Hadley Freeman on trigger warnings

[WarriorN]

A really interesting article exploring ideas around words, resilience and hurt.

I always feel these new Times articles of hers could go to several more pages...!

x.com/hadleyfreeman/status/1695712541475840251?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

I think if your going to show the dark side of Hadleys character then you should pick her support for Woody Allen.
https://amp.theguardian.com/film/2020/may/29/do-i-really-care-woody-allen-comes-out-fighting

Where to start with this article is hard to know, but from the first couple of paragraphs (a) Use of the word ‘adopted’ to minimize the relationship between a parent and child (b) The lie that Mia Farrow accused him- seven year old Dylan accused and still accuses him.
It is a truly despicable piece of writing that she should be ashamed of.

Sorry, 'Scenes of full frontal trans nudity' is different to 'trigger warning: flappy lady penis dances'.

(This is where sex still matters too).

I didn’t mention that but yeah! It was the whole thing. There was a generic “adult content” warning at the beginning. But sudden indecent exposure of a penis accompanied by some very aggressive and sexual lyrics about how women don’t want sex enough were triggering. So that was an example of a time when a more specific trigger warning should have been used.

I can go with Content advice. But absolutely not trigger warning.

Is there a difference between content advice and a trigger warning? I thought CW was just a more neutral way of saying the same thing?

Read my previous posts about leading and emotional priming. Yes it matters. It's not a minor difference.

For those who don't like Murdoch publications heres the article Hadley mentions from a few weeks ago by Jill Filipovic for the Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/09/trigger-warnings-feminism-teen-girls-mental-health/674759/

I started saying Content Warning instead of Trigger Warning after hearing a lecture from someone in HE who showed a lot of papers to say 'trigger' effectively primes people to get anxious and upset.

They recommended 'Content'. And TBH for the topics I do, I am warning about the content - i.e. you weren't expecting this but I'm going to talk about something that may be traumatic for you, not triggers.

I don’t give two hoots what word is used. Trigger/content. That’s pedantics for the untraumatised. I just want to be entertained with something that won’t ruin my peace and start the nightmares up again.

Though on reflection I would have thought giving triggers a separate category helps most people avoid spoilers. I hate that I have to get spoilers to the programmes just so I can avoid stuff.

I completely agree, @RedToothBrush .

I’m sorry for what your family went through, @Notgreatreally . But as Red says, what you need it a Content Warning, not a Trigger Warning.

Trigger warnings tell the viewer/listener/reader that here is something that will rightly be distressing for them. It’s reductive, what actual “triggers” someone with trauma can be something totally unexpected (like Hadley’s example of water retention).

It sets up the expectation of a negative emotional reaction, and that a sensitive person would feel that way. Priming the pump as Red so eloquently says.

A content warning lists any issues contained within, and makes no value judgments not inferences as to how an audience would react.

”Scenes of sexual violence” is not triggering for me (fortunately) but I choose not to watch things containing them. Content warnings are useful, Trigger warnings are manipulative.

You might not give two hoots.

That doesn't mean it doesn't matter though!!!

100 percent this.

That post was a striking example of the closed minded divisiveness that is causing so much trouble in society.

Re trigger warning for blood; if a child was identified as having a particular trauma that should be known about and communicated with relevant staff. That child could be prepared prior to lesson and any necessary support given afterwards.

But that's the key point, what other support is happening?

We don't just accept a child has a trauma and leave them hanging with it; interventions and support should be given.

And as pp have said, general trigger warnings in some contexts can be leading.

Also, regarding blood specifically, the primary curriculum covers the importance of blood in our body and the job it does. Many lift the flap body books do. Children should be being taught about blood and anatomy as part of a wider conversation around healthy living.

It is nuanced; we cover such cruelty in safeguarding and trauma training that it is important to acknowledge that some of us might be affected, and options to withdraw and seek support is also always there. The wording isn't around being triggered though, it's about keeping ourselves safe and beings able to prepare ourselves for extremely difficult but necessary professional conversations.

Started writing that ages ago; yes to content rather than trigger.

Also, regarding blood specifically, the primary curriculum covers the importance of blood in our body and the job it does. Many lift the flap body books do. Children should be being taught about blood and anatomy as part of a wider conversation around healthy living.

Surely they (certainly the girls) get taught about menstruation in KS2?

Oh yes.

It's just part of a wider teaching area of 'your body,' and linked to the importance of exercise and the heart.

I can't imagine for one second they'd be adding trigger warnings when discussing periods; it's completely gone the other way in celebrating it and normalising periods.

Which renders the biology teacher trigger warning even more confusing.

Why are you in favour of women not working? She was bullied beyond comprehension at her previous job due to her being female. So I guess you’re in favour of bullying female humans too. The word for that — and for preventing women from working — is misogyny.

In my recent experience at university, content/trigger warnings were in place so people could prepare themselves to talk about upsetting subjects, not to avoid them. Whereas otherwise someone may have had to leave a lecture if the topic of sexual abuse came up without warning, the trigger warnings in our module guides allowed people to be prepared. I think in many ways it encourages resilience rather than discourages it, or at least gives people the tools they need to build resilience against trauma triggers

For me it's the word "trigger" that's overly emotive. Even "warning" is.

"Content" is neutral. We did some pretty tough trauma training recently and neither word was used, more neutral phrases such as "we are going to cover" and "this can be a difficult topic" "please be aware" "I am going to talk about"

Content warnings, to my mind, are very general. They flag, usually, fairly generalized things - material inappropriate for children, especially, but then fairly general information about violence or sexual material. Film ratings being the most obvious examples. It's really so people can pick entertainment that they want or don't want, more than anything.

As far as educational institutions, or most public lectures on science or historical topics, I think this is really something for individuals to manage. If someone is suffering some kind of psychological problem that means they can't read about or hear about things like elements of the law, it may be that the law isn't really an appropriate career. Similarly history, or science.

The level of content where you are talking about really likely bothering many people is where a teacher might think, maybe I don't really need to show this in this setting. There will be exceptions but they should be rare.

Aside from the setting people up to fail element, avoiding upsetting, anxiety producing, or otherwise traumatizing content, for individuals, usually isn't a viable long term way to manage that kind of reaction. Avoidance typically makes things worse.

Where people have active, unmanageable reactions, they are going to have to be proactive about dealing with that, not rely on what someone might think to warn them about.

As a Biology teacher of 25+ years I always warn pupils about blood or other subjects which may affect squeamish pupils. It’s nothing to do with trigger warnings and everything to do do with the disruption to lessons of a fainting pupil. Fainting and nearly fainting is very common and science stools are high to fall off. Interestingly, it’s often pupils who had no idea it would affect them who go. The Biology teacher in question is not idiotic, just saving your child potential wasted lesson time and saving some other poor pupil the humiliation of hitting the deck in front of 29 others

Do you use the term "trigger warning?"

That's sensible to warn them if they're squeamish. And that's more of a phobia. And not to belittle that; a friend's daughter is so needle phobic the Gp is putting her on a specific program as she's still not had her hpv.

Discussion further upthread was linked to the blood and the term "trigger warning" specifically and then opposing views being around a pupil who has had significant trauma relating to blood. Which is different and a teacher should be aware of what that trauma is and it should be handled appropriately.

The problem is that the term has become a catch all from anything from blood to rape to correct labelling and discussion of male and female anatomy, to horses as a pp said - it's actually belittling very extreme trauma whereby an individual should be having a lot of support, to slap it on everything that might upset everyone, which was Hadley's point.

"If you are squeamish about blood"

Is very different to

"Trigger warning: blood."

The second also insinuates violence has occurred imo.

Is it just me, or is anyone else weary of attempts to assassinate the character of female writers rather than discuss the merits of any given article?

I do understand this is what people do when they can't otherwise win an argument but it's just tiresome and misogynistic.