational: Your original argument is flawed, you realize it and have changed but can't admit it 2- Irrational: You can't defend your argument since you haven't, but won't change 3- Plain Nasty: You are trolling.
I'm inclined to think 3, though most people don't use their real name when trolling.
You're free to think you've won, I don't care. Although one piece of life advice for someone who seems to like arguing and seems to be good at it. People will often stop arguing with you because they find it tiring. You'll think you've won and pat yourself on the back. They'll think you didn't win. Instead they'll just think you're good at arguing (but still wrong), an a-hole and will dislike you silently from then on.
Normally I would have stopped responding by now but I find this side conversation insightful.
If you are intellectually honest you'd just admit that is your perspective. Or clarify.
And it is just as bad.
edit: And right for the position includes personally not liking you or thinking you're not acting appropriately to them. I doubt they cared much for how the company does compared to their own egos.
Even if my particular case was not about ageism, we can agree it happens against the young unfairly, sometimes. Even if I'm too much of an asshole for it to happen to me.
So, my point stands: can you please explain to this self righteous, incivil person who deserves the discrimination he has experienced, why it is OK to discriminate against the young but not the old?
P.S. Odd how in your last comment when I argued against your logic and you couldn't answer any more, you said: 'I don't care about this you do' and then proceed to post a bunch more times in this same thread.
I didn't say it was. I said, it's okay to discriminate against personality traits which generally come with age. For example, lack of emotional stability is a negative trait in management and it correlates somewhat with age. As I said, it's about being able to portray those traits and that you possess them independently of age. Moreover, just like work experience matters so does life experience. Your brain changes with experience. It also changes drastically until you mid 20s. So, just like work experience (as measure by years working) can be a proxy for seniority so can life experience (as measured by age) be a proxy for those traits. Hopefully, people independently test things instead of relying on proxies alone.
Finally, the difference between youth and everything else you've mentioned in terms of discrimination is trivially simple. The young naturally become old with time. The old do not become young with time. Blacks don't become white. Women don't become men. A few years of wait versus eternity of wait is the difference.
It seems your post makes this argument without actually stating as much. So I'm trying to get where you stand on age discrimination against the young.
P.S. this is irrelevant to requesting experience, that is a requirement independent of what age the person has.
A certain equanimity and humility often is attributed to age and the acquisition of wisdom. Perhaps this is what was referred to, rather than an actual judgement based on age.
People frequently do not confront behavior directly, rather using euphemisms or attributing decisions to other aspects to avoid a heated and personal confrontation. One of the necessary skills of leadership positions is to be aware of this and respond to the real, underlying issue rather than the superficial one.
Well, let's leave the world of theory, which I'll let the ass-u-me crowd dominate:
Even if my particular case was not about ageism, we can agree it happens against the young unfairly, even if sometimes. Even if I'm too much of an asshole for it to happen to me.
So, my point stands: can you please explain to this self righteous, incivil person who deserves the discrimination he has experienced, why it is OK to discriminate against the young but not the old?
If this is a small company with less responsibilities, then I would consider this a problem and more so ageist, because less complexity and moving parts doesn't require more experience.
But I agree with the others a little bit as well, you seem to lacking a little EQ.