In 2003, steampunk was really big, and this seems like a throwback to that neo-victorian terminology.

I could understand this excuse if instead of 2003 it was written in 1920.

That said, it only contains the word "boy" once in the entire article, and only in the provocative headline.

I think we can all look past the provocative headline.

It does in fact contain the word "man" though in a (normally) non-gendered idiom.

> rather abbreviated poor man’s guide to the field

edit: just realised that there wasn't a space between "poor" and "man". However, it seems from a quick google search both versions (separate and a single word) are used for this expression.