Mumsnet paused a “boomer” thread this morning, and…

[CurlewKate]

…just for a second I thought ageism was being taken seriously. Sadly, no.

I learnt it in an educational establishment many years later for my A-Levels as opposed to from a pulpit, so my version was probably just an economic concept, rather than a motto through which to live your life. But also, full disclosure, I don't take life advice from religion. I'm a humanist, just for abundance of clarity.

I never claimed to take life advice from religion 😂i quoted one priest!
Blimey!! 😂
The whole Keeping up with the Jones was definitely a thing, but quite noticeably linked to status and consumption. This was discussed by politicians and educators as well.
It was the very opposite of idealism.

I didn't say you did, I just clarified that I didn't. You also said 'my priest' which suggests at least a short term religious practice. I wanted to be clear that I wasn't coming at it from a religious or moral stance and not really sure what is wrong with that frankly, I'm not insinuating anything about you, but I am being clear about my angle.

Well you're talking about the end of that period aren't you - it started with idealism for an amazing future that didn't materialise because of the economic pressures of recession and rising debt - it was a dynamic period.

I was simply explaining why that period was labelled the way it was by both economics and politicians at the time - and it did all start with optimism. It fell apart over time, as so much does.

It's why it only lasted a decade.

Generalisations!

Like people think that in the 80s you were either a yuppie/Sloane yelling “loadsamoney” or wearing a donkey jacket and brandishing a “Scabs!” placard in the miners’ strike. No one else existed.

I am Gen X but I don’t think being born a year or two earlier would have magically afforded me a 35p house, a final salary pension and a life of cruises. I do think there was a certain demographic born in mid 1940s to 50s who were at a sweet spot in history. Not everyone, of course, but those who benefitted from great grammar schools, university expansion, full employment and affordable housing - and indeed a housing ladder.

Ok, thank you for clarifying, which you have done very fairly and very well, and I absolutely take your points 👍.
Yes, I do think these things about the evolution of society are fascinating. No one generation can be blamed or steretyped, even if their experiences mould them.

No worries at all, I didn't think we were at odds really but worth clarifying where we were both coming from if that makes sense?

Oh definitely, and generations are such loose terms given that real people live within them and have so many different experiences aren't they? But we also need a some taxonomies to explain wide-scale change, which often is based on things like war, economic surge or downfall, and as we have seen in this century, pandemics!

Totally agree that no one should be held accountable to the generation in which they were born, that's narrow-minded and unfair.

it was targeted at older people because apparently they all count out their coinis slowly to give that OP the correct money, and are audacious enough to want a receipt.

When it is OPs job to take their money.

The comparison with men? TBH right now? all men who aren't constantly, and loudly calling out all the rest of the violent fuckers of their sex, are part of the problem. So yes, i will call out men - we KNOW it isn't all men and the comparison is pathetically daft.

I’m a boomer and I couldn’t care less about being called that.

It was more than that. I was born at the end of the 50s. I think because of the war, there was a more cohesive idea of pulling together for the future. The politicians had mostly fought in WW2 and many had also fought in WW1. They were looking forward and trying to rebuild. It’s hard to grasp now but you get a feel for it if you look at the old black and white information films.

A lot was wrong and needed to be put right, but there seemed to be common assumptions about values that we don’t have anymore. I don’t mean that people now don’t have values and standards, very far from that, but there wasn’t the resentment you get now. Partly I think because it’s such a long time since people have articulated and discussed what they want society to be like.

There was more equality in the UK after WW2 than there is now and that made a huge difference, in my view.

I am not saying that things were better then, far, far from it. Please don’t think that I mean that.

so what is allowed then on here?

It does make sense 😊.
Your last sentence - x 💯

Same page then! 😊

If it's not racist ...
... if it's not homophobic
... if it's not misogynistic/sexist
... if it's not ableist
... if it's not ageist*

Then you're fine.

*although there seems to be some discrepancy here, which is what this thread is about

A lot of it is just bitterness and jealousy so i honestly dont take it seriously. I'm not a boomer but refuse to climb aboard the band waggon of bitter individuals who constantly bleat and wail about how easy boomers have had it. They were just in the right place at the right time. Get over it....

Sorry if I missed it, but what did it say?
The thread I mean

🤣🤣🤣

I was also shocked when it wasn't deleted.

It's dreadful. Well actually the thread as a whole is OK as many people are challenging the OP and disagreeing with her, but the OP's posts are pretty disgusting.

So that means ageism against older people should be tolerated?

I think you're just doing some whataboutism here.

Our kids call us “boomers” and we’re only mid 50s. When I explained boomers are significantly older they looked slightly pitifully as if there were any material difference between 55 and 80.

The youngest boomers are only in their early 60s - it runs to people born in 1964. I'm mid Gen X and I don't feel much difference in age between me and my late boomer DH. Except he can remember some things from the 60s and early 70s that I wish I'd lived through/been old enough to remember!

But that’s just incorrect.

The PP wrote “it's usually elderly people who count their coins at tills”

Thats not what you say she said (“they all count out their coins slowly”).

Why is the comparison to the men statement pathetically daft?

Both are “most X are Y” statements. Neither means “most Y are X”

You think the statement about most violent thugs being men is fair becuase the statement is true, presumably?

So isn’t that the right test for PP’s claim too? If not why not?

I really don't understand MN's attitude to ageism. There was a thread last week inviting posts mocking the elderly. If you posted a thread inviting mockery of black people it would rightly be taken down extremely quickly, but they left the attacks on older people up quite happily.

Sweeping generalisations and putting people in these huge, apparently homogeneous groups, dehumanises them and that's a slippy slope.

As a rule if you make a statement that would be offensive if you replaced the statement of age, eg, boomer, elderly or 'old lady', with black Jewish or gay then it's offensive.

Perhaps a useful rule for the moderators.

Well if it’s been deleted then it’s been taken seriously

But it hasn't.

So where is this thread? I'd like to get angry on it! I haven't found an OP title that looks as though it's the one