@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet
Thank you for coming back to us.
While you're talking about it at MN Towers, can you put these two questions on the table?
- Why does MN accept generalisations (which by definition are untruths as any generalisation is) about a whole group of people ONLY if that whole group of people are defined by being born within a certain period?
You would, quite rightly, be quick to delete any poster claiming that "the Irish are all X" or "the disabled are all Y" "those on benefits are all "Z" etc. Why not "the elderly are all XYZ"?
- You've been told and shown that the word "boomer" itself is derogatory and offensive and has been judged to be so by bodies such as Ofcom, schools, universities etc.
Yet "boomer" which is NEVER used as a synonym of "someone born in the baby boomer generation" (and please, let's not pretend it ever does) is allowed to stand. And when reported, rarely deleted.
I have no doubt whatsoever that within a very short space of time linguistically (in society at large) (without anyone having to subjectively analyse whether the user means to personally attack or not) the term will be deemed to be as offensive as N, sp*, and many others that decent people would rightly not accept. (Whether the term is being used to attack an individual or generalise about a demographic group)
Would MN not consider that leading the way by saying "actually no, we're not going to let you denigrate an entire generation by allowing offensive language to be used against them" might be a good thing?