Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To think some things should be kept private (warning upsetting)

283 replies

ReginaBlitz · 28/07/2015 00:06

I was scrolling down newsfeed on fb and a "friend" had shared a post it was a picture of a one day old baby that had passed away, with the headline please share to say Thankyou to the staff of such and such hospital, this was posted by the baby's dad. Obviously this is awful and the parents are going through hell, but I think this is so inappropriate. I think photos like this should be private not shared by randoms all over Facebook it's upsetting (yes I know it's upsetting having it happen) but why not use a photo of her alive I am actually in shock it's seriously got to me and can't imagine how someone this has happened to would feel seeing these pictures. So Aibu to think these photos should be kept private?

OP posts:
Pagwatch · 29/07/2015 14:06

"Duck if anything of a sensitive nature happened to me I would keep it between me and my family as yes I would be worried about upsetting people etc. "

That's odd to me for two reasons.
Firstly I am always a bit [boggle] when people profess to know how they would behave in extremis. I have no idea how I would react if I lost my child.
I doubt though that it would be sensible.
Secondly I find it odd that, if faced with overwhelming shock and grief, you anticipate placing the feelings of strangers above your own.

GraysAnalogy · 29/07/2015 14:07

Just one question though, people on here go apeshit if things haven't got trigger warnings.

But when it comes to this, then people should just suck it up?

I'm genuinely asking what the difference is here, I'm not having a go I just want to see why

Sleepybeanbump · 29/07/2015 14:08

And to whoever used the word unnecessary...

Really? Just fucking really? Get a heart.

Pagwatch · 29/07/2015 14:11

Cluckingbelle

I totally agree.
It's that thing where people want you to go to a neat, private group - away from 'ordinary people'
It's the 'dignity' label I think . Bereaved mothers are commended for being 'dignified' (quiet) 'stoic' (quiet) and courageous (quiet and don't ask for anything)

Mothers of children with disability must be 'brave' ( quiet) 'resilient' (quiet) and 'saintly' (quiet and don't ask for anything)

Pagwatch · 29/07/2015 14:13

I think the trigger warning is to warn people if a subject might be too distressing for you.
I don't think it's to warn you to keep off if you might get angry.
(Otherwise I would want trigger on sahm vs WOHM)

GraysAnalogy · 29/07/2015 14:15

I think the trigger warning is to warn people if a subject might be too distressing for you

Which seeing photos is for some people, that's my point.

BanjoBingo · 29/07/2015 14:17

I said I wouldn't comment again but I feel the need…

I don't think the OP is ever going to see a different view. There have been some pretty aggressive comments on this post that are not at all courteous, both to and from the OP. (For the record, I didn't appreciate the direct comment of ''FFS Banjo I was just trying..." while I was explaining (gently I thought) how a comment about your “DM seeing worse than this on a daily basis and it not getting to her at all” could be upsetting to me and other posters)
I’m all for freedom of speech but I worry this is getting out of hand and I'm genuinely concerned that this could be read by the family who posted the original picture which is something they shouldn’t have to deal with at the moment. I’m speculating here, but did you consider Reg that one of those parents could have been a member of MN and could have decided to come back to talk to those who joined them on a pregnancy forum etc. Imagine finding the strength to let online friends know the devastating news and finding this. That I do find inappropriate

PeruvianFoodLover · 29/07/2015 14:19

OP you haven't said which of your FB friends it was that shared this picture - do they know you well enough to realise that it would upset you?

PageNotFound404 · 29/07/2015 14:19

Jesus Christ it is beyond me how many people there are out there whose first reaction to something upsetting is 'eew, horrible, make it go away so I don't have to deal with that' rather than 'gosh, how awful for the poor people ACTUALLY affected by it, blimey, if this is how I feel just reading about it how awful must it be for them.'

While I don't agree at all with the OP's stance throughout this thread, I find this just as prescriptive in the other direction. As this thread has demonstrated, people don't all react in the same way in certain situations. People's feelings are their feelings and if the initial reaction is "that upsets me" then there is nothing wrong, invalid or even necessarily unempathic in feeling that way. You can't possibly know the many and varied triggers or past experiences someone might have had to make them react like that. Where it becomes an issue is when they seek to use their feelings as an excuse to prevent whatever triggered them from ever happening again, regardless of the fact that there is nothing inappropriate per se about it.

It's perfectly possible to think "that upsets me, I'm going to hide that; those poor people...I can't imagine what they're going through; it's not what I think I would do in their position but I hope it's helped them, even though I'd rather not see it again". That's not the same as trying to close down other viewpoints, opinions or discussions on the matter or suggesting that the parents were wrong to share their photo in the first place.

Sleepybeanbump · 29/07/2015 14:19

Interesting point Gray.

I suppose in this instance the difference is that the OP was not really triggered by the photo. She's not experienced the same thing.

For people who have though, Facebook is probably not a nice place and you raise a good point.

Pagwatch · 29/07/2015 14:21

Oh sure Grays. I misunderstood.
I'm still not quite sure I get your point.

The trigger warning is used in here. There iis no trigger on FB so I'm not sure they are comparable but my view is that I probably would not want images of someone's else's child randomly to appear on my FB. If my friend posted I would hope my view would be that their feelings were more important than mine.

I probably still have muddled your point. Soz

takeinyourhen · 29/07/2015 14:24

I like it. I am pleased that parents are speaking out and breaking the silence by sharing photographs, poems and messages. I think that it's selfish of me to turn away from a post that they share once a year that I can hide, when the grief that they feel is present with them every single day and they cannot just dismiss with a click of a button.

zazzie · 29/07/2015 14:27

When my son was stillborn I wanted to go to sleep and never wake up so I wouldn't have to feel what I was feeling. This couple should do what they need to do to be able to cope. Those with a living child should be grateful. People who are easily upset should stay off fb.

PageNotFound404 · 29/07/2015 14:28

I think part of choosing to use Facebook (since last time I checked it wasn't compulsory) is to acknowledge that there are no trigger warnings, that you may see things you find upsetting/unpleasant - I'm intensely arachnophobic for example, and every now and again there's a story about a giant spider found in some food import or similar which someone shares that makes me feel sick - and that it's up to you whether you're happy to take that risk and if so, how you deal with it when it arises (using the Hide Post facility, asking friends not to share certain stuff, defriending etc).

GraysAnalogy · 29/07/2015 14:37

I'm just saying that people are bothered about trigger warnings on here, but then on this thread they're telling people to get a grip and how it's the internet so you should expect to see it.

I understand there's no trigger warning on Facebook so obviously one can't be used, I'm just interested in the disparity of opinion regarding different social formats.

No skin off my nose like, although I don't think photos of people who have died should be posted, I'd rather me get upset for a few minutes than those parents not receive support.

GraysAnalogy · 29/07/2015 14:38

People who are easily upset should stay off fb

I don't think that's a fair comment. There's a big difference from 'easily upset' and something bringing back intense feelings that upset you.

Pagwatch · 29/07/2015 14:41

Ah I see Grays.

I think a few people have said they would personally prefer not to see the images.
I think the issue is where the op continues to say that because some people finds it upsetting, the parents should not share, out of consideration.

BaroquePearl · 29/07/2015 14:52

We'll really your last post says it all. You truly think you know better than the parents what is "constructive" in grieving an infant. And, in an amazing coincidence, it happens to involve keeping things behind closed doors in a way which coincides with your comfort.

JassyRadlett · 29/07/2015 14:56

I wasn't saying they shouldn't show them.

OP, you did. In your thread title. In saying they should be 'sacred and private'.

Itsmine · 29/07/2015 15:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

duckduckCHICKEN · 29/07/2015 15:06

Reg I'm sure I don't need to tell you since you already know exactly how you would react (bravo for thinking of the comfort of others before your own devestating loss) but your first thought when your child dies isn't always 'what can I do that's constructive'.

Different people react different ways and there is no right or wrong.

For some they want their child to have a place in the world, a meaning to people beyond themselves. You might not like it, but it doesn't change the fact it happens, and rightly so.

If you want to have all you see online moderated then facebook isn't really for you (and if you aren't prepared to accept the possibility yabu I would seriously reconsider whether MN is the place for you).

summerainbow · 29/07/2015 15:16

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Original poster
ReginaBlitz · 29/07/2015 15:27

Please see my post further up where I said the people sharing it were to blame. And as for not seeing anyone else's point of view obviously I have read, and no my views haven't changed but that's up to me isn't it? I never didn't feel sympathy or sad for the parents but that's not what is in question. Like I said any "aggressive" response was to people who feel the need to remind me that my baby is fine. As for the person who shared it on my fb no she is not a real life friend just someone I know and we are fb for something or other. My friends and family on real life wouldn't share it.

OP posts:
Kayden · 29/07/2015 15:30

"Like I said any "aggressive" response was to people who feel the need to remind me that my baby is fine."

Can you not see the irony in this statement? You were upset and angry at people making assumptions about you and your life, yet you are doing the same!

Original poster
ReginaBlitz · 29/07/2015 15:31

Duck shall I now just turn around and say "yes actually it's fine I understand now share away" just because others think Its ok? So because I stick to what I think mn fb and the Internet isn't for me? Ok

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread