I think we’re talking past each other because we’re using the same words to mean different things.
When I say ‘perpetrators target women who have already been harmed’, I’m describing a behaviour of abusive men - not a flaw or deficit within the woman. A perpetrator’s choice to target someone is not the same thing as a victim’s vulnerability. Those are two different phenomena, even if they interact.
I’m absolutely not arguing against supporting women, building confidence, or helping people understand abuse. Those things matter. But they don’t change the core fact that the responsibility for abuse always lies with the perpetrator, and that repeated victimisation is driven far more by perpetrator behaviour and structural conditions than by anything inside the victim.
Where we differ is you are framing repeated abuse as a pattern within the woman that needs to be ‘addressed’ but I’m framing it as a pattern within perpetrators and within the social conditions that make some women easier to isolate, discredit, or trap.
Those are not ‘the same thing’.
A woman can be educated, resilient, confident, trauma informed and still be targeted by an abusive man who is skilled at concealment, charm, and manipulation. Supporting her is essential - but it does not prevent a perpetrator from choosing to be abusive.
So yes, we absolutely should help women understand warning signs, recover from trauma, and rebuild their lives but we should do that without implying that their personal vulnerabilities caused the abuse or explain why it happened more than once.
That’s the distinction I’m protecting. It’s not dogmatic - it’s trauma informed, evidence based, and survivor centred.