Trigger warnings - not feminist?

[UnChartered]

hi all

am reading a debate on fb right now following the posting of an account of a woman's rape - some readers are calling for a trigger warning to be posted, and others are saying that trigger warnings are a way of silencing the written word, that all accounts should be read and that 'trigger warnings' are a covert method of censorship and subsequent silencing.

I'd never thought of a trigger warning being anything other than kindness to anyone who might be thrown back into their own ordeal, but the theory of it being another tactic to shut women up has got me thinking.

What do you think?

Are you reading that occupy movement thing?

God that's awful.

i am, Shiirley

i believe the story, i've seen other accounts of searing misogyny within the same movement, but the debate has really got my grey cells twitching

Oh I believe her. It's a hard story to read, I haven't finished it yet.

I think the trigger warning is just polite IYKWIM? Also, anyone likely to be triggered and therefore not read the stuff probably doesn't particularly need educating about the horror of rape.

I don't see a trigger warning as censorship at all.

Oh, I'd never thought of it like that. I suppose I can see why people might feel like that, actually. But I think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

that's a very valid point, about anyone who has been through a similar thing will not need educating as such, but sometimes reading other's accounts can be like exorcising the 'why me' demons

i'm a bit clumsy with wording here, i hope that doesn't read too badly

How is it censorship? Surely it's the very opposite. If we didn't have trigger warnings then it would be kinder to victims not to post potentially triggering things at all. Adding a trigger warning means that viewers/readers can decide for themselves if they're feeling up to reading something.

i think that's exactly the point Bertie

that people will see a trigger warning and decide not to read it because it might be upsetting

I suppose it could be upsetting, if you want to post about something and 'get it all out', and someone else tells you you should have put a warning on it. Or if you feel that, by putting a warning on it, you're somehow ashamed of what happened? I mean, you shouldn't be, but it's an issue.

I suppose. I don't think that's how it works though. I think that most people who would actively choose not to read something would be someone who would be triggered by it.

If they're the kind of person to not be triggered but merely say "Oh no, that's too nasty for me, I couldn't possibly read it/I want to pretend it doesn't exist" then they'd probably just stop reading anyway once they realised the content of the article or whatever. A lack of trigger warnings doesn't stop someone clicking away, and in the meantime any victims reading have already been triggered and upset by it before they were able to click away.

Do you think that 'sensitive content' warnings on MN (sometimes added by MNHQ) are also wrong? Or 'spoiler alert'?

I think they are a way of keeping maximum participation, whilst allowing individuals to decide how they want to navigate.

i don't think they are wrong at all meditrina

i personally need trigger warnings on certain subjects

I can understand how someone who is writing a heartfelt, painful account of something that's happened to them, might find it galling to have to say "this is my story and it might be unpalatable". I wonder if they might think "this HAPPENED to me, all you've got to do is read about it"

I guess it all comes down to empathy.

Sorry - wasn't aimed at you specifically, uncharted rather the general 'you' plural who might see such warnings as problematic.

For there is both the context specific issue - are they right here - and the broader one of 'are they ever right', from which flows the question of whether different subject matter requires different handling (and that is where I would see a feminist angle coming in). I happen to think they are right for any subject which might cause avoidable upset (or seeing spoilers) as what is read cannot be unread, and it would be worse to drive away those who could benefit from using a site or forum as a whole.

I used to post on a rape survivor forum and it was usual to put trigger warnings on potentially triggering posts ie. Descriptions of what happened etc. Messages of support, factual info, poems etc didn't have trigger warnings. There was a specific section of the forum for posting stories which was flagged as triggering but stories were posted throughout the forum or alluded to in conversations and it was seen as supportive and kind to put a warning up before posting something triggering.

Hence I have no problem with trigger warnings. I don't see it as silencing or censorship at all. More a way of supportively helping people take care of themselves. Everyone has days when they find reading some things harder to deal with.

I like some sort of warning on stuff that can upset survivors. Maybe short description of the content or whatever so you know what you're going to read about.

I had to stop reading the supposedly pro-woman site Jezebel because they posted some provocative violence against women/bdsm things with no warning. It was like a big fuck you to survivors of violence.

maybe the issue of trigger warnings are different then, depending on your own experience?

perhaps someone who hasn't experienced the same can't understand the need for a trigger warning?

by this i mean they cannot have the empathy needed to truly appreciate what a trigger warning is for?

does that make sense?

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.

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?

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.

LastMango

yes, who is to say that content is triggering? it may be triggering to me one day, due to current state of mind etc, but not another...on a 'good' day for me, i may be 'censored' from reading and understanding about another woman's experience because someone else has decided that might be sensitive for me.

i am talking extremes here, but the original content which the FB debate followed was also extreme

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.

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.