Saturday, Aug. 19, 2023 | 2 a.m.
View more of the Sun's opinion section
When I first came across the term “queenager,” I knew I was supposed to be flattered. I wasn’t. Women have been leaning in for years. Now, here was another label we were supposed to embrace.
Coining a term to draw attention to a cause often comes with good intentions. But sometimes it falls flat.
Queenager is one of those. The portmanteau refers to women who started their professional careers in the 1980s, and have reached a stage where they have disposable incomes and freedom, but tend to become overlooked as they reach middle age. I am all for bringing attention to the challenges they face in the workplace. But I am not convinced another clickbait label is it. Far from being empowering, it feels somewhat pitying. One female colleague quipped: “Totally sexist until I see a story on Kingagers.”
And that’s just it — women need to constantly prove and reinvent themselves throughout their working lives. They do it in their 20s and 30s, then years later they have to do it again to show they remain relevant. If you are a woman of color, it’s even harder to overcome prejudices and advance your career. Workplace discrimination still affects women disproportionately and those in the second part of their careers are a prime target of ageism. If the aim is to acknowledge our value with catchy tags, this one misses the mark. It might be well-meaning, but it feeds stereotypes. Most of us are not entitled queens or temperamental teenagers.
Think about it. Would you call European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde a queenager? Vice President Kamala Harris? Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen? President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen? No.
To push through the barriers to gender parity, women need to be supported, valued and recognized at every stage of their careers. Instead, there is a “never-right” age bias throughout their working lives, Amy Diehl, Leanne M. Dzubinski, and Amber L. Stephenson recently wrote in the Harvard Business Review.
In a survey of 913 U.S. female leaders, they identified a series of concerns: gendered “youngism” (under 40 years) fueled by the belief that age equals competency; gendered “oldism” (over 60 years) where women are not seen as valuable or relevant as their male counterparts; and gendered “middle-ageism” (between 40 years and 60 years), a group overlooked because of “too much family responsibility and impending menopause.”
Women between the ages of 45 and 54 make up 20% of the female workforce in the U.S. The prime-age (25 to 54) participation rate (those who have or are looking for a job) for women hit a record high in June. And still, few are leading companies, managing money and heading financial institutions. Senior female executives are throwing in the towel in frustration at the slow progress in corporate diversity. The gender pay gap persists and women will retire with less in their pension funds than men.
That’s why it’s even more imperative to ensure that women in their 20s and 30s feel confident they will have career opportunities in their 40s and 50s and even 60s. The working-life trajectory must recognize strengths and contributions at different stages. It must also accept that priorities shift. A woman in her 20s and 30s will have different career objectives than one in her 50s. What doesn’t change is the unique perspectives and experiences they all bring, and what they can learn from each other.
Employers are supporting the careers of mothers who return to work after having children. But there are few initiatives aimed at those who’ve hit middle age. This is a missed opportunity. Not only do they have significant spending power, but authority, autonomy, experience and a deep wealth of knowledge. They have a role to play as mentors and role models, as well as leaders. Careers shouldn’t be snuffed out when you hit a certain age.
Things are changing. Companies are now addressing issues affecting middle-aged women, such as menopause. But something that is mostly seen as a condition women suffer through runs the danger of becoming what we associate with working women in the latter half of their careers, and obscures all their other contributions.
There are some other bright spots. Middle-aged women are finally having their Hollywood moment — they are winning awards and speaking out about what it’s like to get older. Look at director Jane Campion and actors Reese Witherspoon, Kate Winslet and Cate Blanchett. Brooke Shields is writing a book on aging. Some, like Naomi Watts, are even talking about menopause.
While the term irks me, Noon, the website that coined queenager, is helping draw attention to a female age bracket still seen as past its prime. That’s a good thing, but catchwords alone won’t fix workplace discrimination. Let’s dispense with them altogether and work for real reforms. Until then, please don’t call me the Q word.
Andreea Papuc is a Bloomberg Opinion editor.
