From the Editor

Suzanne Boyd

LATE LAST YEAR, Emile Ratelband, a 69-yearold Dutchman, went to court to have his age legally lowered to 49, saying, “When I’m 69, I’m limited. If I’m 49, then I can buy a new house, drive a different car. I can take up more work. When I’m on Tinder and it says I’m 69, I don’t get an answer.” Sigh. But is this internalized ageism toward oneself or does he have a point regarding the only discrimination still socially acceptable? As he went on to say: “We live in a time when you can change your name and change your gender. Why can’t I decide my own age?” Good question. While we ponder the answer, con- sider that for all of us who have chosen not to go to court, we do make daily, even hourly or minuteby-minute decisions that reflect what our age is and, more importantly and less concretely, what it means.

But like the makeover shows Leanne Delap (below) so aptly writes about in “Inside Out” (page 64), the idea of age and another birthday to come makes us take stock – if this is all there is, how do we make it what we want it to be? This is where the idea of change and our Make-aChange issue comes in.

I admire Ratelband’s moxie on putting ageism on the court docket. It’s high time someone did. We can’t pretend ageism doesn’t exist, and what we message through our brand is changing the court of public opinion and public policy, as well.

But it all starts within. Do the work with practical strategies and tactics we offer for your mind, your longevity, your fitness, your nutrition and, yes, your fashion, which may go some way to helping Mr. Ratelband on Tinder. Because, for him, 69 is still the new 69. The Dutch court’s final ruling denied his request but stated that: “Mr. Ratelband is at liberty to feel 20 years younger than his real age and too act accordingly.”