Trigger warnings don’t work. Here’s why
Image via Wikipedia
Yesterday, I wrote a post about trigger warnings, “Trigger Warning: This Blog Post May Freak You the F*** Out.” Trigger warnings, if you are not aware, are a cousin to “spoiler alerts,” a blog post label used to let readers know upcoming content may or may not be something they want to read.
As of late, I’d noticed heavy use of it on feminist blogs in particular, including Feministing, a popular feminist blog, where, it seemed, every other post had a trigger warning at its outset. I suspected this excessive use of trigger warnings was about something else. Judging by the widespread, negative response my post received, I believe I was correct.
Not long after my post went live, counterattacks were launched by Feministing, which proclaimed me a “certifiable asshole,” Feministe, Shakespeare’s Sister, and elsewhere. As I wrote on my personal blog:
Since, I’ve been proclaimed a certifiable asshole, willfully ignorant, an invalidator, a non-friendly in the “cold, uncaring place” that is cyberspace, cruel, mocking, Glenn Beck-esque, an “Internet tough guy,” “Teabaggerian,” basely ignorant and lacking in empathy, simple, “a fucking tool,” “an unsophisticated thinker,” worse than moronic, “dangerous,” a crappy journalist, a poor googler, lacking in analytical skills, someone who can use my “melon as a hat rack,” a troll, “disgusting,” a “supercilious asshole,” “warped,” incapable of empathy, intellectually dishonest, a “Sister F***er,” “purposely obtuse and beyond help,” and “the kind of person who’d take [my] Vietnam-veteran granddad to see The Deer Hunter without warning him that it’s not actually about hunting deer.”
These responses were culled from the comments section at True/Slant. They don’t include the comment sections on the feminist blogs, where, among other things, I was declared a “cunt.” Then there was the hate mail.
I had included a trigger warning in the title of my post, yet feminist readers noted it and read on anyway, which, I believe, is primarily how trigger warnings function: by heightening the shock factor of the content, thereby increasing the likelihood the post will be read. In other words, “Or what if we could just be honest, and admit that when the topic of the blog is feminism, the TRIGGER WARNING on every other post is like a flashing neon sign, attracting *more* attention to a particularly explicit post, even as it purports to deflect the attention of those to whom it might actually be relevant.”
The vitriol of the comments suggested feminists had been “triggered” by my post, that they had read it indicated that they had seen my trigger warning and ignored it, that they had weighed in to attack the post in the comments section suggested that this was entirely the point of a trigger warning: to fetishize the trigger itself.
Contrary to what much of the blowback claims, I am intimately familiar with trauma, triggers, and post-traumatic stress disorder. That is precisely why the overuse of trigger warnings was of interest to me. In reality, trigger warnings are unrealistic. They are the dream-child of a fantasy in which the unknown can be labeled, anticipated, and controlled. What trigger warnings promise — protection — does not exist. The world is simply too chaotic, too out-of-control for every trigger to be anticipated, avoided, and defused. Even if every single potentially trigger-inducing blog post could be demarcated as such — a categorical impossibility — what would be the point? As one emailer put it: “To me, there is no better way to make someone think of the [trauma] than putting up a TRIGGER WARNING that will tell a person to avoid the post because it might make them think of what the TRIGGER WARNING invariably causes them to think about.”
Ergo, the trigger warning is its own trigger. Trigger warnings are a falsehood, a contrivance that pretends if triggers can be controlled, the trauma never happened, a National Enquirer-esque headline that screams in all-caps and big red block letters, but, in the end, signifies nothing but a preoccupation with its own salaciousness.
Perhaps most significantly, trigger warnings crystallize everything that is wrong with the current state of the feminist movement, if it can be called that. These days, feminism isn’t a movement at all, really, but a collection of blogs obsessed with the pop culture it claims to be victimized by, a forum for women who promote themselves as victims of a patriarchy that no longer exists, a pretend movement that contains within it no forward movement at all, only a fetal-like desire to curl up on itself, muttering Women’s Studies jargon, and handing out trigger warnings like party favors at a girl’s-only slumber party.
The so-called feminist movement and trigger warnings are a great deal alike. They no longer exist in reality. They are the stuff of make-believe.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Oh I see. Now that you’ve officially googled trigger warnings and have found a Yahoo! answers solution, you are the foremost expert on them. This is assuredly not an example of further sloppy journalism.
I’m not entirely sure why you assumed that every person who commented yesterday has an event that triggers them. That’s clearly NOT TRUE. You do not have to be assaulted, full of disordered eating, and so on to recognize what an ass you were going to be. And for those individuals who did comment who utilize trigger warnings? Maybe, just maybe, they’re smart enough to know that anyone who will take trigger warnings seriously wouldn’t title their post “Trigger warning: this blog post may freak you the f*** out.”
The problem with your horribly sloppy journalism is that the moment someone realizes you’re taking on topics you just don’t fucking get, when you use them to make the leap to “OH NOEZ, THESE WOMENZ THINK THEY’RE VICTIMIZED AND THEY’RE SO NOT!!1!” … no one’s going to back you up. No one’s going to say, OMG, that Susannah Breslin, I want to be just like her. Because if they’re smart enough on they’re own, they know how horribly, horribly dumb you are.
yesterday you knew so little about trigger warnings that you thought yahoo! answers was an adequate way to learn about them. today you’re “intimately familiar” with the topic. oh, okay! that’s totally how it works.
i have severe post-traumatic stress disorder. some days are worse than others. when people bother to put “trigger warning” on their posts, it lets me know that maybe reading that post will send me into flashbacks, not that the post may lead me to leave angry blog comments. if you’re “intimately familiar” with PTSD, you know what flashbacks mean in general. for me in particular, they mean panic, hyperventilation, dissociation, and actually reliving the events that traumatized me. that’s more common when people write specific details than when they just say “trigger warning: rape,” as you would realize after giving the subject a moment’s thought.
obviously not everything that could potentially trigger someone can be controlled. nobody knows that better than the people to whom trigger warnings are directed. but just as it’s nice for my friends to think “huh, does this movie have a rape scene?” before they decide to have me watch it, it’s nice for blogs to let their readers know “hey, you might want to open this in tabs for when you’re having a better day, or avoid it completely.” i simply love how you’ve taken an act of consideration and turned it into an example of how useless the entire movement of feminism is – and i mean that honestly: i hope any friends of yours who were considering coming to you for any kind of support read these posts and think twice.
Way to demonstrate that you still have no grasp of the concept. You are equating internet drama (of your own designing, called down on you, by you) with PTSD, which is muddy thinking, besides being dismissive in the extreme of actual survivors. The commenters are not “triggered”; they are PISSED. The difference is important. You paint yourself as a truth-teller deflating those [insert uncomplimentary adjective here] feminists, because you’re a *GOOD* woman, not like them. If that is what post-feminism looks like, it resembles pre-feminism greatly, and basically proves that feminism is still necessary.
No death threats? Susannah, you obviously missed the nerve.
OK, fine:
Ms. Breslin, if you insist on writing weak, pseudo-intellectual, attention whoring mewling softball diatribes against stuff you don’t care to understand and chalk it all up to your favorite scapegoats like any other armchair commentator in the internet, I may have to.. I dunno, think about you in a very bad way. When I have time.
Sorry, that’s about all I can muster for this woman.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yeah, clearly. Given your bazillion ad hominem posts that litter this thread.
In response to another comment. See in context »Oh, you’re so edgy, siding with the Internet showoff.
In response to another comment. See in context »If it’s death threats you’re looking for, just explain the etymology of the French term ‘connerie.’ That should about do it.
In response to another comment. See in context »Why is this comment “particularly interesting” and worthy of being highlighted? The paragraph next to the comment box makes it seem like only insightful and intelligent comments will be “Called-out”?
Oh… I just noticed that it’s a “contributor comment”. I guess I assumed that a contributor would have something insightful and intelligent to say, too. That’s what you get for making assumptions!
In response to another comment. See in context »Trigger warnings do help, kiddo. They tell me that I will need to brace myself for what’s coming next, or choose not to read it, because if I do, then I may flash back to years of molestation. They tell me, “Hey, you couldn’t control what was being done to you at the time, but you can control being vividly thrown back to it and having your day/week screwed up.”
The implication that trigger warnings are somehow for the weak – I believe one commenter on your previous post called it “fluff” and “bubble wrap” – has always struck me as incredibly odd, because survivors of violence, whether sexual or otherwise, are not generally a weak group. We can be sensitive, for sure, but we’re not weak.
“What trigger warnings promise — protection — does not exist. The world is simply too chaotic, too out-of-control for every trigger to be anticipated, avoided, and defused.”
Again: do you realize who you’re talking to? Victims are EXTREMELY aware that the world doesn’t come with warnings or guaranteed protection. But we reserve the right to ask for the tools – warnings – to at least control our environment to some degree. And if you think people shouldn’t be allowed to control their environments, then you should probably leave your computer and roam your neighborhood to see if you can find a heating/air-conditioning technician to attack. It would be roughly as productive as this kind of foolish, vitriolic post.
I know you’ve got a massive thing for hating on Feministing and the feminist movement in general, but while you’re feeling so self-righteous for having garnered all the information you could possibly need from Yahoo Answers, you might want to consider this: the people you are attacking are not Feminist staff writers. They are not angry man-hating liberals, or whatever the hell group of people you hate. They’re rape victims. Molestation victims. War veterans. Medical professionals.
Is that really the group you want to pick a fight with?
Let’s start here: “The vitriol of the comments suggested feminists had been “triggered” by my post, that they had read it indicated that they had seen my trigger warning and ignored it, that they had weighed in to attack the post in the comments section suggested that this was entirely the point of a trigger warning: to fetishize the trigger itself.”
Incorrect. As many people already pointed out in response to your post yesterday, being “triggered” is not the same thing as getting angry or offended. While I can’t rule out the possibility that someone somewhere out there was triggered by your post, I didn’t see anything in the comments indicating that was the case for those who responded. Personally, I was upset by the callousness of your post, but I was not triggered by it, and there is a VERY big difference. If you can’t make that distinction, your claim to understand trauma, triggers, and PTSD rings hollow.
Furthermore, as was already explained to you in the responses you cite, the purpose of a trigger warning is not to say “IF YOU MIGHT BE TRIGGERED YOU SHOULD NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, READ THIS POST.” It is to give individuals a chance to evaluate whether, at that moment, they want to read something that could be possibly be triggering. Often, I do want to read material that comes with trigger warnings because I consider the discussion of rape and rape prevention to be important. Sometimes, I’ll wait until after work to read it. Sometimes I don’t need to wait at all: the warning just allows me to prepare myself mentally. So to say your trigger warning was ignored simply because people still read you post is incorrect.
I agree with you on one thing: it is impossible to warn everyone on the planet with PTSD about anything and everything that can possibly trigger them. But that argument is nothing but a straw man. No one is saying that’s the goal. It’s one of the unfortunate realities of living with the aftereffects of trauma that you will be exposed to things that remind you of your trauma and upset you. Part of healing is trying to get to the point where that doesn’t happen. You say “trigger warnings are unrealistic. They are the dream-child of a fantasy in which the unknown can be labeled, anticipated, and controlled,” but trigger warnings have nothing to do with the unknown. The content of a blogger’s post is KNOWN to the blogger. The fact that rape is a traumatic event and a common trigger for many people is also KNOWN, and therefore, possible adverse reaction to such content is easily ANTICIPATED, which means LABELING such a post with a trigger warning allows a reader to CONTROL whether s/he continues reading at that time. Tadaaa. No fantasy world required. I don’t understand your problem with that.
You have clearly read a good deal of the many responses to your post, and yet what is even more clear is that none of it got through to you. I am sorry you received hate mail. I’m not sorry or surprised that many people were upset by your post, but I am sorry that some of the response came in the form of personal attacks. (Although I have no problem with derision of the content of your post). I don’t know if that’s why you didn’t actually take in much of what was said. But given the way you continue to ignore the facts involved, I’m not sure it would have made a difference if everyone was nothing but completely polite.
Finally, you are now arguing that trigger warnings don’t work (although what you are basing that on besides your own speculation, I’m not sure). If you pay attention to nothing else in all the comments, please take note of those who, like myself, have spoken up as survivors of rape or sexual assault and said that they help. I appreciate trigger warnings and I know of many others who do too. What I don’t understand is why you begrudge us 2 little words.
YES. THIS.
In response to another comment. See in context »Ah, I see. This was your clever ploy to show how trigger warnings work . Gotcha.
Wait, no, actually, I think this is a pathetic and transparent attempt at damage control for a post that went off on a subject you demonstrably didn’t get, as evidenced by the intelligent responses that attempted to set you straight. There were many, but you just go on ahead and concentrate on all the extremists that called you an asshole and cunt and such, and avoid addressing the intelligent commentary. Because, you’re not really writing this stuff to start discussion, are you? No, it’s just a venue for you to rant and make it look like you’re looking at something “in-depth.”
Not to rain on your self-important parade, but the reason most of us took the time to read and comment on your post of yesterday is because we are fans of Feministing blog and alerted one another to the post, not because we are attracted to sensationalist headlines. Sorry.
Speak for yourself. I did a Google search for “Women trying to be edgy and brash by blogging about why feminism is so stoopid/stuff they don’t even bother to do proper research about.”
I got this and Phyllis Schlafly’s website.
In response to another comment. See in context »Same here! Only I also had the additional “are any men looking? Do they look impressed?” in MY Google search.
In response to another comment. See in context »Dang, wish I’d known that. Would have narrowed it down to just Breslin’s innocuous yawping, and spared me a look at Phyllis’s rabid grimacing. Now THAT needs a trigger warning.
In response to another comment. See in context »The rules of eighth wave feminism:
1. You may not criticize a feminist.
2. What feminists do doesn’t have to make sense, as long as it’s identified as an effort to help victims.
3. If you have an issue with #2, see #1.
that sounds suspiciously like the tactics the author is using.
Let’s see:
1. all criticism is to be labeled handily as “vitriol.”
2. The author doesn’t have know anything about the subject she writes. (?) She can regurgitate stuff from Yahoo answers to lay the path by which she will enlighten readers about why she thinks something is wrong, and therefore IS wrong.
In response to another comment. See in context »The rules of Lydia Jenkins Netzer
1. Any criticism you receive can be dismissed by arguing the critiquing party does not allow criticism of themselves, thereby cleverly using the very tactic you describe while deflecting it onto the other party.
In response to another comment. See in context »2. If you don’t understand something, declare that it “doesn’t make sense” and resume with making fun of them for trying to help victims.
3. Find yourself irresistibly witty and clever by writing snide, glib posts.
Don’t forget siding with the patriarchy because you think it makes you edgy. It’s called being a troll.
In response to another comment. See in context »Oh yes, just one more thing: With all your whining about how it’s so unfaaaairrrr that you can’t write something and not have everyone agree with you: who’s playing the victim now?
Inorite?!?! Poor thing. Can’t even make fun of PTSD sufferers/rape survivors/sufferers of eating disorders/self-mutilators these days. What is the world coming to!?!
I guess we’re all just little girls at a slumber party, tee-hee! Except instead of pillow fights, we try to deal with terrible, nightmarish traumatic events/disorders! Gosh, aren’t we silly? Clearly, in Breslin’s world, everything is sunshine and unicorn farts and people who are “upset” about some silly business or another just need to suck it up.
In response to another comment. See in context »You must understand, Breslin had such high hopes that everything dashed from her rockin,’ feminist-bashin,’ world-ignorance destroyin’ keyboard would be met with accolades of “YAY! Susannah Breslin’s pseudo-wit will save us all!!!”
It must be really hard for the poor lass to realize she doesn’t sound as smart as she believes she does. Really hard indeed.
In response to another comment. See in context »Wait, your words confuse me! You mean it isn’t hip and witty to be all liek, “Having feelings is so stupid, amirite people? Pft, oversensitive wimmenz!”
I daresay! *monocle falls from brow in alarm*
She also gets extra points for the whole, “feminists hate menz!” What a clever and original idea! I shall go inform my male friends, colleagues, and relatives that I hate them, as Breslin hath declared it to be so! Toodles!
In response to another comment. See in context »She should hang out at 4chan, where her wit (which is less like wit and more like desperate stabs at shock value) would be truly appreciated.
In response to another comment. See in context »Patriarchy doesn’t exist?
Ugh, why do I even bother reading the shit that you write?
It’s important to add that most if not all of the women critiquing your posts would never want to see you in a situation where you could empathize from personal experience and would be the fist to support you if you ever found yourself in the horrific position of being a rape victim.
Feminism aims to empower women, not promote victimhood, but I do suspect that to expand on this would be an utter waste of time. Suffice it to say, feminism is one of the reasons you have many of the privileges that you are taking for granted, including the right to participate in anti-feminist discourse.
Irony.
what feminist won women the right to free speech?
In response to another comment. See in context »Oh, there were quite a few that insisted that the Constitution should apply equally to women, and not in the “oh, yeah, you women can participate too, when you’re not making sammiches, but don’t expect to be taken seriously cuz you’re women” way.
In response to another comment. See in context »didnt women spearhead the abolishionist and temperance movements before the 19th amendment?
In response to another comment. See in context »Oooh ooooh! It this a rhetorical question meant as some kind of “gotcha!”? Or do you really not know?
Well, as to the latter, you could try something called Google. (Or just skip to Yahoo answers if you want to take the lazy, don’t-care-so-much-about-real-facts route.) If the former, why yes, but why the hell do you consider that relevant, sweets?
In response to another comment. See in context »@bsg76 – have you seen this?:
In response to another comment. See in context »Naomi Rosenthal, Meryl Fingrutd, Michele Ethier, Roberta Karant, David McDonald, “Social Movements and Network Analysis: A Case Study of Nineteenth-Century Women’s Reform in New York State”
The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 90, No. 5 (Mar.,1985), pp. 1022-1054, Published by: The University of Chicago Press
what is the major piece of legislation that extended 1st amendment rights to women? who are the feminists that pushed and lobbied this law through congress? where are the fuzzy black and white photographs with women holding signs demanding the right of free speech? its not there, freedom of speech for women was never a question. why cheapen the real accomplishments achieved over the years by resorting to hyperbole on the internet to try to win an argument?
its not irony, alanis
In response to another comment. See in context »“what is the major piece of legislation that extended 1st amendment rights to women? who are the feminists that pushed and lobbied this law through congress?…why cheapen the real accomplishments achieved over the years by resorting to hyperbole on the internet to try to win an argument?”
Oh, women’s rights to free speech were never an issue? geez. Let me explain a couple things that seems to be going over your head:
1.The post in question was not talking about free speech rights specifically. YOU were, hon. I.E. You responded to the post with a strawman, which is an invalid form of argument.
2. your rants are the epitome of hyperbole.
Now, go get your vaporizer and take a few deep breaths.
In response to another comment. See in context »READ: Susan H. Williams,Truth, Autonomy and Speech: Feminist Theory and the First Amendment, New York/London, New York University Press, 2004
In response to another comment. See in context »@bsg76: I answered your questions by suggesting an article and a book because I did not have time to elaborate the arguments, full stop. Your presumptions about the intentions behind my responses are enlightening, but mistaken. The “obscure academic cites” were simply me quickly citing some of the literature so that you can find the publications, if you are interested in reading them and because I had less than 10 minutes to respond, not personal. So, please do calm down.
In response to another comment. See in context »My comment about feminists’ struggles paying off for today’s young women, including the author of this blog did not specifically quote First Amendment, that was your interpretation, which is reasonable and understandable, but not entirely complete.
Now that I am done with work, I could engage you in respectful and intellectually stimulating discourse, but your approach is immature, demeans the quality of debate and your tone makes it difficult to take you seriously. Enjoy your angry monologue and have a nice day.
this is what i was responding to
“feminism is one of the reasons you have many of the privileges that you are taking for granted, including the right to participate in anti-feminist discourse.”
i call bs, and rather than simple answer to a simple question (the opposite of hyperbole), the responses are more hyperbole, top 10 lists, and obscure academic cites from the same hyperbolic echo chamber this entire thread has grown out of… and a tiny bit of shaming language as a cherry on top.
the backwards rationalization i keep reading looks like it was torn directly out of karl roves handbook.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mhm. Quite a convenient interpretation you got going there: “the right to participate in anti-feminist discourse” = “ZOMG! Feminists so DID NOT have to worry about free speech!”
And then your irrelevant tangents didn’t make things much better for you: “didnt women spearhead the abolishionist and temperance movements before the 19th amendment?”
Abolishionist (sic) and temperance movements have exactly, oh, nothing to do with the free speech thing you were trying to pull off. You didn’t answer my question about relevance, so I’ll attempt to do it for you. Perhaps you’re saying that this proves that women were included in society all along? No, they had to force their way into these movements, putting up with mockery all along and told to stay in the kitchen. Oh, also, the support they did get from men of the convenient variety. Men back then would make exceptions when women supported things that men supported. After that, it was back to the kitchen.
In response to another comment. See in context »It’s so nice to see that abuse sufferers have elected such a thoughtful and well-educated person to be their sole representative on what it means to live with PTSD. I bet it makes them feel ’safe’ and ‘protected’ knowing they have such a fierce advocate who is so ‘intimately familiar with trauma, triggers, and post-traumatic stress disorder’ that she can anticipate every possible response any person might possibly have and firmly conclude that any effort to be sensitive to their situation is a wasted one.
The world is simply too chaotic, too out-of-control for every trigger to be anticipated, avoided, and defused.
You’re absolutely right, it is. That’s why certain websites whose authors/editors/maintainers consider themselves to be managing a Safe Space make an effort to make the website a little easier to navigate.
As one emailer put it: “To me, there is no better way to make someone think of the [trauma] than putting up a TRIGGER WARNING that will tell a person to avoid the post because it might make them think of what the TRIGGER WARNING invariably causes them to think about.”
My traumas are in the back of my mind all the time. I’m still recovering. Seeing “trigger warning” doesn’t remind me of anything except that the person writing gives a damn about whether I end up with nightmares or a panic attack after reading what they wrote. It’s a matter of being sensitive enough to have some compassion and empathy. “Trigger warning” doesn’t give me a panic attack, but descriptions of rape and violence will very likely do just that if I’m not prepared. Do I get triggered in the real world? Yes. It’s nice to know I have somewhere I can go where I can interact with people safely.
Also, for the record Susannah, there are quite a few (GASP) feminists coming to your defense in the thread where someone called you a “cunt.” (Not defending your arguments, of course, just defending you against that attack).
Aww, boo-freaking hoo for you. You wrote an article making fun of people suffering from various traumas (rape survivors, those with eating disorders/self mutilation sufferers) and *gasp* you were criticized! Oh what a terrible world this is where you can’t even make fun of rape victims without having people yelling at you for being “insensitive.”
Oh, and since it’s quite clear that you don’t give a flying rat carcass about other people’s feelings, here’s a little gift for you:
Kindly f*ck off.
Regards,
- One of those whiny babies who’s suffered from a self-mutilation disorder (pft I should just grow some balls, amirite?)
(P.S, no, you don’t get to speak for me.)
How meta of you.
I’m still not sure that angering a legion of people is the best way to draw their attention to your point. Often I find when debating an issue with someone, that if I start off with the statement, “So, your point of view is completely ignorant so you should listen to me,” usually makes them less receptive.
You might get more hits, but most of them are right, you pretty much look like an ass. Point made or not.
Post traumatic stress doesn’t exist in real life? I’ll be sure to notify the Veterans Administration. They’ll be happy to let all the vets coming to them for treatment for PTSD know that it’s all in their heads, and they’re just hysterical, like all those mythical feminists.
Okay, now you’re deliberately misunderstanding the concept. Trigger warnings do not exist to warn people off stuff that might get them angry. Getting angry is not being triggered. Trigger warnings exist to help people avoid panic attacks, flashbacks, and relapse. They have been requested by people who have experienced rape, violence, eating disorders, and other traumatic experiences for this purpose.
There is a legitimate debate about utility of trigger warnings. But this specious article does not engage with it.
And how much of a hater do you have to take issue with women and men using blogs to share their experiences and build connections with one another? Everyone else uses blogs for this purpose, but when feminists do it, it’s like, totally lame. Seriously?
My opinion, put simply: trigger warnings represent choice. If you’re so cleverly post-feminist, feminism-is-dead-and-unnecessary-now-we’re-all-free, why are you against a mechanism that enables people to make a choice?
Your point that it only serves to heighten the shock value is maddeningly misguided. 1/6 of women and 1/10 of men are survivors of sexual assault (estimate): reported rape levels are far below those numbers. So the minority might not come forward or talk about it and may be dealing with such things in isolation – not to mention all of those people who know trauma survivors in their own lives (way to insult all of them as well by the way).
Spaces such as feminist blogs allow them to work through this on their own terms and day by day. The warnings aren’t there because Perez Hilton’s page views go up if he puts ‘OMG’ in the title and like, dude, it seems like a smart marketing plan: they’re there because there’s a high chance an affected group will be choosing whether to read the post or not and should be informed.
So, politely, you have no authority on which to declare they don’t work and serve no purpose in such a generalisation; they exist as an acknowledgment of subjectivity and individual choice, which you don’t get to dictate. Further, either a) you’re not in the group they exist to help or b) we can take your post(s) as conclusive evidence you’d rather skip them. Fine, go ahead – the beauty of the warning is that you get to make that choice. Just don’t deny it to anyone else.
Alright it’s time for serious questions now: does it make sense to keep taking vapid spewing like Breslin’s seriously the way we do rational discourse? It’s fairly obvious that the time has come to stop re-treading over this little brat’s inanity and let her attention-grabbing maneuvers resort back to.. whatever it is she did before this “analysis of the issues.”
Alright? Breslin is played OUT like a recording of Janet Jackson’s Superbowl nip slip on a basement dude’s VCR.
Flaws in the argument:
-Equivocates on the word “triggered.”
-Equivocates on the use of the phrase “trigger warning.”
-Author is arguing against people because they identify as a specific type of person, but includes claims against the existence of said type of person in the argument.
-Appeals to readers emotions by first presenting irrelevant vitriol and not presenting actual reasoned responses.
I could go on, but do I really need to? The whole post falls apart on the equivocations alone.
oh yeah, I LOVED the whole “If I say something doesn’t exist, then it doesn’t exist, darn it!” She never quite got past the “ME-centered” stage of childhood, did she? Just like my four year-old nephew whose version of hide-and seek is simply putting his hands over his eyes.
Susannah, all these responses that are putting your ass down pretty much prove that what you don’t want to exist does in fact exist.
In response to another comment. See in context »Oh sweetie, you misinterpret our ignoring your warning with the warnings don’t work. In reality, no one takes you seriously enough to think you’d have the depth and insight to talk about a subject like rape or sexual assault. At least, outside of the context of “Those wimmin, they always be hating. Rape is just surprise sex!”.
Vitriol alert! Have you even tried googling troll? Maybe you should write your next piece on that. I mean, after you’re done riding the feminists-are-so-easily-upset horse and its sequel, the political-correctness-thought-police.
OK, everyone MUST read this post to get the full effect of just what a desperate sycophant tool this twit is:
http://trueslant.com/susannahbreslin/2010/04/14/trigger-warnings-dont-work-heres-why/?utm_source=alertsnewcomment&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20100414#
Or actually, just read this little tidbit: “I should know. I’m a woman who, more often than not, blogs like a man. Sure, I’ve sometimes been known to tread into the dreaded territory of “feelings” and “relationships,” posts I often regret having posted. I’m far more comfortable weighing in on topics and in ways I venture Wente would deem more “male”: current events, heated debates, racy subjects. I blog like a man.”
Uh huh. Hey, Susie, how about you you let your readers decide what kind of blogger you are? Because you’re a little too into yourself and blinded by your need to be noticed by men to be objective. Let me guess, you’re the same high school girl that talked trash to girls, boasted to guys about how you’re so sexually sophisticated, then gave in to their unwanted advances because you were too afraid they’d say you weren’t cool if you didn’t?
Yeah, I think that’s about right.
Ah shoot, wrong link. Here ya’ll go: http://trueslant.com/susannahbreslin/2010/03/26/are-men-better-bloggers-than-women/
It’s a hoot. The Narcissism is pure unintentional comedy gold.
In response to another comment. See in context »You think men feel offended when they read this and are like, “Well no, actually. I’m capable of research, so this isn’t like my blogging at all”?
In response to another comment. See in context »That, and I think others roll their eyes and say “Oh great, another clingy attention whore to deal with at the biker bar.”
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] BRESLIN: Trigger Warnings Don’t Work: Here’s Why. They certainly do, er, trigger nasty hatemail, though. “These days, feminism isn’t a [...]
I am so amused by feminists. Thank you Susan, for stating the truth.
“These days, feminism isn’t a movement at all, really, but a collection of blogs obsessed with the pop culture it claims to be victimized by, a forum for women who promote themselves as victims of a patriarchy that no longer exists, a pretend movement that contains within it no forward movement at all, only a fetal-like desire to curl up on itself, muttering Women’s Studies jargon, and handing out trigger warnings like party favors at a girl’s-only slumber party.”
There. I have copied it and pasted it and said it again. IT IS THE TRUTH.
Please say whatever you like (even slavishly copy whatever you like!) about feminism, but trigger warnings, for the millionth time, are not exclusively used on feminist blogs or apply exclusively to feminist blogs – and neither does insulting them. They are also, again, connected with genuine illness and distress – not people getting ‘offended’ or needing them ‘handed out’. The need is real and rape/trauma survivors have *asked* for them to be put in place – try (even copy and paste) a bit of respect for that.
They’re used in designated ’safe spaces’ for people to talk about things where and when they like. If feminism blogs having trigger warnings is a sign of weakness or a pathetic nature, it’s on a par with saying that designing a veteran’s home in a way that encourages people to feel comfortable there is just mollycoddling them. Or a discussion group on sexual abuse, self-harm etc. having some rules of etiquette is a bad idea. So beat feminism with another stick, please, where I’m sure you’ll make so much more sense.
In response to another comment. See in context »Sorry to pick up on one sentence of an extensive quote, but seriously, make your point without perpetuating a grave misunderstanding.
In response to another comment. See in context »translation: “I can’t think for myself, therefore I will just copy and paste other’s opinions and make it look like I have opinions of my own. Oh, yeah, I will also repeat things that I read off of bumper stickers as though I just made them up and they are the most profound bits of wisdom ever said. Because I’m a strong, independent woman, please look at me!”
I am so amused by twits that try to be all “I’m so courageous!” on teh internets but would be all “please please don’t hurt me!” when you look them directly in the eye.
In response to another comment. See in context »Way to entirely ignore what peopel are saying, plug your ears and go, “LALALALALAAA!!! I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”
In response to another comment. See in context »No one disputes that PTSD has triggers.
No one disputes that, during recovery, avoidance of those triggers can be helpful.
The problem comes when recovery never comes, in part because the PTSD itself becomes a lifestyle.
Trauma victims must have as a primary goal complete and unfettered re-entry into normal adulthood, which includes the ability to engage on any topic you deem fit.
If you are still in recovery and avoidance is necessary, it is self-destructive to frequent blogs that contain triggers. And it is foolish to expect blogs to warn you that you might not be able to handle the content.
The aim of PTSD therapy is to become an adult again, not to become permanently child-like and in need of Mommy to make clear your path. It’s hard and painful work. Enabling an adolescent half-way point where being a victim becomes one’s identity is an evil act.
Compassion and nurturing soon becomes its own patriarchal structure, telling you not to worry your pretty little head about this important topic because you can’t handle it. You are imprisoning people, limiting them, in doing so.
Susannah’s post is brilliant. The road to hell is paved with good intentions like ‘Trigger warnings’.
Addendum: It is true that some people have suffered sufficient trauma that they never fully recover. Awful, but true. It is important that they not frequent places that routinely have triggers. More, it is wrong to frequent places that routinely have triggers, and more wrong to expect they will protect from them. If you do so, one must wonder why.
In response to another comment. See in context »????
So, PTSD sufferers need to grow up, bloggers need to treat them like “adults”, but they should avoid areas that might interest them entirely so as not to be triggered, rather than attempt to find some safe way of participating?
“More, it is wrong to frequent places that routinely have triggers, and more wrong to expect they will protect from them.”
No. No it’s not. Not if the explicit goal of the blogger is to create a safe space for people who have experienced trauma, not if there is an actual dialog between the blogger and his or her readers. Which is what feminist blogs attempt to provide.
So, you’re saying that attempting to be accepting, inclusive and considerate is actually harmful to readers with PTSD, and that those readers ought not to expect efforts towards inclusion, acceptance, or consideration and should instead just stop doing things they’re interested in.
Why does this make sense?
Are you even familiar with the concept of a “community”?
In response to another comment. See in context »Mhm. Says the instantaneous armchair expert on this thing you just discovered called trigger warnings.
“Susannah’s post is briliiant.” Hmmm. something makes me think you apply the term “brilliant” pretty indiscriminately. Seeing as she has STILL, in TWO blogs, now people(!) demonstrated she knows not a bit about her subject matter and has even said she doesn’t care to understand it. Let’s just call a spade a spade- She’s just trying to pin something she doesn’t like on her favorite scapegoat. Let’s say it again, folks, trigger warnings have nothing specifically to do with feminism. MK? This is just Breslin harping off about why feminism-her sworn nemesis in this world- is at fault for something again. She’s the kind of person who finds ANYTHING to blame feminism for: trigger warnings, woman-hating, her boyfriend breaking up with her, her own powerlessness in the world…
In response to another comment. See in context »“Trauma victims must have as a primary goal complete and unfettered re-entry into normal adulthood, which includes the ability to engage on any topic you deem fit.
If you are still in recovery and avoidance is necessary, it is self-destructive to frequent blogs that contain triggers. And it is foolish to expect blogs to warn you that you might not be able to handle the content.”
Those two statements seem contradictory to me. By using trigger warnings bloggers help PTSD sufferers participate in what they would if they did not suffer from PTSD. It is not “foolish” to expect blogs to provide trigger warnings when those blogs routinely cover topics like sexual assault, the bloggers are familiar with the needs of victims (and may be victims themselves), and want them to be included in the conversation, should they so choose.
Trigger warnings are used in specific blogging communities, not the whole of the internets.
“The aim of PTSD therapy is to become an adult again, not to become permanently child-like and in need of Mommy to make clear your path. It’s hard and painful work. Enabling an adolescent half-way point where being a victim becomes one’s identity is an evil act.”
Wow. That is insulting. And patronizing. I have the good fortune to not suffer from PTSD, and I find this insulting, as a human being. Who made you the determiner of all that is “adult”, what is “good” and “evil” and what the goals of PTSD sufferers should be? And again, trigger warnings actually help people with PTSD integrate into online communities, instead of avoid them entirely, which is what you say they should do. Which is better for a person’s recovery, do you think?
“Compassion and nurturing soon becomes its own patriarchal structure, telling you not to worry your pretty little head about this important topic because you can’t handle it. You are imprisoning people, limiting them, in doing so.”
Wow. Again, wow. First, not everyone is as patronizing, condescending, and full of sh-t as you are, so don’t assume that that’s what’s motivating bloggers who use trigger warnings. Second, have you read the comments here at all? Trigger warnings are not used to rope PTSD sufferers off from certain conversations, not to tell them that they shouldn’t read it. Trigger warnings allow people to decide for themselves whether they want to deal with the subject matter of the post.
I also want to point out that a) you seem to be engaging in mother-blaming (that is, blaming mothers “over-nurturing” – ie. “feminine” behaviour – for some kind of “weakness” of character – ie. some trait that is presumed to be effeminate/childish.
In response to another comment. See in context »b) It’s interesting that you don’t address PTSD sufferers themselves in your comment, despite the fact that many are engaging with this article. Instead you treat them like children by leaving them out of the discourse, and talking past them to the presumed authority/Mommy figure of the feminist blogger, without even considering that those two categories of people are not mutually exclusive.
I work with PTSD victims every day.
I had PTSD myself.
My experience is that efforts like ‘Trigger warnings’ may seem at first like a sensible thing, but it actually infantilizes readers.
If you are reading a blog that must employ a trigger warning with any frequency, you should not be reading the blog at all. If you are recovering from PTSD and you choose to engage a website that threatens to set you back so often that you must be warned off, you are in the wrong place.
It’s like a recovering alcoholic. Do not go to bars or parties that your old drunk friends go to, even if the conversations are fabulous. If you do so, it is right to question your motives.
And if the blog site decides it will warn you, they are treating you like a child, using an an ersatz MPA film-rating system to help you shield your eyes from the scary parts.
PTSD recovery is serious business. What if turns out you are wrong about trigger warnings, and they actually worsen rather than alleviate the symptom, by delaying recovery?
In response to another comment. See in context »“It’s like a recovering alcoholic. Do not go to bars or parties that your old drunk friends go to, even if the conversations are fabulous. If you do so, it is right to question your motives.”
Since we’re on analogies again, if you’re a recovering cancer patient, and you or your friends want to start getting involved in fundraising work and discussion groups, even though it might not be easy, do you question your motives?
In response to another comment. See in context »I apologize if anything I wrote devalued your experience.
However, I maintain that some of what you said was extremely patronizing, and insulting. I do apologize for saying that you were “full of sh-t”, because what you’re saying is obviously relevant to your experience.
If you are reading a blog that must employ a trigger warning with any frequency, you should not be reading the blog at all. If you are recovering from PTSD and you choose to engage a website that threatens to set you back so often that you must be warned off, you are in the wrong place.
What does frequency have to do with it? What if the blogger writes about sexual assault, like, once a month, but still wants to be considerate? What if there’s a lot of other content that the person with PTSD might be interested in?
What if the individual is not typically triggered by such posts, but appreciates having trigger warnings for the days when he or she is not in a good state? What if a person is recovering, and wants to try to talk about their experience, but wants to do so selectively?
What is objectionable about a person with PTSD engaging in forum when they are able to control their exposure to triggering material?
It’s like a recovering alcoholic. Do not go to bars or parties that your old drunk friends go to, even if the conversations are fabulous.
But if you have the ability to decide to only interact with the people who aren’t drinking…
If you do so, it is right to question your motives.
I don’t understand this. What motives? How are they relevant?
And if the blog site decides it will warn you, they are treating you like a child, using an an ersatz MPA film-rating system to help you shield your eyes from the scary parts.
A lot of media have ratings systems and content warnings. What’s wrong with blogs also incorporating such devices?
Content warnings do not infantalize. They do the opposite. They give people the opportunity to decide for themselves what they want to engage in.
My understanding of what you’re saying is that people should either be sure that they’re able to deal with whatever triggering sh-t is thrown in front of them, or they shouldn’t go out at all.
I don’t understand how one would get from one point to the next without intermediary safe spaces where one can discuss one’s experiences, but also choose not to engage when they aren’t up to it.
Obviously I’m not the most qualified person to comment on this. I do have depression and anxiety, not related to PTSD. My psychiatrist is a very conservative woman and would probably agree with what you’re saying. However, I find that attitude demeaning. I do not need to be told to “act like an adult” and “take responsibility”. I need strategies for dealing. I’m not a child trying to grow up; I’m a grown up coping with mood disorder.
Trigger warnings strike me as an actually useful, constructive strategy for actually being able to operate within a community and deal with what PTSD sufferers are going through.
Much more importantly, there are many PTSD sufferers who appreciate trigger warnings and find them helpful. I hope you have read through the rest of the comments, and ask them how it has effected their recovery.
In response to another comment. See in context »infantalizes PTSD sufferers.
Let’s get this straight, trigger warnings do not say “This article is about rape, so rape survivors, don’t read this. Instead, go get a nice soft blanket and some soothing cocoa and read some Beverly Cleary.” They simply say what the article is about, and it’s up to you if you want to read, or to take a breath before reading, etc.
With your kind of reasoning, blind people using white tapper sticks to get around are infantilized by the very tool that aids their mobility.
Or, someone going to therapy for depression is being infantilized by the therapist.
You know, depression is a lot like alcoholism that way. Or something.
“What if turns out you are wrong about trigger warnings, and they actually worsen rather than alleviate the symptom, by delaying recovery?” Yeah, what if blind people trip over their white tappers? What if therapy is more traumatic than the trauma? Too risky, let’s not try anything that might help.
In response to another comment. See in context »What a clusterfuck of a failure in that analogy. You see “bar” by its nature, is a trigger warning letting you know there’s alcohol there, so you get to choose if you go in or not. Feminist blogs talk about things other than triggering topics, so they have to discriminate between their posts.
And sweetheart, don’t generalize from your experience to everyone else’s. Perhaps you felt infantilized – but maybe it was something inherent to you. There’s a number of people who have commented that they are subject to triggers above you who say they’ve helped. So go fuck yourself, and stop making broad sweeping judgments that people who have PTSD are somehow not “adults.”
In response to another comment. See in context »“feminist blogs talk about things other than triggering topics, so they have to discriminate between their posts.”
Exactly. And if there are so many posts that might serve as triggers that the bloggers feel the need to adopt a warning system to flag them, the affected reader is clearly not ready to partake, and should avoid that risk. When they feel ready to engage a blog that has difficult topics, then do so.
Trigger warnings are a Victorian patriarchy-style response, disempowering and belittling.
I am certain trigger warnings “help” someone avoid a post. My point is, they also hurt, in the long run, by treating people like children. It’s not your job to decide if the post warrants a trigger warning, because you cannot possibly know whether or not a topic or its subsequent discussion will involve something that is a trigger.
And it is arrogant (or naive) to believe you can do so.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Trigger warnings are a Victorian patriarchy-style response, disempowering and belittling.”
Yeah, you know, you have a point. You know war veterans that suffer from PTSD? Well, they need to stay away from places with lots of people and loud noises. I.E. society.
And those special helper dogs they train to do stuff like warn the vets of someone who is approaching the vet from behind and might frighten them? Well, that vet is being INFANTILIZED! By a DOG, no less!
“Victorian patriarchy style response?” Wow, I hope you didn’t hurt yourself in that stretch.
In response to another comment. See in context »There’s a lot about your comment I disagree with, and I think your extended familial/patriarchal metaphor has really confused your meaning at its sarcastic points (i.e. I recognise you’re *not* saying PTSD sufferers are childish – quite the opposite – but I don’t think you communicated that clearly, because that was my first thought on your tone.)
Yes, “helping” beyond a certain point is no help. However – and here’s where I really disagree – why should people be denied the right to look at interesting blogs and take part in interesting communities which, yes, sometimes deal with potentially triggering material? More to the point, why should anyone have the right to say that those working through such recoveries shouldn’t – because it’s “for their own good” not to – read how others are coping, how it is/has/was happening to others and, because feminist blogs aren’t all bad news, what others are doing to raise awareness/positive activism?
Final thing. Feminist blogs, like all blogs and articles etc., don’t know the exact composition of their audience. Feminists (women and men), rape survivors at various stages of recovery or those who would define themselves fully recovered: all of these people and many many more may be looking at one article with potentially triggering content. The worst case scenario is that someone looks at it, unknowingly, who would have otherwise made the choice not to and has a panic attack, flashbacks, etc. It’s not about making PTSD a way of life and it’s not about victimising all of feminism: it’s about preventing that worst case scenario. So it’s not patronising and it’s not degrading: what I find infantalising is the idea that giving people control of their own recovery process is a bad thing.
In response to another comment. See in context »You have some really good thoughts, but I disagree with the conclusion you drew from the facts.
You are correct that people need to retain “control of their own recovery process”, but it is uncertain how these warnings help.
From now on, those affected will come to expect the warnings. What if you forget to do so? What if you did not know it was a trigger? What if the topic contained no trigger, but the discussion does, will you update? How often? What are the accepted triggers? Any mention of rape? Rape as a metaphor? Car accidents? War? Big surgeries? Stalking?
Where will you draw the line? And why? Who made you expert on what a trigger is?
Once you take the responsibility for someone else’s well-being this way, you cannot discard it, and you have delegitimized the very people you were trying to help.
Fight the patriarchy!
In response to another comment. See in context »something tells me the world is REALLY complicated for you.
Someone put a sign saying the restroom is out of order??! OH NOES!! But what if someone was expecting to use this restroom right now? But, my bladder has been trained to need to be emptied every time I walk by this restroom!! Should we expect it to be out of order at this very time every day, or every other day? Is this even a restroom at all, or has it all just been a cruel ruse?
In response to another comment. See in context »Brilliant paragraph – I nearly cried at my desk with laughing.
In response to another comment. See in context »I appreciate you taking the time to reply, although I’m not sure if we’ll ever agree!
“From now on, those affected will come to expect the warnings.”
The only blog sites I’ve seen using trigger warnings aren’t naive enough to just put “trigger warning” and assume that’s enough: they put “Trigger Warning: graphic account of rape.” Because, as I said before, no-one truly and completely knows down to the individual readers their entire audience. So the warnings don’t attempt to pretend that they know all the triggers.
Further, and this point I must make, because your post doesn’t seem to suggest it’s even an option: you can ask where people want the line to be drawn. You can ask: “what triggers are common to those in recovery from an experience we talk about 25% of the time or less on this blog” and then warn for those: it doesn’t have to reach a level of “trigger warning: blog post!” if you’ve a dialogue with the readers. You can trust that people will know their own triggers and know their own mindset at a particular time, when given the short warning that they may be about to come up against it. And you can trust that people are aware that it is impossible to warn for some triggers and do not expect it, never mind get dependent on a warning: those triggers formed by things that wouldn’t offend or be distressing to anyone who hadn’t been through their unique experience, i.e. a type of food that was on the table, a song that was playing from a car window at the same time as something was happening.
“What are the accepted triggers? Any mention of rape? Rape as a metaphor? Car accidents? War? Big surgeries? Stalking?”
Ultimately, it’s defined by the blog – or, to remove this from so specific a context – it’s a system of consideration and etiquette built by a sub-culture as an answer to a problem and it’s not perfect. Every accepted list of trigger warnings etc will vary from blog to blog: it’s not supposed to be a top-down dictated ratings system across the internet, it’s supposed to suit the members of that one community. It’s a little bit patronising to suggest that they’re incapable of self-regulation. You outline your policy on your ‘about us’ page.
You’re asking about “trigger warnings” as an entity and raising detailed questions about how they work. There is no answer, which is not a negative of them, and which is a point about this entire debate and Breslin’s articles which has been misunderstood over and over: trigger warnings aren’t a movie-ratings system handed out by a central authority, nor are they a cast-iron legal agreement with defined terms and conditions to be critiqued or changed. The practise of using trigger warnings is a fluid, constantly re-evaluated response of a community to a problem: how do you not restrict content while suitably advertising what’s in it – and they change from community to community depending on need. One blog decides not to use them: fine. One blog does: also fine. No internet police are coming after either of them, because that’s what suits their current group of users – except, of course, when Breslin decides she should know better than them and puts the Internet Police hat on.
In response to another comment. See in context »Susannah, I just have to say that it’s truly been a lot of fun watching the very people- that you thought were such easy targets for your sniggering- hand your wilting, sorry ass right back to you. And with more wit, hilarity and intelligence than you will ever be capable of.
Even though you are one of the most pathetically self-unaware bloggers I’ve ever read, something about the very desperate tone of this post of your tells me you know you have a lot to learn. I suggest you put away all the tough-girl posing (which no one buys for s second except you) and do a little old navel-gazing introspection.
Or, for significantly less deep people such as yourself, maybe just look good and long in the mirror. When you can do it without wincing, you know you’ve made progress.
That was one long and tedious ad hominem, jm.
Why not just call her a poopyhead and get it over with?
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m sorry Pogo, did I hurt your feelings by stating the obvious about Susannah’s trainwreck of reasoning? Sorry. Didn’t mean to trigger anything for you.
In response to another comment. See in context »No worries, jm; feelings remain unhurt.
I mean, you *stated* the reasoning was a trainwreck, but did not explain why. I think that’s argument by assertion, i.e., it lacks proof.
Two fallacies in a row for you!
And “heh” on the ‘trigger’ joke. Mocking PTSD is fun!
In response to another comment. See in context »Good god, pogo, stop displaying your desperation so vehemently.
In response to another comment. See in context »to all the angry trolls on this thread:
Susannah didn’t make fun of rape victims. Instead, she made fun of brainless brats who use rape victims as an excuse to feel good about themselves (because they CARE, don’t you know). Always fun to see lemmings get all fussy when their groupthink is exposed.
Oh sweetheart, you really need to read stuff before making knee-jerk reactions like “Susannah is so NOT a bad person!”
In response to another comment. See in context »Really. Read. There are, oh, maybe two? comments out of 60 or so that made that assertion. The rest of the comments are pretty dead-on about Susannah’s bs tactics.
No, actually, she did, because guess what: The specific bloggers and readers she’s talking about, a high proportion of them are *shock and surprise* rape survivors and PTSD victims! In fact, trigger warnings are promoted by rape survivors, used by them in their own blogs. These are the people Breslin is targeting, and it is disingenuous to claim that she’s not making fun of them since like, she totally didn’t write “hahah those over-sensitive rape-victims!!” In fact, it’s the subtle implications about those “over-sensitive” rape survivors, the “girls at a slumber party,” that are even more pernicious than if she directly stated she thinks these people are wimps.
In response to another comment. See in context »Unless she’s so daft that she doesn’t even pause to consider that rape survivors have the autonomy to blog as well.
Susannah, great post.
I have always thought feminism is BS.
The leaders of feminism have a lot in common with the race baiters Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
They exploit a group of people for profit.
No one can deny that Sharpton and Jackson have made a great deal of money over the years, scurrying out to some scene of alleged discrimination just in time to be on television.
It would be quite interesting to see an actual accounting of how much money these two have extorted over the years, and who is bankrolling them in between extortions.
And so it is with feminism. The goals have been reached years ago. All the laws one could wish for to ensure equal opportunity are in place.
But this thing has to be kept going, you see, because the leaders of the feminist cause would see a great reduction in their income if victory was declared.
Feminism is a whole cottage industry, does anyone think that the gals over at feministing aren’t making a good buck posting controversial and emotion-inducing subjects?
Modern feminism is a symbiotic relationship. The exploiters keep it at a fever pitch to fill their coffers, and the feminist consumers return again and again to “belong” to something and wallow in the injustice of it all.
well, that’s nice. Except trigger warnings (the supposed subject of Susannah’s post) have nothing to do with feminism specifically.
Yes, feminists do employ them. And lots of feminists drink Starbucks.
So, how about you go after that scourge of feminist tyranny, that Starbucks!!!!
Now. how about you take this rant that you’ve just been jonesin’ SO HARD to post, over to one of those Man’s Rights websites?
In response to another comment. See in context »How ’bout you f*ck right off, libby?
I’ll say any stupid, insipid thing that comes to mind, just like you.
In response to another comment. See in context »LOL, way to caricature yourself.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Feminism is a whole cottage industry, does anyone think that the gals over at feministing aren’t making a good buck posting controversial and emotion-inducing subjects?”
…Uh, me. Let’s try to employ facts when we come up with inflammatory bullshit, k?
In response to another comment. See in context »I never thought feminism was BS simply because there are objective measures we can use to show that things like income inequality does exist. In certain fields, men do dominate where there is no justifiable reason other than bias. At the same time, I could never recognize anyone as a so called leader of any kind of “ism” to begin with. Feminism may be viewed as a movement, but it’s actually a form of criticism.
Are there people that exploit a sense of victimhood from being female? — Certainly. Does this define feminism? — Not at all. Have laws been put into place to prevent discrimination? — Yes. Do they actually prevent it? — No.
The assertion that the goals of feminism have been met is demonstrably false. Nevertheless, I don’t mean suggest that your point is not valid for there is certainly a symbiotic relationship between the exploiters of consumers of feminism, but I would suggest neither of these people much care about feminism as school of thought.
One exception was a commenter named pogo. I really appreciated pogo’s insights on recovery, particularly the observation regarding the patriarchal nature of what happens when compassion and nurturing get compromised. I would argue that that was an extraordinary example of what feminist criticism is really all about. Rather than assume traditional roles for the compassionate nuturer and traumatized victim, fight the patriarchy! I love that, because far from wallowing the injustice of it all, or accepting traditional roles, she doesn’t “belong.” In that regard, neither does Breslin. You might say that is because they’re both are capable of employing feminist criticism.
In response to another comment. See in context »You lead the way, victim.
“The so-called feminist movement and trigger warnings are a great deal alike. They no longer exist in reality. They are the stuff of make-believe.”
Last line of the post.
Right on Susannah.
…Then why waste your life writing two posts about it?
In response to another comment. See in context »Because one post about you whiners isn’t enough?
Now c’mere and let me give you a noogie.
You’ll forget all anout this feminism nonsense for a minute or two.
In response to another comment. See in context »Just thought I’d derail the conversation here with some facts. I don’t read Feministing, so I thought I’d check out this “trigger warning” that is “on every other post like a neon sign”. In the month of April there are 65 posts to Feministing prior to the Ms. Breslin’s original article. Out of those 65, -ONLY 2- had a trigger warning. 1 post that described police treatment of a rape victim, and 1 for graphic content on a video. I think we can surmise that Ms. Breslin is exaggerating, those I will not posit a reason why.
“I think we can surmise that Ms. Breslin is exaggerating, those I will not posit a reason why.”
In response to another comment. See in context »Because! It’s FEMINISM ruining her world again, don’t you see??!
**though**
I am a survivor of rape and childhood sexual abuse. I am a member of a support site called Pandoras Aquarium. We all regularly use Trigger warnings there NOT because we are being cry babies but because these can be very helpful emotionally especially on sensitive days.
When I get triggered by something I can get flooded by memories and feel very panicky and unsafe. It is really helpful for me to have these trigger warnings so I can avoid certain material on difficult days whilst not having to completely restrict myself.
The support site I use is not a feminist website. Trigger warnings are not just used by feminists so I resent you using this as a means of attacking feminism. I think feminists use trigger warnings because they often have an insight into the impacts of sexual violence through research, campaigning (or also through being survivors themselves for some people). I suspect you care very little about trigger warnings or susrvivors but are using them to have a dig at feminists. This is really very sad.
If, say, the government were mandating that every book, article, even sentence uttered in public were preceded by a trigger warning, I would have a problem with that. But I don’t see the point in attacking and dismissing a safeguard that a community of people has decided is helpful for them based on the day-to-day issues they deal with and their ideology. I don’t frequent blogs that employ trigger warnings and so have no vested interest in them, but Ms. Breslin’s two posts rub me the wrong way. A critique based on research, evidence, or even a well thought out argument would be fair…but that’s not what this is.
Is Breslin really this desperate? I guess when you’re on an anti-feminist jihad (no disrespect to any Muslims who may be reading this,) anything is fodder– even willful deception, willful self-deception, and cheap shots– all for righteous vengeance, eh?
Keep fighting the good fight, Breslin. It’s not like there aren’t plenty of dime-a-dozen blowhards out there who think their loud mouths are worthy of respect and attention ‘cuz (with the help of Yahoo answers and some half-assed half hour of research, aren’t you just too-cool-for-school, now?) they’re like WAAAY smarter than the rest of the world.
I read your original post a couple days ago, thought “who the hell is this?” and didn’t care enough to respond. Good to see there are plenty of others who aren’t letting you get away with this b.s. But NOW you’re trying to pull the whole “It was all really my brilliant Margaret Meade-type experiment to test out how trigger warnings fail…um, yeah, that’s the ticket!!”
Yep. Now let’s look at the real story, shall we? You freaked out when you saw your ass so efficiently being handed to you in the comments section and thought “Oh oh, I gotta think of something quick to make me look not so dumb!”
It only made you look dumber.
Thanks for the laughs. I do hope you get a clue soon.
Oh yeah, and what’s with the visual of The Feminine Mystique? Is that one of three images you post whenever you’re writing one of your aimless missives about feminism? Let’s see, I bet the other stock images in your arsenal of convenient general feminist allusions that you’ve never read/understood are The Second Sex and a pink female symbol with a fist in the middle, amirite?
Or is there really something to it? Really, I’m curious, please explain what The Feminine Mystique has to do with trigger warnings.
[...] Trigger warnings don’t work. Here’s why – Susannah Breslin – Off the Record – … [...]
[...] Hess, who runs The Sexist blog for the Washington City Paper, has a terrific post on trigger warnings and the surrounding debate in the [...]
This is infantile. You may as well call Susannah “Ms. Poopy Pants.”
I have limited knowledge about her topic, but I in fact could use what she’s written, whether I agree with it or not, to find out more on the topic. By Internet blogging standards, that makes her a master writer.
She expresses herself clearly, making critical points and giving plenty of supporting examples without overloading the essay with links, and she seems to be writing from same area of her brain vice ego. Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.
Hello. I’m reading this as a comment on the general thread rather than a specific reply to a comment made: can I ask what the first sentence is referring to? (I realise there are a lot of heated – and vicious comments – here, but there’s also a lot of genuine debate and attempts at reasoned engagement with Breslin’s point.)
In response to another comment. See in context »There’s a petty, self-important tone throughout much of the thread. The issue seems so unbelievably minor to me. What’s next? Chairs flying over the use of bold font?
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] week’s trigger warning posts (1, 2) caused quite a brouhaha in the blogosphere. Combined, the two posts have thus far generated over [...]
[...] on many occasions, and I thought finding out what triggers feminists might be revealing. Evidently, Susannah Breslin does, and that alone sparked my [...]
“The Spearhead — Getting to the Heart of the Matter
Over the last few years, it has become increasingly obvious that American men — particularly those of the post-boomer generations — have fallen into a cultural gap. Our voice is barely a whisper in the traditional media, we are consistently portrayed as worthless buffoons and advertisers ignore us”
Here’s your fanclub, Susannah. I bet you’re so proud.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] Things that make women really [...]