Trigger Warning: This Post is About Trigger Warnings and I Think You are ALL Full of Shit

Writing

I have PTSD. I was diagnosed when I was thirteen after putting away the man who sexually, physically, and verbally abused me from the ages of 2-13. It is a complex, challenging condition that I spend a lot of time working to combat and control so I can be a functional human being. I had it in high school, I also had it in college as a history major at an elite institution. I will never not have it, my therapist says too much damage was done for me to ever not have nightmares, which is to say my entire existence on this planet will involve never sleeping like a normal person. My triggers are so numerous and severe that to avoid them all would require that I never leave the house. Here is a brief, non-comprehensive list of things that trigger trauma associated memories and panic attacks

  • Budweiser
  • Ammonia
  • Hamburger Helper
  • Fly swatters
  • Rubber bands (specifically being hit with them)
  • Being approached from behind
  • Having a white male “square up” to me
  • Home Depot
  • Raisins
  • Depictions of incest, rape
  • Depictions of violence
  • Most crime dramas
  • Depictions of methampehamine
  • Cigarette smoke
  • Crowds
  • Phone calls
  • Christmas trees (Christmas in general is rough, Thanksgiving ain’t much better)

I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point here, each and every single one of those has a specific association to trauma for me. Now, imagine for a second that I decided that the best way for me to deal with the trauma is to avoid it. HOW THE HELL WOULD I LEAVE THE HOUSE?

How did I study history? Or literature? Or anything, really? It’s almost like avoiding triggers doesn’t actually liberate you from trauma at all!

Or maybe they do for people that have a specific trigger or instance of trauma, I don’t know but it’s not my experience that this approach helps.

But my bigger issue with trigger warnings is conceptual. When it comes to the treatment of a severe mental health problem, where does the responsibility lie? I’d argue that the only people who should be telling me how to treat my PTSD are me and my doctor, but most certainly not university professors who don’t have training or classmates who don’t have the disorder themselves. Although I’m very public about my struggles, I also still think that my compatriots who chose to deal privately have the right to do so and we should respect that. So when a university administrator or classmate demands the removal of a reading, or even a content warning (for adults… did you guys actually follow content warnings as kids, I know I didn’t, and I took great pleasure in subverting the man in that way), on my behalf, it feels a little patronizing and, well intended, but particularly destructive if it means that it changes what conversations we are having.

I really want to believe this is well-intended, and I think for most it is. I think most professors are just trying to do what’s best by their students and that students are trying to deal with these issues. But we’ve made it such that saying, “hey, I don’t think this is the best way to do this” is now somehow a form of oppression and it isn’t. I was a poor student at Stanford with PTSD and I don’t believe trigger warnings are the best way to liberate me, and other people do. And that’s fine. You can disagree with me because this is America, and you have free speech, but the point here is that this issue isn’t one sided. Reasonable people can disagree about this.

 

But some of this doesn’t feel well intended and it’s because of the way people describe what happens when they are “triggered” by books like Antigone. They say it “makes them uncomfortable.” Now, I’ve had a lot of panic attacks and flashbacks and uncomfortable is not how I would describe the experience. I would describe it as debilitating, painful and challenging, but it also didn’t stop me from reading things for class because I recognize as someone who has spent most of my existence on the planet feeling “uncomfortable” (hungry, sick, tired, poor), that sometimes I’m going to feel uncomfortable. And sometimes I’m going to learn things from that discomfort. It just strikes me as an insane level of entitlement to assume that you’ll NEVER BE UNCOMFORTABLE during your educational experience. Are we sure that’s the goal, here? Because my goal is to get more services for the poor and to force the rich to deal with the challenges that face the poor. I actually don’t give a shit whether or not people at elite institutions are uncomfortable when encountering challenging readings. I hope the folks with PTSD get treatment to make real triggers manageable and I will fight and have fought for that treatment, but I don’t understand why I’m supposed to care about the discomfort of a bunch of kids who are supposed to be learning and who live in a contained, safe space to do that while the rest of the people their age are trying to survive poverty and war.  But what really bothers me is that these words, “makes me uncomfortable” are the same words that were used to silence me as an undergraduate.

“Heather, don’t talk about your childhood, it makes me uncomfortable.”

“We can’t use the term low income because it makes people uncomfortable.”

“We shouldn’t talk about rape/incest/poverty/racism/sexism because it makes people uncomfortable.”

The reality at most elite campuses is that the children are extremely unlikely to have PTSD. How do I know? Because Stanford doesn’t even have a PTSD specialist on staff, but they have 13 eating disorder specialists. PTSD wasn’t covered in my health insurance when I was an undergrad. And when I was an undergrad, openly discussing my PTSD, most of my classmates told me that I shouldn’t talk about it because of how it made them feel. They described It as awkward, uncomfortable, and like experiencing the pain of cognitive dissonance. They were not telling me not to talk because it was triggering THEIR PTSD. They were telling me not to talk because they didn’t want to deal with real life. So my concern is that we have very privileged college students setting the agenda of what we talk about and what we read about. A “hey, this has rape, its ok if you need to step out” was common educational practice before trigger warnings, and if that’s all that was happening from the movement to include trigger warnings, I’d be on board. But that’s not just what has happened, it has actually shaped syllabuses around the country and my feeling is that the minute books get banned, you become a fascist.

Since most of human history has involved rape, murder, genocide, and war, most literature and history would need a trigger warning. Can you study history and avoid trauma? Should the only people studying history be those without trauma? Should we be making that choice for other people? Who determines that? Who has the power to dictate what we read? Why do college students have that much control over the syllabuses of professors? Should they? It strikes me as a profound level of entitlement and privilege to assume that its ok to demand the right to shape the syllabuses of professors. My working class, PTSD having ass would never have assumed I had that right, so I’m trying to figure out how oppressed these college kids are if on the one hand they wanted nothing to do with my attempts to advocate for more mental health services for the poor, and on the other they are demanding (and succeeding in these demands) that professors exclude readings based on the personal preferences of the students in the classroom.

Since I taught real history, obviously my students encountered content that was challenging and probably deeply reminiscent of real oppression for most of them, on a regular basis. My students with anxiety and PTSD had never had such a sympathetic home. I created a space where we could address these feelings in a safe, academic environment that was full of love. When we talked about the victims of Japanese sexual violence, I, of course said to my students,

“This video will be difficult for some, and by that I mean at least 20 percent of women are sexually assaulted before the age of 18, which means this will be personal to several people, myself included, in the room. If you need to walk out, that’s ok. I ask the rest of you to respect this conversation.”

But this has been common educational practice for some time, so what UChicago and other university professors who are worried about the trigger warning situation is something else. It would be different if the trigger warning discussion hadn’t resulted in texts being removed or in the media being banned from public protests. Those are the tools of fascists. And here’s what I’ve learned about fascism, no matter how sympathetic the fascist is to my group of people, people like me do not survive fascist regimes.

Because we “make people uncomfortable.”

Advertisements

NO ONE “Does it all!” Alone

Uncategorized

“We might be mutually co-dependent”

“I believe we call that socialism.”

 

I spent a lot of time this weekend at a wedding mostly hanging out with powerful, smart accomplished women who spend a lot of their time caring for powerful, smart, accomplished dudes. Whether its remembering the sunscreen or ensuring promptness, these dudes, all of whom hold white-collar jobs and are successful members of society relied deeply on the women in their lives to make them functional. In the case of my husband, and I, this dependence runs two ways. Together we make one fully functioning adult. For any of my girlfriends in a healthy relationship, this is true for them as well.

 

I’m told this is supposed to be problematic for a feminist but I sort of think the whole “complete independence” thing is a lie we tell ourselves to justify a system that is exploiting our labor. No one lives in a vacuum. In a million ways we rely on each other, and in working class communities, we know this well. The jerk is the one who doesn’t get to borrow eggs for breakfast to feed their kids. At no point in my life have I ever felt I didn’t owe my position to the hard work of a lot of other people, even though my relationship with my family is horrible. There was still my friend’s mom driving me to the SATs and teachers teaching, and a whole alternative community around me that has supported me over the years. So I’m not really bothered by the idea that we are mutually co-dependent on each other, I think it’s what brings communities together and I think the idea that we can do it all alone is a sham.

 

This mythology really doesn’t serve to benefit anyone, except to provide an excuse as to why we don’t provide social services when people are in need. The feminists who promote this ideology are coming from a good place. Working class women know too well what a death trap marriage can literally be if you marry the wrong man, but there isn’t a working class woman alive who hasn’t relied on her other (mostly) female community members. We’ve made it such that women have come to feel guilty about needing help or asking for help, which is contrary to our very nature as a species.

 

The only human lone wolf story that is ever real is the one in which the wolf is dead at the end. The entirety of human civilization, indeed every advancement ever made, has relied on our ability to cooperate. Our entire species relies on the unique labor that women have historically provided to their families and communities and yet we act as though those who continue to provide that labor are somehow intellectually or morally inferior to the women who employ them. That’s not feminism, that’s just classism.

 

And it’s not good for upper class women either! So many of my higher income friends are struggling with issues that would normally be solved by a community of women around them. They are alone. Disconnected. Stressed. Burned out. Some of us do this for a period of time, but all of us end up crashing and burning at the end because it’s not sustainable to act as though we exist without the help of others.

 

So yes, I am dependent on my husband. And my friends. And my family. My husband is also dependent on me, and his friends and his family. We co-operate in a mutually beneficial way that allows us the freedom to be our best selves. We always know we will have help in our goals and are therefore free to take more risks. We take actions to support each other because the success of one partner is good for the others. This is the basis for strong relationships in general, even if marriage isn’t your thing. So it is fine if you work really hard and still need to call your mom for help. And its fine if your friends fill that role. And its fine if it’s your immediate family too. The point is that no one should be alone or feel alone, and that community is essential for our survival.

 

The idea that we have to “do it all” has not been used to liberate us, it has been used to keep us in a trap where we constantly run on a hamster wheel trying to achieve unattainable things. It confines us, restricts us, and divides women into camps that have no reason to exist. There’s always been working mothers and they are great, and stay at home moms are too, and we need childless women too, and shouldn’t we just let people do what fulfills them and makes them happy? They’ve covered up the bare reality for most women that don’t feel like they have much of a choice. Many stay at home moms are mom’s that realized that to work and get childcare, she’d have to give up her whole paycheck AND miss out on raising her kid. Many working moms are supporting their families wholly and don’t have the choice to stay at home. We’ve constrained all of these women and then told them it’s their fault if they fail to measure up. That’s not love, that’s not liberation.

 

Real love is liberation.