Trigger warnings - not feminist?

Nap your aftershave comment sort of relates to why I have sometimes found 'trigger warnings' irritating.

IME - and AFAIK in other people's experience too, the things that are really 'triggering' are very, very 'random' and specific (IYSWIM). So I've found that when posters 'kindly' post trigger warnings, it feels a bit as if it's a sort of 'permission to be upset/angry/nauseous... As I've said above, I appreciate that it's a courtesy, but it can also make me think 'this person has no idea what it's like to be 'triggered'', and it sort of seems like the poster is on the one hand being quite ostentatiously 'right on', but at the same time not really understanding the complexity and absolute fucking weirdness (and awfulness) of flashbacks. Which can feel quite dispiriting.

lrdThat is a good idea. Maybe trigger warnings should be expanded a bit for example

'posted by survivor and may be triggering'
'Official 'report showing poor victim aftercare may be triggering'
'letter from abuser may be triggering'

Etc

Ok, yes, quite.

I'm really, really sorry. I wrote that like an idiot, I should have thought.

I'd meant to be saying there's something to be said for a more specific warning than just 'trigger' because then you could have more chance of knowing whether someone was going to say something you couldn't cope with or not.

Cross posted with LRD oh gosh, I see, no problem then.

Trigger warnings = contains content that may trigger flashbacks, reactions, is potentially upsetting to traumatised people,survivors of violence,etc.

Of course all sorts of things can be triggering (I couldn't cope with the smell of a particular aftershave for years but there wasn't much anyone could do about that.) But when posting an account of eg. A rape it is common to put 'may be triggering' before the account, so people reading can choose whether to continue, or step back at that time, depending on what they feel up to coping with right then.

I cross posted with your last nap but I am absolutely sure this wasn't someone writing in a detached way in order to cope. It was someone who was totally detached from the victims and therefore able to be a sick bastard.

Oh, gosh, no, absolutely I didn't mean that nap!

That is why I said, this is about people writing in a detached way, and not about their own experiences.

Ok, warning:

***

It was about someone who felt the need to write a 'trigger warning' piece where they were basically explaining in detail why rape of underage children is actually ok. It made me feel violently sick. I do not think that is ok to write about and I do not care if someone puts a 'trigger warning' on it, it is still in no possible way ok. I felt sick when I'd read it because I assumed from the use of the warning phrase, this was someone who was aware of the potential to upset people. So I thought it was a decent and sensitive writer. It wasn't.

Sorry about that and I am so, so sorry for putting that badly.

I know you said it only applied to people writing in a detached way but detachment is often self protection.

The person might well be detached and disassociated when writing because it's too difficult to approach it any other way.

Trigger warnings are fair enough but what is to be gained by suggesting people don't need to 'inflict' writing about triggering subjects on others?

Sorry, maybe basic question. When people say a subject might be a trigger, what does it mean in practice?

...'you didn't need to inflict that piece of writing on anyone anyway'.

That was exactly what stopped me writing and talking about my rape for what felt like a long time.

Putting trigger warnings and then getting it out in a safe space helped me.

I think your suggestion of self censorship could be very unhelpful to anyone who wanted to write about their rape, possibly graphically, angrily, painfully, in a raw state.

'don't inflict it on others' feels like censorship.

People who have lived through horrible things self censor all the time. They often feel they shouldn't inflict it on others. It just adds to the trauma, IMO.
I have to say that I feel quite upset reading what you just wrote.

Do we need general warnings though? I think maybe there's nothing so bad about having to think a little in order to write a specific warning, because it makes you think how what you're saying might be received. That only applies really to people writing about a subject in a detached way, rather than a person wanting to get their own experience out, I know. But occasionally I do read something with a 'trigger warning' and think, well, I know you said trigger warning so your arse is covered, but you really didn't need to inflict that piece of writing on anyone anyway.

I think it's because it's hard to make a general warning without being slightly desxriptive and perhaps even the small description could be triggering. Like "this program contains strobe lights" isn't triggering for epilepsy but an example of the strobe lights might be?

I can't see any argument against it at all. It would only be censorship if (for instance) a site had a policy of removing any posts that carried such a warning, on the grounds that their members were delicate ickle flowers who had to be prevented from reading upsetting material.

Thinking about that, then, SGB, is 'warning, sensitive content' or 'warning, references to [rape, abuse, whatever it happens to be]' any better? Then you are not presuming that the person will react a certain way, I suppose?

Is there any argument against doing that instead?

I find the phrase itself a bit irritating as it can sound a bit right-on and condescending, though I have used it myself in blog posts about rape. But the concept is one I have no problem with - same as 'spoilers' when discussing a film or novel. It's a courtesy to warn someone that something might upset them, but to allow them the choice as to whether they read on or do something else.

Actually, it's no more a specifically feminist issue than putting 'Potentially icky' or 'TMI' on a discussion when you are going to go into detail about the consistency of your dog's diarrhoea or what happened when you squeezed that big boil on your arse: people might want to know in advance that it's not something they want to read while eating their tea.

Censorship is surely saying this is triggering so you can't read it.
Kindness is surely saying this might be triggering...warning...then posting the content.
This gives the user the chance to watch or read or listen or to step away if she wants to at that time.

No I don't think it's relating to experience. You don't have to have experienced being triggered to understand why it might be a big deal for someone who's had a traumatic experience.

I guess a non-empathetic person with no experience might have a hard time understanding why they are necessary but I think that most people understand the need for them even if they don't need them themselves.

OP's question is really interesting.

I can't see how trigger warnings are 'censorship' in any way, shape or form - as others have said, far from it, and they are a courtesy.

For some reason, I've been slightly irritated by trigger warnings sometimes (and I am one of those 'victims'/survivors who they are aimed at). I think I've found them a bit 'there, there, dear', and also felt that they imply that the person providing the 'warning' thinks they know what makes a 'victim' freak out... But on balance, it's courteous and thoughtful - and useful - to include them, and as someone's said upthread, it's preferable to have a moment to prepare yourself before reading something that could be... triggering.

Also, how would people who might find content triggering know whether to avoid reading something in case it turns out to be distressing?

I am lucky enough not to be a survivor of rape, although I have been subject to violent acts, but I can understand why trigger warnings are important.