ANTI-AGING IS HATE SPEECH

In December of last year, 43-year-old actress Sienna Miller wowed the crowd with her very visibly pregnant red-carpet appearance at the Fashion Awards in London. For the occasion, Miller chose a white empire silhouette, high-waisted Givenchy gown. Leaving shoulders and arms to bear the British wet cold weather, the lightweight material flowed over her protruding belly. But there was more than a hint of sexiness, too: The transparency of the dress did not conceal the fact that she was wearing only white panties underneath, her feet encased in high-heeled slippers decorated with feather tufts. The creators of the Australian podcast “Mamamia Out Loud” were so impressed by Miller’s appearance that they discussed its implications on the show. Host Holly Wainwright raved that Miller ushered in a new era: the “Age of Agelessness.” She noted that due to technological advancements, “forty-three now looks like twenty-three and pregnant.” The group concluded: “We have very successfully extended youth.”

But is this new enthusiasm for agelessness really progress? Basically, it boils down to this: Historically, women were culturally and socially devalued from a certain age onwards (more on this later). They did not appear in political discourse or media representations, rendering them effectively invisible. So, does the seeming attainability of agelessness strengthen the position of women in society and promote equality? Firstly, let’s look at the advantages: Women over forty in the Western world today tend to be healthier and more financially secure than they were twenty years ago. While still being underrepresented in the media, the image of “older women” has undergone a cultural shift. In fashion and on social media, “age-inclusive” models and influencers are celebrated for their “authentic” look, marketing product for a growing consumer base of trend-conscious middle-aged female shoppers. For the Academy Awards in March, two 46-year-old actresses, Kate Hudson and Rose Byrne, have been nominated for Best Female Lead.

But the medially celebrated “agelessness” of these women comes at a hefty price. Recently, journalist Laura Reilly introduced her new “High Touch” column for Magasin, writing: “GLP-1 use doubled in one year. Peptides went mainstream. Aesthetic procedures are up 40% from pre-pandemic levels.” Reilly sees this as an indication of a broader social trend. “Once fringe, the apertures of longevity, aesthetics, biohacking, maxxing and otherwise ‘beyond the gloss’ pursuits are widening to include more of us every day.”

This assessment, like the term ‘agelessness,’ also refers to the introduction of a new vocabulary. In marketing for cosmetic products and services, the term “anti-aging” has been widely criticized as “gendered ageism” because it frames the natural, inevitable process of getting older as a “condition that needs to be fought, fixed, or cured, particularly for women. Actress Julianne Moore has argued that the expression “aging gracefully” is “totally sexist” because it carries implicit judgment, suggesting that any other way of aging is shameful or wrong. It reinforces the societal idea that a woman’s value is directly tied to her youth and appearance. Pro-age influencer Heidi Clemens goes one step further, advocating for a ban on the term “anti-aging,” deeming it “hate speech.” Viewed from this perspective, “agelessness” is just a euphemism that poorly conceals its blatant ageism. The message is: the best way to age is to stay young. Repeating the same old refrain: Aging devalues women; therefore, they should not age. And thanks to modern cosmetic and reproductive technology, they no longer have to.

Miller’s youthful appearance then becomes a sign of her prolonged sexual prowess, for which 25-year-old “boy toy” Oli Green beckons as a prize. This is all the more problematic as Miller’s pregnancy is seen as “proof” of her continued vitality. Miller’s empire gown, which transports the viewer back to the Regency era, fits perfectly with this image of women. This style was first popular in the early 19th century, when the ideal women was delicate, refined and ‘decorative.’ Older unmarried women were stigmatized as ‘spinsters’ who had missed their chance at a fulfilling life and now, embittered, had become a burden on society. Sound familiar?

The conservative backlash that spawned the trad wife movement is pushing the age-old narrative that women’s sole purpose in the world is motherhood. Rationalizing the cultural preference for young women as a biological predisposition. Women are only perceived as attractive (and deemed worthy of attention) as long as they are still able to reproduce.

The thing is, though: Women well in their forties and above are generally not. In the past, Miller has been very open about the fact that she had her eggs frozen at a younger age, a physically demanding procedure that is not an option for all women due to the cost (see also “Freeze, Baby, Freeze” in Fräulein, Issue 40). Thus, the idea of “agelessness” only shifts the problem instead of addressing it. It’s a vicious cycle.

In an article for the New York Times, journalist Ashton Applewhite compared the desire to pass for younger to “a gay person trying to pass for straight or a person of color for white. These behaviors are rooted in shame over something that shouldn’t be shameful. And they give a pass to the underlying discrimination that makes them necessary.”

The shame associated with aging is still very real. Following a recent appearance at the Grammy awards, 52-year-old model Heidi Klum was relentlessly mocked for “looking old” and being “over the hill,” even though she did everything “right” according to societal rules, engaging in beauty culture and retaining a fit physique after giving birth to four children. The message of achieving “agelessness” through consumption only ex- tends the “expiry date” of women, instead of clarifying that there should not be one.

So, if looking “pretty” and having babies is not the prime goal for women in their forties (or at any age), what is? Writer Jane Austen, who suffered from the restrictions put on women during the Regency era, showed her contemporaries a way forward. In her classic novels Pride and Prejudice (first published in 1813) and Emma (1815), she invented a prototypical feminist heroine who draws confidence from her sharp wit, humor and critical thinking skills, rather than her outward appearance.

Because there inevitably comes a time, be it in your forties, your fifties, your sixties or beyond, when that’s all you have left to rely on. Luckily, the societal discourse around menopause is starting to change. In her groundbreaking show, Fleabag creator Phoebe Waller-Bridge featured a standout guest performance by Kristin Scott Thomas, then 59-years-old. In the role of successful businesswoman Belinda Friers, she advises the younger woman that age is nothing to fear, but rather something to look forward to: “No longer a slave, no longer a machine with parts. You’re just a person. In business.” This is not to say that it is necessarily bad to use the technical possibilities available to us. We each have to age in our own way, on whatever terms work for us. But achieving “agelessness” is not a goal, it’s a lie.