anthony
Founder
Like the road signs warning of sharp curves and icy bridges, society talks about trigger warnings as though they're a helpful addition to content that promotes safety--emotionally, at least. But are they? Have we, as a society, convinced ourselves that we need warning to brace for impact prior to reading something we may find uncomfortable or distressing?
Do we really need prior notification to ascertain whether we read or partake within an activity? Even with such notification, how do you know, without reading first, whether content is going to be distressing for you individually?
The scarier thought is that if we start to think on behalf of everyone else about the possibility content could distress another, should not every piece of content cite a trigger warning to guard against potential individual vulnerabilities?
Are we going to see PTSD claims in the near future from reading supposedly distressing content, citing similarity of outcome to being raped, tortured or partaking in war? Is society merely bored and looking to fill time with useless drama to create ourselves as filling a position of moral righteousness that should never exist?
Many interesting questions, that is for certain.
Here is what I know as the the founder of MyPTSD. I do not concur with the 2013 feminist bloggers movement for use of trigger warnings nor have I allowed their use upon the MyPTSD community for the past decade. It seems that research tends to substantiate my ideals from over a decade ago and not the feminist bloggers.
Every now and then MyPTSD gets a new member who believes trigger warnings are required for their content, warning potential readers that what they write may trigger them. I agree with the concept in theory for its intention, however, I also believe that you must be able to answer this question adequately before you ever use one: "How can you determine what will trigger another person?"
If you can answer that question with conviction, then you believe you know what others are thinking. Is that moral? Do you know what another will think when reading your content? Should we think on behalf of another to claim what may or may not distress them?
After having such discussions on this topic for over a decade, I can attest that the majority of this 25,000 strong community do not want others thinking on their behalf. They like to form their own opinions on whether content distresses them. Some become angry when a person does use a trigger warning, claiming to think on their behalf. Not as righteous an idea as some may perceive? Regardless of how good an author's intentions may be.
The number one reason given to validate trigger warnings is "But all other websites I've been on have used them." Following a popular practice does not an argument make.
How can anyone claim to be right when doing something totally wrong? Like thinking on behalf of others! An equally important question, how do you reduce the possibility for distress when your content could be symptomatic for another?
The University of California-Santa Barbara, in 2014, passed a resolution to mandate syllabi to carry trigger warnings. Professors must alert their students, and exempt them from classes, where emotional distress maybe caused because suicide, sexual abuse, kidnapping or such disturbing topics may occur.
If I were a student who didn't want to attend class on a certain day, I may use such resolution to my advantage and avoid that class. Welcome to the crux of the issue--avoidance.
Prolonged Exposure (PE), to date, Dead Link Removed for the treatment of trauma, specifically PTSD symptoms (EMDR is very close, yet that is a different discussion). PE exposes a person to reverting conditioned fear via a desensitization process. Trigger warnings are clinically counter-productive, maintaining conditioned fear towards distressing stimuli.
Although avoidance that such warnings foster mayreduce short-term distress, avoidance of reminders doesmaintain PTSD symptoms. Using Santa Barbara University as an example, students would benefit more through seeking Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) such as PE, than insisting professors reconfigure courses that promote avoidance and maintain mental health disorder symptoms.
An interesting aspect from a 2011 study on childhood sexual abuse found:
Many women who have experienced sexual assault reject the label victim in favor of survivor. Although the latter term connotes empowering, having trauma become central to one’s identity bodes poorly for one’s mental health. Among 102 women who reported histories of childhood sexual abuse, the more central their abuse was to their identity, the worse their PTSD symptoms. In particular, seeing one’s future through the lens of one’s abuse was especially associated with the severity of PTSD symptoms. These data suggest that acknowledging one’s abuse but not allowing it to dominate one’s sense of self may foster resilience against the long-term psychologically toxic effects of childhood sexual molestation.
The evidence is stacked against the feminist blogger trigger warning movement. Emotion is not at play here; instead this community seeks logical reasoning towards common-sense. Whilst one may argue that movies have graphic warnings for sex, violence and so forth, they do not think on behalf of the viewer, claiming the content may trigger them.
Trigger warnings are a fruitless, emotionally biased avoidance strategy. Agree or disagree, that is your choice. At no stage, though, am I thinking on your behalf, as I do not possess such telepathic powers. If you believe trigger warnings are still of purpose, I would love to have your super mind-reading powers. I wouldn't be writing this, for starters--but you already knew that, didn't you?
Do we really need prior notification to ascertain whether we read or partake within an activity? Even with such notification, how do you know, without reading first, whether content is going to be distressing for you individually?
The scarier thought is that if we start to think on behalf of everyone else about the possibility content could distress another, should not every piece of content cite a trigger warning to guard against potential individual vulnerabilities?
Are we going to see PTSD claims in the near future from reading supposedly distressing content, citing similarity of outcome to being raped, tortured or partaking in war? Is society merely bored and looking to fill time with useless drama to create ourselves as filling a position of moral righteousness that should never exist?
Many interesting questions, that is for certain.
Here is what I know as the the founder of MyPTSD. I do not concur with the 2013 feminist bloggers movement for use of trigger warnings nor have I allowed their use upon the MyPTSD community for the past decade. It seems that research tends to substantiate my ideals from over a decade ago and not the feminist bloggers.
Every now and then MyPTSD gets a new member who believes trigger warnings are required for their content, warning potential readers that what they write may trigger them. I agree with the concept in theory for its intention, however, I also believe that you must be able to answer this question adequately before you ever use one: "How can you determine what will trigger another person?"
If you can answer that question with conviction, then you believe you know what others are thinking. Is that moral? Do you know what another will think when reading your content? Should we think on behalf of another to claim what may or may not distress them?
After having such discussions on this topic for over a decade, I can attest that the majority of this 25,000 strong community do not want others thinking on their behalf. They like to form their own opinions on whether content distresses them. Some become angry when a person does use a trigger warning, claiming to think on their behalf. Not as righteous an idea as some may perceive? Regardless of how good an author's intentions may be.
The number one reason given to validate trigger warnings is "But all other websites I've been on have used them." Following a popular practice does not an argument make.
How can anyone claim to be right when doing something totally wrong? Like thinking on behalf of others! An equally important question, how do you reduce the possibility for distress when your content could be symptomatic for another?
The University of California-Santa Barbara, in 2014, passed a resolution to mandate syllabi to carry trigger warnings. Professors must alert their students, and exempt them from classes, where emotional distress maybe caused because suicide, sexual abuse, kidnapping or such disturbing topics may occur.
If I were a student who didn't want to attend class on a certain day, I may use such resolution to my advantage and avoid that class. Welcome to the crux of the issue--avoidance.
Prolonged Exposure (PE), to date, Dead Link Removed for the treatment of trauma, specifically PTSD symptoms (EMDR is very close, yet that is a different discussion). PE exposes a person to reverting conditioned fear via a desensitization process. Trigger warnings are clinically counter-productive, maintaining conditioned fear towards distressing stimuli.
Although avoidance that such warnings foster mayreduce short-term distress, avoidance of reminders doesmaintain PTSD symptoms. Using Santa Barbara University as an example, students would benefit more through seeking Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) such as PE, than insisting professors reconfigure courses that promote avoidance and maintain mental health disorder symptoms.
An interesting aspect from a 2011 study on childhood sexual abuse found:
Many women who have experienced sexual assault reject the label victim in favor of survivor. Although the latter term connotes empowering, having trauma become central to one’s identity bodes poorly for one’s mental health. Among 102 women who reported histories of childhood sexual abuse, the more central their abuse was to their identity, the worse their PTSD symptoms. In particular, seeing one’s future through the lens of one’s abuse was especially associated with the severity of PTSD symptoms. These data suggest that acknowledging one’s abuse but not allowing it to dominate one’s sense of self may foster resilience against the long-term psychologically toxic effects of childhood sexual molestation.
The evidence is stacked against the feminist blogger trigger warning movement. Emotion is not at play here; instead this community seeks logical reasoning towards common-sense. Whilst one may argue that movies have graphic warnings for sex, violence and so forth, they do not think on behalf of the viewer, claiming the content may trigger them.
Trigger warnings are a fruitless, emotionally biased avoidance strategy. Agree or disagree, that is your choice. At no stage, though, am I thinking on your behalf, as I do not possess such telepathic powers. If you believe trigger warnings are still of purpose, I would love to have your super mind-reading powers. I wouldn't be writing this, for starters--but you already knew that, didn't you?