It is assuming victimhood, because it is presumed immoral (or illegal) activity for what could at least as reasonably be totally moral and legal decisionmaking as a result of other factors.
If you choose not to work as much as someone else or made choices that require higher compensation, it is not an "-ism" for your employer to choose another candidate on that basis alone. We're going down a dark road claiming victimhood without evidence as quickly as people are.
Re:Why Ageism Never Gets Old
by brooklyn_ashey on Friday November 17, 2017 @02:38AM
(#15719914)
no one claims ageism at the first sign of it... you typically spend the years between 35 and 45 thinking... "no way! that's so stupid!" until it finally hits you, and you still can't believe it's really a thing. It's a lot like racism or sexism, except it's a bit more comforting to know that it will come to its perpetrator with a swiftness that will blow their mind.
This is a loaded and contentious statement ("assuming...victimhood at the first sign").
And trying to address ageism is trying to solve the problem; the problem is ageism.
In your particular example, ageism is manifest because older workers tend to have families and financial obligations (both of which, by the way, contribute to society). That's not "perceived" ageism. It's simply ageism.