About 10 years ago, I decided to let my hair go gray.
The reason was very simple: I could not be bothered spending all those hours at the hairdresser every three months or so. I had two young children, and even with help at home — I was living in Hong Kong — that time felt wasted. And ultimately, who really cared? I did not; my husband did not. It has saved money and time, and I never looked back.
So, it was with frustration and some incredulity that I read about Lisa LaFlamme, a Canadian news anchor who let her hair go gray during the COVID-19 pandemic and then was laid off. Her employer denied that “age, gender and gray hair” were factors in terminating her contract.
Illustration: Louise Ting
Here was an accomplished TV journalist who had reported from war zones (going through the hassle of coloring her hair in the women’s toilets at an airfield in Afghanistan and in a Baghdad bunker, the New York Times said), seemingly dismissed over her appearance.
Age discrimination is one of the last frontiers of diversity and inclusion. It largely remains a taboo subject in workplaces. Stories like LaFlamme’s expose the entrenched prejudices women face as they hit middle age and show how much work there is still to be done.
The enduring fixation with how we age (and even that we age) detracts from what half of the population can bring to the table, and undermines women’s achievements, contributions and expertise. Nobody would judge a middle-aged man with gray hair (search for a photograph of Lloyd Robertson, who LaFlamme, 58, replaced when he retired at 77).
Those recoiling from a woman who allows herself to look her age are feeding the expectation that as women get older, they must strive to keep looking younger. It once again places the onus on women to change to fit society’s ideal of what is acceptable.
It is exhausting. We already had to prove ourselves in our 20s, but come our 40s and 50s, it feels like, once again, women need to show why they are worthy.
Lookism is more pointedly directed at women, and especially in the latter part of their careers. While it spans professions, it does seem more pervasive and overt in television.
Broadcaster Libby Purves succinctly spoke about the pressure on women at the BBC to appear attractive and youthful, while men were allowed to age gracefully.
Television news is increasingly looking like an outlier. From central banking (European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde, US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen) to even fashion, women with silver tresses are holding positions of influence (British Vogue deputy editor and fashion features director Sarah Harris found her first gray strand at about 16 and never dyed her hair).
The mature model movement is thriving. Carolyn Doelling, a former telecommunications and banking executive, became a model in her 70s and is now an Instagram sensation, while not to be outdone by her famous son, Maye Musk, the mother of Elon Musk, became a brand ambassador for CoverGirl at 69. This list just gets longer.
The latest awards season has also seen a celebration of female actors in their 50s and 60s: Michelle Yeoh, Cate Blanchett, Jamie Lee Curtis.
These are small, but important wins in the fight against agism. As women live and work longer — followed through their careers by a significant wage gap and watching their retirement savings trail men’s — we must stop penalizing them for something out of their control. Try instead acknowledging their accomplishments and remunerating them accordingly.
While companies with a higher proportion of women in management in the Asia-Pacific region contribute to better stock performances than those with a lower representation, women on average still earn US$0.83 to every US dollar men earn, a Bank of America report titled “More Alpha, Less Pay” showed. (Alpha refers to the excess return of an investment relative to a benchmark.)
Still, there is some progress. Increasing discussion around menopause is a step toward demystifying what it means to be a woman in midlife, but it does run the danger of defining women in the second half of their careers, and can feel like a grand gesture, overcompensating for years of silence. Women want to be included and accepted regardless of their stage in life or career.
I should not even have to state the obvious here. That is the visibility they are asking for when they talk about becoming invisible in middle age. Not drawing attention to signs of aging. Not feeling like there is an expiry date. For that, attitudes must change and we must approach agism (which affects men as well as women) like any other diversity and inclusion topic such as gender, culture, race and disability.
We must call out the double standards: A gray-haired man is considered distinguished. A gray-haired woman gets harangued. We all age. Just get over it.
Andreea Papuc is a Bloomberg Opinion editor.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS