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

[CurlewKate]

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

Men are not a disadvantaged group.

WELL SAID!

l was born in December, 1964, which technically makes me a Boomer. However, if I had been born three weeks later, I would have been Generation X. In reality, I have far more in common with the older Gen Xs than l do with the older Boomers, who were born in the immediate postwar period and, themselves have far more in common with my parents’ age group, born during the war. I think that the same could be said for most people who were born c. 1960-1970.

But sex is a protected characteristic.

Is somebody really suggesting tbose born between 1946 and 1964 are systemically disadvantaged ? I would suggest the opposite is true !

That's got to be millions of people. Men who went to Eton and inherited castles, people working on the buses and in factories, people growing up in orphanages. People who were socially and materially disadvantaged in every way.
Stereotyping doesn't help.

I think it used to be. My mum is from the baby boom generation and would have described herself as a boomer in the same way as someone would say Gen Z but it’s become derogatory. Maybe since the ‘ok boomer’ trend not so long ago.

But isn’t the argument that variation of individuals within a class/category shouldn’t prevent you from talking about the category as a whole - particularly if you are referring to broad differences between that category as compared to a different category (including here the differences in society, technology, politics, economics and culture and their role in shaping people born during period A as compared to people born in period B)?

Of course you can talk about the category as a whole. What you can't do is claim that every person within a particular age range had privileges and fortunate lives, and subsequent generations have suffered.

The parallel I’m drawing is that very few people have any issue with stereotyping or disparaging posts about men on here (and I’m not suggesting they should). Individual men can take offence, they can point to countless examples of individual men living lives of poverty and toil, with no power or respect. they could contrast their lives to those of individual wealthy, powerful and successful women and say “see, you can’t say ALL men have benefited” - but ultimately that wouldn’t change the tone of the conversation about “men” as a group on here.

I think there is something similar in the tone of conversation around “boomers” - particularly from people who feel that, as a “group” they do wield privilege, including economic and political power, which other groups don’t have.

That might well feel insulting, or ageist, to individual “boomers”, but they are in much the same place as individual men who complain about “sexism”.

In both cases, MN might take action against the most egregious examples, but in a lot of cases it will just be considered acceptable comment/venting.

@Nesbi your first sentence is contradictory. I have seen many threads where posters challenge remarks which stereotype men.

I would say most examples pass without comment as it happens all the time (often with no offence meant, people just tend to lean on stereotypes).

Much the same happens with boomer type comments - most pass unnoticed, some get picked up.

That's true of every thread and applies to everything, then.

I'm a baby boomer and I don't feel remotely disadvantaged. I hate ageism, but wouldn't for a moment feel disadvantaged as a boomer. My kids have things a lot harder than I do.

And I agree with the pp. I hate generalisations, and those generalisations about men are far more frequent and damning of everyone in that demographic than the boomer posts.

Baby boomer to describe our demographic objectively, is fine and always has been. It's the same as the other demographic labelsWhen we suddenly became a target, particularly on SM, it was shortened to boomer, and that's the word that is always used when we're being judged and generalised.

It must be hard to have your kids having less advantages than you. I feel happy that mine have more, and have benefitted from legislation and changes in societal attitudes.

I think this is a very naïve comment. People are individuals and, while some may seem to have had gilded lives, there are always problems of which most of us are unaware. One of the biggest resentments on MN is the issue of student grants and free higher education enjoyed by people in the past. What is forgotten is that, even in the eighties, only 10% of people were awarded degrees. The vast majority of people left school at fifteen or sixteen to go to work. The oldest boomers were born in a bankrupt country with rationing and many lived in inadequate housing. Have you watched the excellent 7-up series, where a group of people have been filmed every seven years of their lives? The final episode, 70-up is to be aired soon. These people were born in 1956, so right in the middle of the boomer period and, while some appeared to have been born with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouths, the vast majority were not. This series is one of the most fascinating documentaries ever made because we see how people have used their circumstances to shape their lives.

Was it paused? I complained about it but was told it doesn’t break talk guidelines

Yes, it was paused for a short while.

Excellent points, @Violinist64 .
That really is a fascinating series.

That isn’t a generational thing thought - its an economic group thing.

My young end millennial children had an upbringing and opportunities which my parents could never have hoped to give us. My DC have not had a discrimination free life but growing up in a more affluence meant they (especially the girls) entered the job market with more opportunities and less disadvantages than I did growing up poor and born in the 60s. My daughters were not routinely asked about their plans for children at interviews, they were not denied promotions due to likely family plans and they were not denied access to pension schemes because they were in female dominated roles which just happened to pay less and not qualify for the company scheme. They were not subjected to an 11+ which reserved nearly 70% of passes for boys, all the DC entered employment at a time when large employers had some form of diversity policy on race and sex (both relevant).

Have they had charmed lives? No of course not but a generation of social progress and more importantly growing up affluent gave them a much easier run at life than I had. Like other millennials/GenZ growing up in affluence they can also anticipate a decent inheritance and have the security of knowing there is the emergency bank to call on if desperate. Millennials/Gen Z growing up poor will face many of the same struggles that I did on the boundary of GenX/Jones.

Its always ultimately about economic class. Maternity pay and free childcare hours and low interest rates all help the current generation, higher house prices make life difficult in some regions of the country but not all by any means.

The whole “right location right time” argument posted earlier in the thread will always fail because there are pros and cons to every generation. The better or worse argument is driven mostly by economic class and aggravated by sex and race. Money solves most of the problems in every generation, poverty always makes them worse.

I think I might have implied I thought people of that generation are disadvantaged. I’m sorry-that was very clumsy. I don’t. I was reacting to the poster who suggested that men were very hard done by on here (which they aren’t) and briefly forgot what my thread was about!

No, I was agreeing that men are not a disadvantaged group.
Nothing to do with age per se.

Although women of this generation were of course significantly disadvantaged and did a huge amount to change that, both for themselves and the generations that followed.

Thank you @CurlewKate it's nice to see that some people do appreciate what we did in the 1960s and 70s that many women take for granted.