Ultimately, I think the framework of the Abuser/Victim is one that is at best harmful to what it claims to do.
I am not saying abuse doesn't happen. I am not saying we shouldn't fight against harmful elements. However, the construction of this specific framework used to understand harm, as an ontologically Evil Abuser abusing the Good Innocent Victim, is one that can only be harmful. Let me explain.
There is no such thing as an Abuser. That is to say, people are not abusers. They are people who do abuse. Abuse (and all harm) is not a quality of a person, but rather something someone does. In the same way, there are no Victims, in the sense that victimhood is not a quality of a person, but rather a description of a situation. Therefore, framing it as kinds of people obfuscate the quality of harm that abuse occupies.
Additionally, this framework, because it uses these two neat boxes of classification, necessarily simplifies any situation. This means that, importantly, it often invisibilizes the harm done. Indeed, by focusing on abuser/victim as qualities of people, this framework inherently defavorizes discussion of the harm done. In this, it moves focus away from the action, and the harm, and therefore cannot serve to help the victim.
The existence itself of the framework is harmful in this way, in fact, as all discussions of harm done by someone risk being painted by a third party as an abuser.
This is something I have seen in my own life, where a friend talking about the way another friend hurt her (without claiming she was evil, or even that she hurt her on purpose) got that second friend painted as an abuser, and socially exiled (something that the person she hurt did not want to happen).
This framework fails to create any useful accounting and correcting of harm, as "abuser" is too vague a box, and no two situations require the same solution. Therefore, any harm within this framework has the same solution: Scorched earth, social exile. An Abuser is something to be killed, to be hurt, to remove from the world to protect the Victims.
In this, it reinforces abuse as a kind of person, and not an action. This view is wholly hurtful, once again, as the action is the actual concern in situations of abuse.
Worse even, Abuser as a trait of a person makes it harder, if not impossible to escape that classification. While harm is something that can be stopped, an Abuser is something that you Are, and can never stop being. This means Abusers are not allowed to be anything but Abusers.
In the same way, Victimhood, as it is constructed, removes agency from the victim in favor of punishing the abuser. The victim's opinions, are then ignored, or painted as "trauma bonding", therefore moving focus away from said victim, and from preventing actual harm, in favor of hurting someone who Deserves it.
This makes it terribly easy to weaponize this framework against minorities, crucially (not that any other framework would be free of that problem, but instead, it is that this specific framework is especially primed to allow this). The abuser as a kind of person is something that is easy to cast, that withdraws personhood, and remove focus on the actual actions. In this, it is tailor made to hurt opressed groups.
It is a form of punitive justice in this, not very different from the framework of carceral justice, and christian thought of justice as Punishment. It is our responsibility to understand this, and refrain from using such a framework.