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?

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 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.

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?

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.

...'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.

i'd like you to clarify what you meant by 'inflict that piece of writing on anyone' LRD

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

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?

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 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.

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.

Greythorne

i take it to mean the content may trigger memories that may cause a person to relive an experience in their mind.

'Triggered' memories can throw an individual back in their subconscious, so they re-feel some very strong emotions.

I have lifted the following from 'Geek Feminism WIKI' -

They are designed to prevent people who have an extremely strong and damaging emotional response (for example, post-traumatic flashbacks or urges to harm themselves) to certain subjects from encountering them unaware. Having these responses is called "being triggered".

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

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.

Ok, yes, quite.

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

in that specific case, LRD the trigger warning was used to lure people into a false sense of security - another form of abuse

i think that's a whole other discussion

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.

Maybe so UnCharted. I thought it was relevant to this discussion, but I would have put it better another time.

Nap - yes, see, I think those would be reasonably ok for someone to write, and not triggering in themselves.

But then, I do think probably there's still always a need for something you can type fast without having to think, so you can get on with writing things as they flow out. It'd be more for when people are writing an opinion piece they've got time to work on.

Nap I think those are good "neutral" but more informative trigger warnings.

I think also with 'trigger warnings' there's an implication of 'not for you, dear, if you don't want to upset yourself'. It implies that if you do sometimes have flashbacks then you should be protecting other people (as well as? or rather than? yourself) from the distasteful inconvenience of your nasty little episodes.

Agreed, Nap's idea's really good. Those warnings put the emphasis back on the nature of the message, rather than assuming an 'understanding' or not-very-well-informed/directed 'empathy' with the poor wee 'victims'.

Yes, that makes sense mango.

LastMango tbh I agree and trigger warnings don't actually help that much because if I am on a site where they are posted chances are I'm aware I'm going to be potentially reading content that is graphic or about grim subjects, whereas true triggers for me were not usually to do with reading about rape. They were far more random and visceral and I couldn't protect myself against them which was kind of the point of PTSD flashbacks.

Nonetheless I see trigger warnings as a basic kindness and attempt for posters to look after themselves and each other when posting upsetting content, and I appreciate the thought. Even though it doesn't actually work that well in practice for me.

see, now i'm back on the thinking that trigger warnings as they exist now are not beneficial to the feminist movement and way of life

is the phrase overused? lost it's impact?