The last line of the response
in question could be interpreted
in several ways. One interpretation
I agree with; one I take emphatic
issue with. I don't know how the
response was meant, so here's
what I have to say, to both possibilities:

One interpretation is that
the (new) D.S. member was
damaged by not having already
left the abuse behind and
that the responder hoped that
she gets out before the children
are damaged by the abuse,
as well. I hope that's what
the responder meant to express.

(I've already openly expressed
my perspective that living
under the roof of abuse
is detrimental to all
living things, especially
vulnerable children, so
I agree with that observation,
if that was your basic statement.)

I hope it was not the responder's
intent to suggest that the poster
is messing up her children
by staying.

Because:
the primary damage to children
living in an abusive home
is perpetrated by the abuser
and his or her abuse.

For the purposes of recovery
and getting herself and her
children away from the abuse,
it doesn't serve to support and
motivate her, by even remotely
suggesting that the blame is on
the target of the abuse, for the
damage done to those who
are also around.

I bring this up because as
both a survivor and a clinician,
I feel it's an extremely important point.

I'm aware that my expressions
in this forum can be tough, as well.
I seldom sugar-coat what I have to
say, especially, if I perceive a
dangerous situation (which I
do, in the thread in question).

At the start and end of the day,
this is a forum to which victims
and survivors visit for support.
I do that in the best way I can
and hope others will, as well.

So, to feel that I've articulated
this well enough, I'll end by
saying I hope the responder
was urging the auther of the
thread, to get to safety before
her children are hurt by the abuser,
as well.

I also want to emphasize that
the damage, injury and trauma
suffered when living within an
abusive household, must be laid,
first, at the feet of the perpetrator
of the abuse. The victim who
is the target of the abuse is NOT
responsible for the damage,
injury and trauma suffered by
her- (or him-) self, and by those
who also live in the household.

The inability of the target to
immediately and effectively
remove her or himself, may
contribute to damage suffered.
But the inability of the target
to get out is generally a result
of previous emotional injury,
inflicted at a prior time. To
hold the target responsible
for the collateral damage
does not support the
delicate beginning of
the healing process, and
facilitate it to continue and
gain enough momentum to
proceed further.

My own father was a victim
of my mother's abuse, as
were the rest of us in the
household. Both my parents
are long gone. I certainly wish
my father had been able to
protect me, but he could not.
He had suffered horrible abuse
as a child, himself, and was
simply too emotionally injured
to do more than he did. Though
he did not/could not protect me
from abuse, he taught me how
to love. For this, I owe him more
than I can ever express.

I don't know if the meanning
of that line was to suggest
that the target of the abuse
was responsible for damaging
her children if she chooses to
stay or is not able to leave.
Obviously, I hope it wasn't.

I just wanted to underline
that blaming the victim doesn't
support movement in the
direction of healing and
recovery.