How to use this Page

The baby boom generation came of age at a time that pushed boundaries of sexual freedom. Changes in attitudes and behaviors about sexuality were framed by the sexual revolution, women’s rights, gay rights, and the birth control pill. Decades later, the first wave of this generation is now turning 65. While most boomers still have a decade or more before they consider moving into assisted living facilities, a study suggests that sexual freedom is difficult to come by for those who currently reside in a structured environment such as assisted living.

The post Barriers to sexual freedom in assisted living appeared first on OUPblog.

By Chandra Ford

The seventh of February will mark the thirteenth National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day. Despite the fact that blacks make up only 14% of the US population, the CDC reports that blacks accounted for 44% of all newly reported HIV infections in 2009, the HIV infection rate among Latinos was nearly three times as high as that of whites, and 1 in 4 persons living with HIV/AIDS in the USA is an older adult (50+ years old).

The CDC reported that 1,600 White, 450 Black, and 300 Latino men aged 50 or older acquired HIV in 2009 through unprotected sex with other men. In other research conducted among senior-housing residents, investigators learned that 42% of residents had been sexually active within the previous six months. One third of the sexually active residents reported two or more partners during that period, but only 20% had regularly used condoms.

Alarmingly, older adults are prone to be disproportionately diagnosed in the late stages of HIV disease. Many older Americans who seek services in public health venues do not undergo testing for HIV infection, some due to mistrust in the government. Researchers in a recent study found among the 226 participants, 30% reported belief in AIDS conspiracy theories, 72% reported government mistrust, and 45% reported not undergoing HIV testing within the past 12 months.

Among African Americans, endorsements of AIDS conspiracy theories stem from historical experiences with racism and medical discrimination, although knowledge of African Americans’ experiences may lead members of other racial/ethnic groups to endorse such theories.

Making HIV testing routine in public health venues may be an efficient way to improve early diagnosis among at-risk older adults. Alternative possibilities include expanding HIV testing in nonpublic health venues. Finally, identifying particular sources of misinformation and mistrust would appear useful for appropriate targeting of HIV testing strategies in the future.

Key calendar dates:
7 February 2013               National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day
19 May 2013                       Asian Pacific Islander HIV/AIDS Awareness Day
27 June 2013                     National HIV Testing Day
15 October 2013               National Latino HIV/AIDS Awareness Day
1 December 2013              World AIDS Day

For further reading:

• AIDS.gov
• CDC on HIV/AIDS
• “Belief in AIDS-Related Conspiracy Theories and Mistrust in the Government” by Chandra L. Ford et al. in The Gerontologist

Dr. Chandra Ford is an assistant professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences at UCLA. Her areas of expertise are in the social determinants of HIV/AIDS disparities, the health of sexual minority populations and Critical Race Theory. Ford has received several competitive awards, including the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Services Award (an individual dissertation grant) from the National Institutes of Health and a North Carolina Impact Award for her research contributions to North Carolinians. Her most recent research, “Belief in AIDS-Related Conspiracy Theories and Mistrust in the Government” in The Gerontologist, is available to read for free for a limited time.

The Gerontologist, published since 1961, is a bimonthly journal (first issue in February) of The Gerontological Society of America that provides a multidisciplinary perspective on human aging through the publication of research and analysis in gerontology, including social policy, program development, and service delivery. It reflects and informs the broad community of disciplines and professions involved in understanding the aging process and providing service to older people.

Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only health and medicine articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.

The post HIV/AIDS testing: suspicion and mistrust among Baby Boomers appeared first on OUPblog.

By Rosemary Wright

Greenwich pensioner by Whistler 1859. Source: Library of Congress.

In 2011, the oldest Baby Boom workers reached the age of 65 — an age that more than 60 million Baby Boomers will reach by 2030. The issue of retirement weighs particularly on women, who are likely to outlive men and therefore have a longer period of retirement to finance.

In the study “Paying for Retirement: Sex Differences in Inclusion in Employer-Provided Retirement Plans,” I turned to the Baby Boomers to determine whether this new generation of women were well-prepared with retirement benefits. Is the retirement gap between Baby Boom men and women narrower than for older retirees? Are women still dependent on a husband’s retirement income for security in old age? To look at these differences, I examined a large sample obtained from the 2009 Current Population Survey for the differences between Baby Boom men and women’s inclusion in retirement plans, as well as predictors of inclusion in these plans.

The results of the new study showed a significantly higher percentage of women than men (68.4% vs. 65.2%) worked for an employer who offered retirement benefits. A slightly higher percentage of men than women (92.4% vs. 91.1%) were included in their employers’ retirement programs. Overall, significant positive predictors of working for an employer with a retirement plan were sex (women more likely than men), employment in a core industry or in a primary occupational sector, educational attainment, and government worker status (government workers more likely than non-government workers). On the other hand, significant negative predictors were minority status (minorities less likely than non-minorities), age (older workers less likely than younger workers), having children younger than age 18 (those with children under the age of 18 less likely than those with no children under 18), and immigrant status (immigrants less likely than non-immigrants).

Minority status and educational level were the only two predictors for which there was a significant sex difference. Minority women were less likely than minority men to work for an employer with retirement benefits. As educational attainment increased, men were more likely than women to work for an employer providing retirement benefits.

Significant positive predictors of a worker actually being included in an employer’s retirement program were age (older workers more likely to be included than younger workers), employment in a core industry or in a primary occupational sector, educational attainment, marriage (married workers more likely than non-married workers), and government worker status. Minority status was the only significant negative predictor of inclusion (minority workers less likely than non-minority workers to be included).

There was only one variable with a significant difference between men and women: government employment. Female public employees were more likely than male public employees to be included in their employers’ retirement programs.

Two major good-news stories emerge from this study. First, a much larger group of workers is included in an employer’s retirement plan in this study than received pension benefits in earlier studies. This reflects the expansion of the types and availability of retirement benefits available to workers today, and is a good sign for retirement security as Baby Boom workers begin to retire. Second, there was only one predictor for which the likelihood of being included in a retirement

Tweet

By Edward Zelinsky

Receiving my AARP membership card was one of the truly traumatic events of my life. I had marched for civil rights. I had protested the war in Vietnam. I walked the streets for Gene McCarthy. I was a legitimate Baby Boomer. How could this have happened to me?

My wiser and more self-confident spouse took it in better stride. Doris quickly became adept at pulling out her AARP card and demanding old-age discounts, as I stood sheepishly aside.

My personal disquiet about my AARP card reinforced my deeply-seated, policy-based misgivings about the AARP. President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich could have emulated President Reagan and Speaker O’Neill by negotiating a reasonable, bi-partisan approach to Social Security. At that time, increasing the retirement ages for Baby Boomers and other similarly modest measures would have brought Social Security’s projected payments into line with its expected revenues, with only minor impacts on future retirees.

There were many reasons such a deal didn’t happen during the Clinton years, but the AARP’s strident opposition was chief among them.

As the financial problems of Social Security and Medicare became more acute, I became increasingly troubled by the AARP’s refusal to address them. The AARP’s effective opposition to reforming these entitlement programs has implemented perfectly the ethic of Baby Boomer narcissism.

I was accordingly surprised and reassured to learn that the AARP has at last acknowledged the need for us geezers, i.e., its members, to reform Social Security benefits for the financial sake of our children and grandchildren. As a mushy moderate, I am convinced that there is a balanced package of tax increases and benefit reductions which can allow the Baby Boomers to retire without bankrupting our offspring.

It is good news that the AARP has belatedly recognized this reality.

Medicare will be tougher to reform. It is now finally sinking in that the Independent Payment Advisory Board President Obama and Congress created as part of the health reform package will effectively ration medical care through its control of Medicare’s payments to health care providers. This should surprise no one: Rationing is how government outlays are controlled. Medicare’s outlays must be controlled.

The same is true of the consumer-driven approach to controlling Medicare expenses proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan. The Ryan plan would place greater responsibility on Medicare consumers to control costs. This approach is also going to be necessary to control Medicare outlays.

Determining the right mix of these two approaches is going to be a difficult task. Regrettably, neither Republicans nor Democrats are now prepared to undertake the serious enterprise of governing.

It would be good for the AARP to also raise its voice on behalf of the cause of Medicare cost reform.

However, for now, I’ll take what I can get. It is progress for the AARP, however gingerly, to acknowledge that Social Security entitlements for the elderly must be curbed in the interests of national solvency and the futures of our children and grandchildren.

But I will still step aside while Doris demands the elderly discount.

Edward A. Zelinsky is the Morris and Annie Trachman Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University. He is the author of The Origins of the Ownership Society: How The Defined Contribution Paradigm Changed America

0 Comments on Proud to be AARP. Kind of. as of 1/1/1900

Add a Comment

I’ve really been feeling my Gen Xness the last few months. I dislike framing Web 2.0 or Library 2.0 as generational issues (I think it has far more to do with whether you’re used to creating and sharing content overall), but the rise of Twitter and FriendFeed in particular have made me feel like even more of a bridge because I get stretched thin trying to explain both sides of an issue to two groups who aren’t really talking to each other about these things. Like Johnny Cash, I walk the line.

As a GenX bridge, one side of me understands the Boomer confusion at these public posts and wonders why these folks can’t just call, email, or text a person who could actually do something about the problem they’re encountering. Recently, I felt this most acutely when Jason Griffey took the time to write a blog post disagreeing with two rules for submitting questions to ALA presidential candidates on YouTube. I’m close enough to the traditional, Boomer norms of communication that when I first read Jason’s post, my immediate reaction was to sigh and wonder why he couldn’t have just contacted someone at MPOW to request that the rules be changed. The “direct” approach seems like the logical one for affecting change and having your voice heard.

And then the Millennial side of the bridge kicked in and I chided myself, because Jason actually cared enough to take the time to write that post instead of just a 140-character rant. He explained his reasoning in what has (surprisingly) become a long-form medium online (blogging). In hindsight, his post helped change one of the rules he disagreed with, so it was better that he posted publicly where everyone could read it and comment, including us. And honestly, some of the comments on microblogging sites are complaints that someone did try to call or email a human being and didn’t get a good response, so it’s not that these generational preferences are exclusive. Writing a blog post these days is a pretty high level of engagement, and caring enough to post a tweet or FriendFeed comment is right behind that in terms of trying to get our attention (hey, at least MPOW isn’t mediocre).

My personal lesson from these recent experiences is that it’s important for associations (and libraries) to understand that every blog post, every tweet, every FF comment is like a letter to the editor or someone standing up in a membership meeting and voicing a complaint. They’re the 21st century equivalent of a phone call or a conversation in the hallway at a conference, and we have to take them just as seriously and respond to them the same way we would those 20th century methods of communication. It’s not that Boomers want to help any less, but I think they’re used to helping people one-on-one, even online. For many members who likely trend younger, the new channels are their preferred ones for these types of comments, and not just for complaints. There isn’t anything wrong with either approach, but they’re ships crossing in the night, and they don’t lead to conversations between the two sides that would improve communication.

Sometimes I think attacking MPOW is a national sport, so it can be depressing being the person constantly relaying what’s being said about us online. But it’s important for those of us in the middle to be that bridge and find compromises that work for everyone. So I especially appreciate those folks who take the time to comment online in a constructive way (regardless of the channel), because it helps me build that bridge.

This strain isn’t new, but I’m curious to know if other Gen Xers are feeling an increase in this area due to microblogging sites? Have you found successful strategies for improving communication around these new channels? I have some ideas that I’m going to try to implement at work, and I’ll report back here over time, but I’d love to hear how others are handling being at this intersection.