In 2008, during my time as a writer for the blog Feministe, we began receiving requests from commenters for trigger warnings on posts discussing distressing topics, particularly sexual assault. As a feminist writer, I understood that violence is unfortunately a central theme in our writing. Events like rape, domestic violence, racist violence, and misogyny profoundly impact women’s lives, whether directly experienced or through the adjustments we make out of fear.
Initially, I believed that trigger warnings were necessary to convey the seriousness of the topics we were discussing. However, I also felt a sense of resistance to the increasing demands for more warnings, especially when the headline already addressed the topic. But as warnings became the norm in feminist spaces online, adding a simple four-word warning at the top of a post, such as “Trigger Warning: Sexual Assault,” felt like a small accommodation for the well-being of our community. We believed we were making a positive difference. It wasn’t until later that I realized we might have unintentionally contributed to the problem.
The use of trigger warnings quickly spread from feminist websites to college campuses and progressive groups. Often, the focus seemed to be more on emphasizing the distressing nature of certain topics rather than providing support for those who had experienced trauma. By 2013, trigger warnings had become so widespread and controversial that Slate declared it “The Year of the Trigger Warning.”
The issue only grew more complex from there. Around 2016, Richard Friedman, who managed the student mental-health program at Cornell for 22 years, noticed a significant increase in the number of students seeking help each year by 10 to 15 percent. He observed a change in how young people were affected by upsetting events. There seemed to be a heightened sensitivity to unfamiliar and uncomfortable situations, with language being inflated relative to the actual harm done. Students began expressing distress over comments made by lecturers or teachers whose beliefs challenged their own.
While this shift represented progress in terms of reducing the stigma around mental illness and seeking help, Friedman also worried that students were viewing themselves as fragile and in need of protection from offensive or challenging information. They were suggesting that exposure to such material could cause harm, and therefore, the institution owed them protection from distress.
Trigger warnings were just one part of a larger transformation. Complaints about toxic workplaces and problematic colleagues arose within the broader culture. Students expressed concern over the “potential trauma” caused by ideas and objected to certain speakers and works of art.
Ironically, my own doubts about trigger warnings emerged as I delved into reporting on trauma. Through interviews with women globally about the worst human atrocities, I began to notice a concerning gap between the understanding of trauma and resilience among researchers and how these concepts were being wielded in progressive institutions. I started questioning my own role in it all.
Feminist writers were striving to create a gentler online space while acknowledging the distressing experiences common to women that had long been overshadowed. In some ways, these efforts were successful. However, with the decline in mental health among adolescent girls and college students, as well as the repeated debates over power and language within activist organizations, including feminist ones, we must ask ourselves if our focus on individual hurt and victimization has unintentionally left a generation ill-equipped to handle hardship and transform adversity into agency.
The mental health of teenagers has seen a significant decline since my time as a feminist blogger. From 2007 to 2019, the suicide rate among children aged 10 to 14 tripled, almost quadrupling for girls within that age group. A CDC report from 2021 revealed that 57 percent of female high school students reported persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, an increase from 36 percent in 2011. Although the pandemic has undoubtedly contributed to this decline, the downward trend began before COVID.
Teenage girls continue to face high rates of sexual violence, bullying, and concerns for their physical safety at school. However, the decline in mental health cannot be solely attributed to worsening material conditions. The CDC study indicates that bullying among high schoolers has actually decreased in some aspects over the past decade. Today’s teens are also less likely to engage in substance abuse compared to a decade ago. Additionally, the child poverty rate has declined significantly since 2012. Graduation rates have risen, particularly among girls.
So, what has changed for the worse for teenage girls since around 2010? One significant shift has been a decline in in-person social interaction among teenagers, with a decrease of 11 hours a week, which started before the pandemic but was exacerbated by it. The proportion of teens with smartphones has increased by 22 percent since 2014, and the number of teens who use the internet “almost constantly” has doubled. This change has created a social media ecosystem that allows teenagers to live within a bubble of like-minded peers and amplifies the voices of those who are the most aggrieved. This insularity can lead teens to perceive distressing experiences as traumatic.
Applying the language of trauma to an event changes our perception of it. This can be positive, helping individuals confront life-altering moments and seek healing and support. However, it can also intensify feelings of helplessness and hopelessness, overshadowing our sense of competence and control.
In the field of mental health, there is a saying: “Perception is reality.” If someone firmly believes that something was traumatizing, it becomes their reality, and there will likely be mental health consequences. Resilience researcher Martin Seligman conducted a study on the U.S. Army and found that soldiers with a predisposition to catastrophizing were more than three times as likely to develop PTSD when exposed to severe combat. This risk remained consistent across various levels of combat intensity.
In conclusion, trigger warnings and the broader shift towards emphasizing individual hurt and victimization have raised concerns about whether we are equipping younger generations with the tools to navigate hardship and transform adversity into resilience. The decline in mental health among teenagers and increased sensitivity to discomfort and unfamiliarity require a nuanced approach that balances the need for support with the promotion of resilience.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
