I'm 92 and still live independently. I make sure to stay active, and I don't eat a lot of red meat.
This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Mira Armstrong, a 92-year-old from Porepunkah, Australia. It has been edited for length and clarity.
I built my home with my husband, Bruce, in 1956. Now that I'm 92 years old, I still live independently. I hope I croak it here.
I was born in Poland in 1933 during the Depression. My father was a shoemaker and in the army reserve. When World War II broke out, he was taken prisoner and sent to Germany. My mother, siblings, and I followed.
I got a rough start to life
Life was pretty tough. We lived in a derelict, abandoned farmhouse and weren't allowed to go to school because we weren't German citizens. While German children were at school, we'd scavenge at the dump — once, we even found an old gramophone.
Toward the end of the war, I remember hearing American planes overhead. An old German man cycled through our village, sounding a siren as they approached. They never bombed our village, only cities and factories.
I remember watching thousands of British airmen being marched past on foot. They stopped and ate grass because they were so hungry. I wish I knew how to speak English back then, but I didn't.
We moved to Australia after the war, and things changed
After the war, we were moved from one displaced persons camp to another. Europe was in chaos. We spent some time in Italy, then came to Australia aboard the SS Skaugum. My father got a job in the ship's kitchen and was finally able to buy toothpaste. We'd cleaned our teeth with ash during the war.
When we arrived in Melbourne on March 28, 1950, I was 17. It felt like heaven. Everything was so strange and unusual. We were finally free.
My family eventually settled in Porepunkah, Victoria, and I met my husband, Bruce, at the local swimming hole. One day, he waited in his truck to pick my sister and me up from work, and that was it. We were married in 1954 — I was 21, Bruce was 24.
Longevity could be hereditary — my mum lived to 97. She was hardworking and survived many hardships, too. But I have also made a few lifestyle choices that may have helped.
Being active has always been a priority
When I was younger, I used to cycle 24 kilometers to and from work, even to church in high heels. I did everything fast, whether it was housework or heaving hay bales around our farm.
When Bruce and I built our house, we dug the foundation holes and the well by hand. We had five kids, and I was constantly busy. I worked in hospitality and retail, never behind a desk. These days, I still walk a lot, mainly around the house and outside, and I like to garden.
I eat a balanced diet, and I don't drink or smoke
I eat everything — probably because I remember the starvation during the war. Once, we went for four days without food.
For breakfast, I have porridge or Weetabix. I eat soup full of veggies, wholemeal toasties, chicken, fish, and walnuts. There's not a lot of red meat in my diet.
My vice is fruit, though I have to be careful because I'm borderline diabetic. I never smoked or drank, and I only recently started drinking coffee.
Staying social and volunteering is key
Our home was always social — full of friends and family. I enjoy spending time with my eight grandkids and eight great-grandkids.
I've also done a lot of volunteer work: 29 years with Meals on Wheels, 14 years with the op shop, and years of church work. I get bored easily, and I enjoy giving back.
My faith has given me comfort in tough times
Bruce died in 1977 shortly after a trucking accident. He was 47 years old, I was 44.
I still had three boys at home and about 70 cows to manage on our farm. It was a horrendous time, and I went through hell. I did three part-time jobs and took care of everything on autopilot.
After Bruce died, I started cursing God and stopped going to church. Then, in 1992, my youngest son, Graham, was killed in a road accident. It was very difficult, and that's when I returned to church. My faith has brought me comfort ever since.
I make sure to keep my mind active
I keep my mind active with puzzles and reading. I enjoy thrillers, and hot romances, too. After Bruce died, I'd read romance novels through the night. In the morning, I didn't even remember what they were about.
These days, I enjoy feeding the birds and gardening. For what it's worth, these habits may have led to my longevity, and they've surely contributed to my enjoyment of life. But my No. 1 tip for a long life? Don't die!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Holly Grove celebrates a community legend's 100th birthday
HOLLY GROVE, Ark. – A birthday celebration was held on Sunday at the Holly Grove community center for a man who sacrificed all for our country, Irunoes Johnson. 'That's what keeps me going, looking back at where I come from,' Johnson said. Little Rock World War II veteran celebrates her 100th birthday with parade Johnson turned 100 years old, having lived a life of service in the U.S. Army and fought in World War II, driving a 6×6 truck into Germany. General Dwight D. Eisenhower called the 6 x 6 trucks one of the six most vital U.S vehicles to win the war. The Holly Grove community honored all Johnson has done, along with his family. His grandchildren sang a song of thanks and his children gifted him with special plaques. His daughter Barbra Casey, says her father has always been an example to her and everyone he's crossed paths with. 'He's been kind of a trailblazer where he's worked at the rice mill, and he helped train people and stuff, so for those people to come and give back to him on this day, he had tears in his eyes,' Casey said. Johnson was full of gratitude himself and shared some words of wisdom. 'All I can tell you is when you start getting up in age, you've got to start taking care of yourself, you can get there,' Johnson said. Arkansas World War II veteran turns 102-years-old on Valentine's Day He advised for those who want to make a difference and have an impact just like he did. 'Don't worry about what the other person is doing, you take care of yourself, because you go worrying about what other people are doing or want to be like other people, you've got a problem,' Johnson said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
I'm a psychologist who studies couples: Here's what people fight about the most in relationships—and No. 1 will surprise you
Even the happiest couples encounter conflict. But what they fight about reveals a lot about what's missing in the relationship. As a psychologist who studies couples, I've found that there are many similar topics that come up again and again. And the first step to resolving the conflicts is to know what those topics are. According to a YouGov poll of 1,000 American adults, and based on my research, here are the most common reasons couples fight — and the psychology behind each one. A sour tone or attitude — a slightly raised voice, a sarcastic comment, an eye-roll mid-conversation — is by far the most common reason couples fight. To the person exhibiting it, it might not seem like a big deal. But to the partner on the receiving end, it hits a direct nerve because it signals contempt. In marital research, contempt is one of the most reliable predictors of divorce. Unlike overt criticism or stonewalling (shutting down emotionally), contempt disguises itself with non-verbal gestures and body language. How to move past it: Resist the impulse to strike back. Fighting fire with fire never works, so try naming the effect instead: "That felt condescending. Can we try again?" This gives your partner the chance to course-correct, and it doesn't instantly escalate things. If you're the one delivering the tone, check in with yourself before saying anything more. Are you feeling unheard? Frustrated? Overwhelmed? Pinpointing what's fueling the contempt is the first step to expressing yourself without hurting the relationship. Arguments about family relations often reflect fundamental misalignments and unmet needs. One partner might feel unsupported or sidelined, especially if their spouse seems to default to defending their side of the family. In situations involving children, arguments usually boil down to value clashes — where each partner feels like their core parenting beliefs are being dismissed. Neither partner is "right" or "wrong" in these scenarios. In fact, they're more than likely seeking the exact same thing: someone who's on their side. How to move past it: A good place to start is to reassure one another. For example: "I love my family, but you're still my partner. How can we find a solution that meets both of our needs and values?" Then talk about your limits as a team: what to do when a line is crossed, or how to show solidarity in front of others (even when you disagree privately). People often assume that arguments about chores are about the chores themselves — the dishes left in the sink, the laundry piling up, the trash that never gets taken out. But if that were true, these issues could be quickly fixed with a simple chore chart. Rather, the real problem is the uneven distribution of labor. According to research, one partner in a relationship usually shoulders the bulk of domestic work. But they aren't just folding the clothes and cooking the meals, they're also managing appointments, coordinating the bills and keeping mental tabs on everyone's well-being but their own. This "invisible load" goes largely unacknowledged, and that lack of recognition is usually where the fight starts. How to move past it: This dynamic can often be changed if the load is named out loud. Even just saying, "I didn't realize how much you were holding, thank you," gives your partner the acknowledgement they've been needing to hear. From there, work together to redistribute tasks in a way that feels sustainable. Fairness won't look like a 50/50 split every day, but it should feel like something you both have a hand in. This is one of the trickiest arguments to navigate. In many cases, by the time couples are arguing about they talk to each other, the original issue has likely already been lost in translation. For example, one partner is upset about an unfair distribution of chores, or they're frustrated with how their in-laws treat them. But when these concerns are brought up, research shows they can quickly go off the rails when the other engages with them ineffectively — or with hostility. If the conversation is met with defensiveness, criticism or stonewalling, the fight will shift its focus from the initial issue. Instead, it becomes a matter of how poorly the conversation is going. How to move past it: One simple strategy successful couples use is the "five second rule": They have a designated word or phrase that signals: "We're spiraling, let's take a time-out." This gives a much-needed pause, without the negative effects of storming out. When you return to the conversation, try to see eye-to-eye before continuing to air out your grievances: "I want to understand why you're upset, and I want you to understand the same for me. You share your side, then I'll share mine."
Vox
3 hours ago
- Vox
First comes marriage. Then comes a flirtatious colleague.
is a senior reporter for Vox's Future Perfect and co-host of the Future Perfect podcast. She writes primarily about the future of consciousness, tracking advances in artificial intelligence and neuroscience and their staggering ethical implications. Before joining Vox, Sigal was the religion editor at the Atlantic. Your Mileage May Vary is an advice column offering you a unique framework for thinking through your moral dilemmas. To submit a question, fill out this anonymous form or email Here's this week's question from a reader, condensed and edited for clarity: My husband and I have a good relationship. We're both committed to personal growth and continual learning and have developed very strong communication skills. A couple of years ago we were exposed to some friends with an open marriage and had our own conversations about ethical non-monogamy. At first, neither of us were interested. Now, my husband is interested and currently is attracted to a colleague who is also into him. She's married and has no idea that he and I talk about all of their interactions. He doesn't know what her relationship agreements are with her husband. I'm not currently interested in ethical non-monogamy. I see things in our relationship that I'd like to work on together with my husband. I want more of his attention and energy, to be frank. I don't want his attention and energy being funneled into another relationship. I don't have moral issues with ethical non-monogamy, I just don't actually see any value-add for me right now. The cost-benefit analysis leaves me saying 'not now.' My husband admitted that he's hoping I will have a change of mind. I don't want to force his hand, although I am continuing to say very clearly what I want in my relationship. How do we reach a compromise? If he cuts ties with this woman, he has resentment towards me. If he continues to pursue something with her, I feel disrespected, and while I don't want to leave him I would feel the need to do something. Dear Monogamously Married, I want to start by commending you for two things. First, for your openness to discussing and exploring all this with your husband. Second, for your insistence on clearly stating what you actually want — and don't want. I think Erich Fromm, the 20th-century German philosopher and psychologist, would back me up in saying that you'd do well to hold tight to both those qualities. For starters, radical openness is important because, according to Fromm, the basic premise of love is freedom. He writes: Love is a passionate affirmation of its 'object.' That means that love is not an 'affect' but an active striving, the aim of which is the happiness, development, and freedom of its 'object.' In other words, love is not a feeling. It's work, and the work of love is to fully support the flourishing of the person you love. That can be scary — what if the person discovers that they're actually happier with somebody else? — which is why Fromm specifies that only someone with a strong self 'which can stand alone and bear solitude' will be up for the job. He continues: This passionate affirmation is not possible if one's own self is crippled, since genuine affirmation is always rooted in strength. The person whose self is thwarted can only love in an ambivalent way; that is, with the strong part of his self he can love, with the crippled part he must hate. So far, it might sound like Fromm is saying that to be a good lover is to be a doormat: you just have to do whatever's best for the other person, even if it screws you over. But his view is very much the opposite. In fact, Fromm cautions us against both 'masochistic love' and 'sadistic love.' In the first, you give up your self and sacrifice your needs in order to become submerged in another person. In the second, you try to exert power over the other person. Both of these are rooted in 'a deep anxiety and an inability to stand alone,' writes Fromm; whether by dissolving yourself into them or by controlling them, you're trying to make it impossible for the other person to abandon you. Both approaches are 'pseudo-love.' Have a question you want me to answer in the next Your Mileage May Vary column? Feel free to email me at or fill out this anonymous form! Newsletter subscribers will get my column before anyone else does and their questions will be prioritized for future editions. Sign up here! So although Fromm doesn't want you to try to control your partner, and although he suggests that the philosophical ideal is for you to passionately affirm your partner's freedom, he's not advising you to do that if, for you, that will mean masochism. If you're not up for ethical non-monogamy — if you feel, like many people, that the idea of giving your partner free rein is too big a threat to your relationship or your own well-being — then pretending otherwise is not real love. It's just masochistic self-annihilation. I'm personally partial to Fromm's non-possessive approach to love. But I equally appreciate his point that the philosophical ideal could become a practical bloodbath if it doesn't work for the actual humans involved. I think the question, then, is this: Do you think it's possible for you to get to a place where you genuinely feel ready for and interested in ethical non-monogamy? It sounds like you're intellectually open to the idea, and given that you said you're committed to personal growth and continual learning, non-monogamy could offer you some benefits; lots of people who practice it say that part of its appeal lies in the growth it catalyzes. And if practicing non-monogamy makes you and/or your husband more fulfilled, it could enrich your relationship and deepen your appreciation for each other. But right now, you've got a problem: Your husband is pushing on your boundaries by flirting with a woman even after you've expressed that you don't want him pursuing something with her. And you already feel like he isn't giving you enough attention and energy, so the prospect of having to divvy up those resources with another woman feels threatening. Fair! Notice, though, that that isn't a worry about non-monogamy per se — it's a worry about the state of your current monogamous relationship. In a marriage, what partners typically want is to feel emotionally secure. But that comes from how consistently and lovingly we show up for and attune to one another, not from the relationship structure. A monogamous marriage may give us some feeling of security, but it's obviously no guarantee; some people cheat, some get divorced, and some stay loyally married while neglecting their partner emotionally. 'Monogamy can serve as a stand-in for actual secure attachment,' writes therapist Jessica Fern in Polysecure, a book on how to build healthy non-monogamous relationships. She urges readers to take an honest look at any relationship insecurities or dissatisfactions that are being disguised by monogamy, and work with partners to strengthen the emotional experience of the relationship. Since you feel that your husband isn't giving you enough attention and energy, be sure to talk to him about it. Explain that it doesn't feel safe for you to open up the relationship without him doing more to be fully present with you and to make you feel understood and precious. See if he starts implementing these skills more reliably. In the meantime, while you two are trying to reset your relationship, it's absolutely reasonable to ask him to cool it with the colleague he's attracted to; he doesn't have to cut ties with her entirely (and may not be able to if they work together), but he can certainly avoid feeding the flames with flirtation. Right now, the fantasy of her is a distraction from the work he needs to be doing to improve the reality of your marriage. He should understand why a healthy practice of ethical non-monogamy can't emerge from a situation where he's pushing things too far with someone else before you've agreed to change the terms of your relationship (and if he doesn't, have him read Polysecure!). It's probably a good idea for you to each do your own inner work, too. Fern, like Fromm, insists that if we want to be capable of a secure attachment with someone else, we need to cultivate that within ourselves. That means being aware of our feelings, desires, and needs, and knowing how to tend to them. Understanding your attachment style can help with this; for example, if you're anxiously attached and you very often reach out to your partner for reassurance, you can practice spending time alone. After taking some time to work on these interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, come back together to discuss how you're feeling. Do you feel more receptive to opening up the relationship? Do you think it would add more than it would subtract? If the answer is 'yes' or 'maybe,' you can create a temporary relationship structure — or 'vessel,' as Fern calls it — to help you ease into non-monogamy. One option is to adopt a staggered approach to dating, where one partner (typically the more hesitant one) starts dating new people first, and the other partner starts after a predetermined amount of time. Another option is to try a months-long experiment where both partners initially engage in certain romantic or sexual experiences that are less triggering to each other, then assess what worked and what didn't, and go from there. If the answer is 'no' — if you're not receptive to opening up your relationship — then by all means say that! Given you'll have sincerely done the work to explore whether non-monogamy works for you, your husband doesn't get to resent you. He can be sad, he can be disappointed, and he can choose to leave if the outcome is intolerable to him. But he'll have to respect you, and what's more important, you'll have to respect yourself. Bonus: What I'm reading This week's question prompted me to go back to the famous psychologist Abraham Maslow, who was influenced by Fromm. Maslow spoke of two kinds of love : Deficit-Love and Being-Love. The former is about trying to satiate your own needs, while the latter is about giving without expecting something in return. Maslow characterizes Being-Love as an almost spiritual experience, likening it to 'the perfect love of their God that some mystics have described.' In addition to Polysecure, which has become something of a poly bible in the past few years, I recommend reading What Love Is — and What It Could Be , written by the philosopher Carrie Jenkins. I appreciated Jenkins's functionalist take on romantic love: She explains that we've constructed the idea of romantic love a certain way in order to serve a certain function (structuring society into nuclear family units), but we can absolutely revise it if we want.
