[expressions-of-nature]

by Valentina Kondrasyuk

[percysfoxblog]

[for3stlove]

The link between being a victim of abuse and an abuser is weaker than many people think, we need to stop clinging to the idea that “the abused becomes the abuser”. I see it especially in prison abolition/reform spaces where people are like “Well, perpetrators are victims too, they’ve been hurt” as if that is a blanket fact and it’s not. Plenty of abusers were never abused. That concept demonizes victims and makes up an excuse for abusers to exploit. It is a comforting idea I think to imagine abusers are just acting out their own pain, and for some individuals that is partially true, but abuse overwhelmingly is caused by systems of oppression and patriarchy not by individual traumas or mental illnesses. We need to dismantle the paradigm that causes abuse and violence to be so rampant.

Lundy Bancroft is a Counselor who spent decades treating both victims and perpetrators, and wrote the definitive text on Domestic Violence “Why Does He Do That?”. He has repeatedly stated that the common denominator in abusers’ childhoods is not abuse and trauma - but having a misogynistic male role model they looked up to. Their problem is in their value system. Most of them are mentally and emotionally stable overall in their lives, and improving their mental health usually doesn’t change their abusiveness. They view women and children as their property and they believe in their paradigm that what they are doing is justified and correct. “They don’t do anything they think is wrong” Lundy says. “He’s not abusive because he’s angry, he’s angry because he’s abusive.”

The overwhelming majority of incest cases are of either biological or non-biological fathers raping their female children, and most of those offenders are not pedophiles (in the clinical definition) and most were not molested as kids (though many do lie about that). They rape little girls because they see them as property and as an easily accessible sexual object. It often occurs after a separation or major life event. Men are not supposed to see themselves as caregivers of children under patriarchy, they’re supposed to see themselves as owners of women and by extension children. They’re taught to disconnect from any loving bond to a child as a human being that would enable empathy for them and prevent sexual or other abuse. They’re taught to not see female people, even children, as whole people outside of what they can give them sexually and otherwise so they tend to adultify girls.

This paradigm pushed by Abrahamic religions, by media, by Right-Wing politics (that are becoming increasingly insanely extremist), is what causes gendered violence to be as rampant as it is and we cannot continue to individualize the issue and blame it on personal traumas or mental illnesses. All that does is blame the victim in a more roundabout way, and avoid fighting the root of the problem. We are seeing an increase in violent, extremist misogynistic ideas in younger men from social media and political climate and this is what causes harm to women and children. These are the beliefs that create men who murder their wives and rape their daughters, and they are actively, intentionally being proliferated by billionaires and oligarchs and corporations especially Big Tech. Lundy Bancroft saw mostly men who had a man in their life as a boy who modeled misogyny and violence against women to them, now boys get those role models streamlined to them through their phones, under their parents noses, by an algorithm built by male billionaires. They don’t need to be abused to become domestic abusers or murderers, they just need to listen to a podcast.

[percysfoxblog]

[for3stlove]

It’s a very interesting and telling piece of projection when fascists call every other ideology “cancer” because what does cancer actually do, how does it kill people? They are using the comparison because the treatment for cancer is to kill it and they want to dehumanize dissenters and justify violence, but what is cancer’s actual ideology? Endless growth and lack of diversity. A cancer cell looks at every other cell in the human body that serves their purposes and keep the body alive and goes “I don’t understand why all these cells don’t look like me, there needs to be more of me, only me” and replicates itself destroying everything else until there isn’t enough diversity to sustain life. Cancer is endless growth of one thing forever at the expense of everything else. Cancer never decides it’s big enough and stops growing, just like the ultrawealthy will never feel big enough and stop growing themselves. Cancer sucks the nutrients from the body, starves and dehydrates the person to death slowly, to feed itself for no purpose but the sake of growth. The billionaires can become trillionaires and they keep funneling resources to themselves to grow more while the rest of us slowly starve, slowly lose our water supply, our ability to breathe, everything for them to grow more.

Cancer doesn’t destroy the body by caring about even distribution of resources and diversity. It doesn’t destroy the body by having compassion for other cells. It destroys the body by caring only about itself and growing only itself at the expense of everything else. That is fascism. Fascism is literally the ideology of a cancer cell. Endless growth and lack of diversity.

[luulapants]

We talk about prison "abolition" and not prison "reform" not because we believe it's possible to create a system where no incarceration is necessary. We say "abolition" because we want to create systems that allow the establishment of a new reparative justice structure, which uses incarceration as little as possible, and which is not a reform of the current incarceration structure, which does not repair or do justice. We do not believe the current structure can be reformed.

Reforming our current incarceration system into a justice system would be like reforming a dog fighting structure into a dog training structure. (And before anyone accuses me of comparing people in prison to dogs - no, I'm not, but I am saying that people who run prisons treat people like dogs.) Dog fighting structures were never designed to train dogs. The people that run them aren't qualified to train dogs for anything but violence (and are incentivized to continue training violence). The incarceration system creates violence and antisocial behavior. It is incentivized to continue doing so. It was never meant to repair social harm.

Prison abolition means, piece by piece, cutting off the supply of bodies to the incarceration structure.

When drug users get medical care instead of being criminalized, prisons are no longer needed to house drug users. When the mentally ill are given medical care instead of being criminalized, prisons are no longer needed to house the mentally ill. When homeless people are given housing instead of being criminalized, prisons are no longer needed to house the homeless. When impoverished people are given welfare and food benefits instead of being criminalized, prisons are no longer needed to house the poor. When youth are given opportunities outside of gangs, prisons have fewer gang members to house. We shrink the system, and we keep shrinking it. Next we create systems to reduce the population of domestic abusers. Next we tackle sexual assault. Every time it shrinks, we look at the remaining population and figure out what population we can tackle next.

That's how prison abolition works.

[lazer-exe]

I'm gonna say it, I do think that even the laziest person imaginable should have a roof over their head, food in their stomach, and access to healthcare

[prometheus-rewound]

I’ll go one step further— I think that even ‘criminals’, dangerous people, and objectively ‘bad’ proper should have a roof over their head, food in their stomach, and access to healthcare. These things should not be based on how morally correct the individual is. It should be a given.

If the government is allowed to to qualify what makes a person deserving of a good life they can make any group deemed “undeserving”.

[for3stlove]

“Manipulative” is often used to demonize a marginalized group for having agency. Manipulate means “control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously” but what is fair and unfair? Who has a right to control and influence and who doesn’t? Misogynists who believe they have an innate right to control everything about others obsess over how women supposedly “manipulate” men and deserve violence for it, but what they reference is women having their own wants and needs and trying to obtain them. It’s women wanting any reciprocity in a relationship instead of simply providing for them endlessly without complaint. It’s women objecting and expressing hurt. It’s women having expertise and authority they don’t.

We see this a lot with children too, and people are quick to say “No, children can’t manipulate you” which is the wrong argument because they can but they don’t deserve your anger for that. Children are completely powerless to obtain any of their wants and needs without an adult, the fact they learn behavior to try to actively get what they want and need from adults is a normal human function they are unfairly demonized for because they aren’t seen as people who are allowed to want and need anything that someone else doesn’t decide for them.

If people see you as not having the right to exist, to take up space, to exert an individual will in the world around you then they will see anything you do as “manipulative”, as unfair because “fair” to them is you existing only as an object for them, as a direct attack on their paradigm and ego that relies on dehumanizing you.

[squishsquishy]

>> keiji_okinawalove Tiger Blep!

[expressions-of-nature]

In the Land of Lupines by Marina Murashova

[expressions-of-nature]

by monoloium

[for3stlove]

The best domestic violence prevention strategy is never date a cop. No matter how great he seems or how you feel about him, he is not worth your life. Not only is he statistically more likely to be an abuser but if he is an abuser, you are even more screwed than a woman whose abuser is not a cop. Abusive cops can and do use their power (which now includes mass survelliance tools that can fabricate evidence) to stalk you, to DARVO and weaponize state violence against you claiming you’re the aggressor “attacking a cop” if you defend yourself, to stop themselves from being prosecuted because cops decide what they want to investigate and not and they protect each other, etc.

[expressions-of-nature]

by Vladimir Ryabkov

[for3stlove]

Americans, this is truly important and you can help. It doesn’t matter if this administration “cares”, your personal comments can strengthen lawsuits if they pass this rule despite strong feedback. Do you or a loved one have a medical diagnosis that needs further research and treatment options? Are you concerned about how climate change and associated environmental issues will impact you or your children without scientific innovation and solutions? Do you want evidence-based solutions to social issues like homelessness, violence, crime, etc? Then you need to submit a comment opposing the proposed Project 2025 Federal Grantmaking rule change that would take power from scientists and peer-review into political hands, every bit of scientific research that didn’t fit what Far-Right Conservatives want to pretend to be true. They can deny grants if they don’t like the topic, they can withdraw approval if the results and evidence don’t support want they want it to. Science must be objective or it is worthless, and the whole world depends on American scientific infrastructure.

It doesn’t have to be a long comment. As long as it’s personal and says why you care about science and how it impacts you, it’s helpful. We have 14 days. (Most personal information is also not required, you can just give an email and a general location even just a state).

https://www.regulations.gov/document/OMB-2026-0034-0001/comment

[for3stlove]

Time is almost out, please leave a comment that’s all you have to do.

[for3stlove]

“Don’t make Domestic Violence and Abuse political, just be a safe space for all victims”. First of all, comfort and safety aren’t the same things. I will fight to keep you safe from violence, not to leave your harmful beliefs unchallenged. Women who are actively voting to harm other women and themselves feeling comfortable never taking accountability for that isn’t my priority - victims’ material safety and human rights come first always.

Second of all, we’re literally talking about laws that directly harm women and children in abusive relationships or households. That is not political, it is politics. You vote for who makes the laws - that is what politics fucking is. Do you think politics is just yelling at people online and cheering for “your team” with no actual consequences? Probably you do if you keep voting Republican or not voting at all because anyone who understands reality and consequences wouldn’t be that fucking stupid.

At-Fault Divorce traps women in abusive relationships because they can’t leave without “proving” abuse to a patriarchal legal system stacked against them and even if they can “prove” it, being forced to go through extra legal hoops puts women in prolonged danger and contact with their abuser. Abortion Bans allow abusers to trap women in abusive relationships and weaponize State Violence against them if they try to leave, murder is the #1 cause of death for pregnant people and abusers often show their true colors the moment you’re married, pregnant, or sick because they’re predators and see you as trapped. Actively dismantling Domestic Violence resources and research that took decades to build-up because it’s “DEI” harms victims.

If you vote Republican or you don’t bother to vote, you are harming women and victims and a “safe space” doesn’t allow harm.

[freelanderadventures]

peace

Follow me on Instagram for more

[daily-big-cat]

Daily Big Cat