Power Archives - WESurviveAbuse

🚫 Some of the Most Empowering Movements Still Require Women’s Submission

Tonya GJ Prince — Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:20:04 +0000

Photo by Land O’Lakes, Inc./Unsplash.com

updated from June 9, 2025

Control doesn’t always disappear. Sometimes it evolves its language and waits for you to mistake it for freedom.

Let’s talk about something that doesn’t get said enough:

Just because you’re in a space that calls itself “progressive”
or “radical,” or “revolutionary…”

doesn’t mean you aren’t still being conditioned to be meek, agreeable, and submissive.

Some women believe they’ve escaped obedience because they’re no longer in church, or no longer listening to their elders, or no longer subscribing to traditional roles.

But the truth is:

You can be in a feminist/activist space and still silence yourself for male approval.
You can be in a social justice movement and still be discouraged from setting boundaries with men.
You can be applauded for your “power” while being quietly expected to defer, submit, and not disrupt the order of things.

In these spaces, if a woman resists, questions, or draws a firm boundary…
she may still be labeled.

“Difficult.”
“Divisive.”
“Unsafe.”
“Not aligned.”

Control in older systems was loud.
Clear rules. Clear punishments. Clear roles.

Control in newer spaces can feel… kinder on the surface.
But it often moves through social pressure instead of authority.

No one says “be small.”

But watch what happens when a woman is not.

Examples:

♦Boundaries get reframed as harm

A woman says,
“I’m not comfortable with this.”

And instead of that being the end of it,
the conversation turns into:

“Why are you uncomfortable?”

“Can you unpack that?”

“Have you examined your bias?”

Now she’s defending her instinct.

She’s no longer protected.
She’s on trial.

♦Language becomes a leash

Certain words become required.
Certain phrases become signals of belonging.

And if she speaks plainly, directly, or in her own cultural voice…

She may be corrected.
Not for harm.
But for tone.

That’s conditioning.

Because now she’s translating herself to be acceptable.

♦Protection gets mistaken for oppression

This is one of the most important shifts.

When women say:

“I want privacy”

“I want sex-based boundaries”

“I want spaces where I can exhale”

Those needs can get reframed as:

exclusion
intolerance
backward thinking

So now safety itself has to be justified.

And that’s a dangerous place for any woman to be.

What makes this hard is that some of these spaces do offer growth, language, empowerment, and insight.

So it’s not about dismissing everything.

It’s about being able to discern the difference between expansion and conditioning.

🔍 Ask yourself:

Do I feel safer when I go along with the loudest voices in the room?
Am I still praised when I question the men in this space—or only when I support them?
Have I traded one kind of submission for another, just dressed in different language?
Do I feel pressure to be agreeable even when something feels off?

Being part of a movement doesn’t automatically make you empowered.
Your freedom is not proven by your affiliations.
It’s proven by your ability to speak the truth, make choices, and question power—even when it’s unpopular.

The real test of any space isn’t what it calls itself.
It’s how it responds when a woman says:

No
That doesn’t feel right to me
I don’t agree
I’m protecting myself

If her voice is respected (even when others don’t agree), even when it disrupts comfort…
that space is doing something real.

If her voice is managed, softened, corrected, or punished…
then the conditioning never actually left. It just learned new words.

🌀 Survivor Affirmation:
“She left the cage.
But the silence still followed her.
Until one day she turned around and said—
No more.”

📣 Belonging should never cost your voice.
Solidarity should never require submission.
And no movement is truly liberating if it punishes women for standing up, speaking out, or stepping away.

💬 Affirmations: I Belong to My Voice, Not Their Approval

I do not need to perform submission to be accepted.
I can be part of something bigger without disappearing inside it.
My questions are not a threat—they are a sign of my awakening.
Agreement is not the price of belonging.
If my voice must be silenced to keep peace, then it is not peace—it is performance.
I release the fear of being called difficult for standing in truth.
My loyalty is not to a movement—it is to my wholeness.
I am allowed to speak even when it disrupts comfort.
I do not owe anyone quiet compliance for the sake of unity.
I walk in alignment with truth, not trends, titles, or approval.

The post 🚫 Some of the Most Empowering Movements Still Require Women’s Submission appeared first on WESurviveAbuse.

When Did Women Lose the Right to Define “Female”? A Question Worth Sitting With

Tonya GJ Prince — Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:01:19 +0000

When did women lose the ability to define “female” based on sex—and who made that call? Name them.

In nearly every community, there are and always have been questions around:

Who gets to represent a people
What counts as “proof” of identity
Who institutions choose to believe—and why

And underneath that:

Communities that have been erased are now guarding the door.
Institutions that once ignored them are now trying to catch up—sometimes clumsily.

That tension is not going away.

There are moments when a word enters public conversation and exposes something deeper than the word itself.

It doesn’t just point to a person.
It points to a boundary.

And once you see the boundary, the real question emerges:

Who is allowed to draw a line around who they are?
And who is expected to leave the door open?

Some communities are understood when they say,
“This is ours. This belongs to us. This is not for everyone.”

Others are questioned, challenged, slurred, threatened, harmed, and punished for doing the same.

So instead of rushing to conclusions, let’s sit in the questions.

Questions About Identity and Protection
When a community says, “You must belong to us to speak for us,” why does that feel reasonable in some cases—and restrictive in others?

Who taught us which groups are “allowed” to protect their identity—and which groups are expected to be open, flexible, or undefined?

When identity has been stolen, erased, or exploited, what does protection look like?

What happens to a people when anyone can claim their identity without relationship, accountability, or shared history?

Questions About Power and Access
What opportunities become available when someone claims a specific identity?

Who is most affected when that identity is claimed inaccurately?

Are institutions more comfortable verifying identity in some communities than others? Why?

When identity opens doors, who decides who has the right key?

Questions About Survival
If a group has experienced generations of erasure, is protecting identity an act of survival?

What does it cost a community to constantly explain, prove, or defend who they are?

Who benefits when identity boundaries are blurred or dismissed?

Who is harmed when those boundaries are ignored?

Is it possible that what some call “gatekeeping” is actually a form of cultural self-defense?

Questions About Double Standards
Why are some communities respected for preserving lineage, language, and belonging—while others are told they are being divisive?

When marginalized groups protect their identity, why are they sometimes labeled as “rigid” or “exclusive”?

Who gets to define what counts as “real” identity—and based on what standard?

Are we consistent in how we respond to identity claims across different cultures and histories?

When did women lose the ability to define “female” based on sex—and who made that call?

Questions Worth Sitting With for Women

Why are so many of these cases tied to authority roles
(professors, authors, cultural leaders)?
What happens when identity becomes a pathway to credibility or access?
Why are communities often the ones doing the investigative labor—not institutions?
And the harder one:
Why do some people feel drawn to claim identities that are not theirs? Who enables this?

Questions About Permission…….As a female human being

When did you first learn that speaking about your own body (especially around pain, discomfort, and unease) might upset someone else?

Questions About Safety and the Body
- What has your body experienced that shaped how you understand being female?
- Have there been moments when being a woman affected your safety, your choices, or your freedom?
- When you think about protecting yourself, what realities come to mind first?
- If your body could speak without interruption, what would it say about what it needs?
Questions About Silencing
- Have you ever been told—directly or indirectly—that speaking about women’s experiences is “too much,” “unnecessary,” “disturbing,” “insulting,” “nasty,” or “divisive”?
- What did you do in that moment—did you speak, or did you quiet yourself?
- What did it cost you to stay quiet?
- Who benefited from your silence? When you feel up to it, list everyone.
Questions About Boundaries
- Do you believe you have the right to define your own boundaries?
- What feels harder:
  saying what you need, or holding the line once you’ve said it?
- Where in your life have you made yourself smaller to keep the peace?
- What would change if you no longer felt responsible for managing other people’s reactions?
Questions About Double Standards
- Have you noticed that some groups are encouraged to protect their identity—while women are often asked to be accommodating?
- What messages have you received about being “kind,” “inclusive,” or “easygoing”?
- Have those messages ever conflicted with your sense of safety or truth?
- Who decides when your boundaries are acceptable—and when they are not?
Questions About Worth
- Do you believe your experiences as a woman are valid—even when others don’t understand them?
- What would it mean to take your own reality seriously?
- If you trusted yourself fully, what would you no longer tolerate?
- What would you protect—without apology?
- When women name what they see and experience, are they trusted—or corrected?
- In what situations are women expected to override their own perception of reality?
- What does it do to a person over time when they are told their understanding of their own category is “wrong” or “outdated”?
Questions That Gently Shift Ground
- What is the difference between excluding others—and including yourself?
Questions About Authority
- Who has the authority to define “female” in law, policy, and culture?
- Was that authority ever clearly held by women—or was it always mediated through institutions?
- When definitions change, who is in the room making those decisions?
  And who is not?
- Are these changes coming from democratic processes, professional bodies, or internal policy shifts that most people never see?
Questions About Impact
- What happens when women feel they cannot speak plainly about their own experiences?
- Does redefining terms increase clarity—or does it create confusion in areas like safety, data, and care?
- Who is expected to carry the emotional and social cost of that confusion?
Questions About Timing
- Can you point to specific moments—laws, policies, court decisions—where definitions around being female and womanhood began to shift?
- Did this change happen suddenly, or through a series of small adjustments that few people tracked in real time?
- When did everyday language begin to diverge from medical or legal language?
- At what point did disagreement about the meaning of “female” become socially risky to express?
Questions About Language
- What happens to a category when its definition becomes unclear or contested?
- Can a word hold two meanings at once without creating confusion in practice?
- Who benefits when language becomes flexible—and who struggles when it does?
- When people say “female,” are they always talking about the same thing?
Questions About Boundaries
- What is the purpose of defining “female” in the first place—classification, protection, data, identity, something else?
- What happens to sex-based boundaries when definitions shift?
- Are there spaces where clarity about sex still matters?
  If so, who decides where those spaces begin and end?
- What is the difference between expanding recognition and dissolving categories?
Questions About Impact
- How do these shifts affect women’s safety, privacy, and participation in different areas of life?
- Are some groups of women more impacted than others?
- Who is asked to adapt the most when definitions change?
- What happens when women raise concerns—how are those concerns received?
Questions About Consistency
- Are all identity categories treated with the same flexibility—or only some?
- Where do we see firm boundaries still being respected? Why there?
- What makes one group’s self-definition protected, while another’s is negotiable?
Questions That Cut Deeper
- Is it possible that women were never fully allowed to define themselves—and that this moment is revealing that more clearly?
- What does it mean to “lose” something that may not have been fully recognized to begin with?
- If women were to define “female” collectively, what principles would guide that definition?
- What would it look like for women to participate directly in shaping these definitions now?
A Grounding Question
- If the definition of “female” shapes law, safety, medicine, and lived experience…
  who should be responsible for defining it—and how should that responsibility be shared?

Questions That Stay With You
What does it mean to belong to a people?

What is the difference between connection and claim?

And perhaps the quiet question underneath it all:
What would you protect, if losing it meant losing yourself?

Some questions are not meant to be answered quickly.
They are meant to be carried.

Because identity is not just about who we say we are.
It is about who we are in relationship with—and who we are accountable to.

And for many people, protecting that is not optional.

It’s survival.

This isn’t about whether women can recognize who we are.
It’s about whether we are allowed to say it—and be heard.

The post When Did Women Lose the Right to Define “Female”? A Question Worth Sitting With appeared first on WESurviveAbuse.

They Loved Ms. Foxy Just Fine -Until She Spoke Truth (podcast episode)

Tonya GJ Prince — Sat, 28 Mar 2026 16:55:18 +0000

https://wesurviveabuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Oh-They-Loved-Ms-Foxy-Until-She-Spoke-the-Truth.mp3

From WE Survive Abuse Podcast

They will celebrate you as long as you are palatable.
As long as your strength entertains them.
As long as your truth doesn’t disrupt anything.

But the moment you speak plainly, the room will shift.

This is not new.
This is how the world responds when women stop performing and start telling the truth.

This is a short story about Pam Grier and millions of women before and after her. Not everyone can handle the truth.

Some of us are forced to, though.

The post They Loved Ms. Foxy Just Fine -Until She Spoke Truth (podcast episode) appeared first on WESurviveAbuse.

Black Truth-Telling on Violence Was Never the Problem

Tonya GJ Prince — Fri, 27 Mar 2026 07:36:27 +0000

“I’ve never seen or heard of anything like this!”

Black people have been telling the truth about violence for a long time.

Not for attention.
Not for spectacle.
Not to be labeled.

But so that more people could live peaceful, joyful, violence-free lives.

That was the intention.
And still is.

The Record Was Never Hidden
Long before hashtags.
Long before public debates.
Long before people argued over what words to use—

the stories were already here.

Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl — a young girl naming sexual coercion by a man in power.

Roots — families torn apart, women exploited, power operating in the open.

Cane River — generations shaped by unequal power, quietly documented and traced through bloodlines.

The Color Purple — abuse inside the home, normalized and endured.

The Bluest Eye — a harmed child, and a community that could not protect her.

Corregidora — memory preserved when systems erased evidence.

Lena Baker Story

The Women of Brewster Place

The Josephine Baker Story

The Dorothy Dandridge Story

The Rosa Parks Story

A Raisin in the Sun

For Colored Girls — layered violence that many recognized immediately.

I May Destroy You — modern language for harm that has always existed.

Surviving R. Kelly — Survivors speaking for years before power was challenged.

Central Park Five

Selma

The Rosa Parks Story

Sinners

Get Out

Do the Right Thing

Candyman

The Jeffersons, Sanford and Son, Good Times..….

Foundational Black Feminist Works on Violence & Power

Ain’t I a Woman? Black Women and Feminism
Connects slavery-era sexual exploitation to modern systems of harm against Black women.
Sisters in the Wilderness
Uses the story of Hagar to explore sexual exploitation, survival, and spiritual meaning.

Violence Against Black Women (Direct Focus)

Arrested Justice: Black Women, Violence, and America’s Prison Nation
Shows how systems criminalize Black women while failing to protect them from violence.
Compelled to Crime
Examines how abuse and coercion push women into criminalized situations.
Invisible No More: Police Violence Against Black Women and Women of Color
Documents state violence and lack of accountability.
At the Dark End of the Street
Shows how sexual violence against Black women shaped the Civil Rights Movement.

Structural & Systemic Analysis

Killing the Black Body
Examines control over Black women’s reproduction and bodily autonomy.
Medical Apartheid
Documents medical exploitation and experimentation on Black bodies.
Fearing the Black Body
Traces how anti-Blackness shapes standards, control, and harm.

How many songs and lyrics…….

Across all of these works, you see a consistent throughline:

Violence is not random
Power protects itself
Systems often fail—or punish—the harmed
Black women document anyway

And Then Came the Pushback

Not just new either.

When the truth is told, the response often sounds like this:

“They’re doing too much.”
“This is trauma porn.”
“They’re playing the race card.”
“That’s victim mentality.”
“This is just woke.”

Different words.
Same function.

To make the truth easier to ignore.

This Pattern Is Not Unique
This is where the understanding deepens.

Because this doesn’t just happen to Black storytellers.

This happens to victims of violence—everywhere.

They are questioned.
Their tone is policed.
Their experiences are minimized.
Their credibility is challenged.

Before protection ever arrives.

And Still—The Stories Were Told
Black people did not wait for approval.

They wrote it.
They filmed it.
They spoke it.
They passed it down.

So that someone, somewhere, could recognize:

This is not normal.
This is not acceptable.
This has a pattern.

The goal was to make violence visible—so it could be stopped.

And because those records exist,
we are not starting from zero.

We are starting from truth that was already given.

People talk about this daily online. Are you listening? Are you avoiding the issues? Are you avoiding the truth?

The question now is simple:

Will we all listen—
or will we keep renaming the truth until it feels easier to dismiss?

“I’ve never seen or heard of anything like this!” Haven’t you? Are you ready to listen now?

The post Black Truth-Telling on Violence Was Never the Problem appeared first on WESurviveAbuse.

How We Stack Burdens on Women and Girls: “Can We” Is Not the Same as “Should We”

Tonya GJ Prince — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 13:19:24 +0000

There is a question people ask often.

“Can we?”

Can we do this.
Can we allow that.
Can we push this boundary further.

It sounds reasonable.
It sounds neutral.

But it isn’t.

Because “can we” is about permission.
It’s about what is technically allowed.

And too often, it skips over something far more important.

The Question We Keep Avoiding

Not can we.

Should we.

Should we move forward with something
that increases risk for women and girls?

Should we normalize ideas
that make it harder for women to name harm clearly?

Should we keep expanding boundaries
without stopping to ask who absorbs the impact?

Because Someone Always Pays

Decisions are not abstract.

They land somewhere.

And more often than not,
they land on the bodies, safety, and lives of women and girls.

The girl who is told to ignore what feels wrong
The woman who is expected to “be understanding”
The one who is asked to carry discomfort quietly
so others don’t have to feel challenged

This is not new.

What’s new is how often it’s dressed up
as progress.

Ability Is Not Responsibility

Just because something can be done
does not mean it should be done.

Just because something is possible
does not mean it is safe.

And just because a line can be crossed
does not mean women and girls should be the ones
expected to live with what happens next.

A Grounded Standard

Before any change moves forward,
there is a question that deserves to be asked—clearly, without rushing past it:

Who benefits?
Who is placed at risk?
Who is expected to adjust, endure, or stay quiet?

If the answer continues to be women and girls,
then the conversation is not complete.

A Survivor-Centered Truth

Women and girls are not the testing ground
for ideas that have not been fully considered.

We are not the margin of error.
We are not the silent cost.

Affirmations

I am allowed to question what is being asked of me.

I do not accept harm simply because it has been normalized.

My safety is not negotiable.

I am not here to absorb the consequences of decisions I did not make.

The question was never just “can we.”

The question is—and has always been—
“who pays for it if we do?”

— WeSurviveAbuse.com | Survivor Affirmations | Tonya GJ Prince

Retired police chief says Layton officer was ‘over invasive’

The post How We Stack Burdens on Women and Girls: “Can We” Is Not the Same as “Should We” appeared first on WESurviveAbuse.

If Your Argument Needs Blackface, It’s Already Weak and Shifty

Tonya GJ Prince — Sun, 22 Mar 2026 06:05:59 +0000

You can’t force moral concern by disrespecting another group.
That contradiction collapses your message.

This use of blackface (actually carrying it out by smearing yourself. Not debating, as we all do. Actually mocking & dehumanizing Black people in an attempt to demonstrate that mocking & dehumanizing people is wrong?) to make a point about boundaries…..I Am People! I am a person.

is tired, foolish, and immature.

It is a disgraceful, childish spectacle.

We have all seen children make their points using better tactics.

Black women have not been silent about it, and yet...

Anytime a boundary is set…
anytime someone says, “No, this is not okay”…
suddenly the conversation shifts.

“Well, Black women are suffering…”

And just like that, the air changes.

—

Let’s be clear about what is happening here.

Black women’s pain is being pulled into the room
not to be honored…
but to be used.

Used as a shield.
Used as a deflection.
Used as a way to say:

“Take this. Be quiet. There are bigger problems.”

—

That is not solidarity.
That is not awareness.
That is not care.

That is pressure.

—

Because now the message becomes:

If you speak up, you are insensitive.
If you hold your boundary, you are selfish.
If you object, you are ignoring suffering.

So the choice presented is a cruel one:

> Accept the disrespect
> or be cast as someone who doesn’t care about pain

That is a false choice.

—

Black women’s suffering is real.

It is deep.
It is layered.
It is historical and present at the same time.

It deserves attention.
It deserves protection.
It deserves truth spoken without hesitation.

But hear this clearly:

> Black women’s suffering is not a tool.
> It is not a talking point to win arguments.
> It is not a weapon to silence other people’s boundaries.

—

Fire and rain.

That’s what this feels like.

Fire—because the harm is sharp, immediate, undeniable.
Rain—because it keeps falling, over and over, in ways that wear you down if you don’t name it.

—

You are allowed to hold both truths at once.

You can care deeply about Black women.
You can advocate, protect, and uplift.

And you can still say:

“No. This is not acceptable.”

Without apology.
Without comparison.
Without being dragged into someone else’s framing.

Because boundaries are not disrespect.

They are clarity.
They are self-respect.
They are protection in real time.

—

And let this be said plainly:

I ain’t your doormat. You can get anywhere you are trying to go without wiping your feet on me.

It is possible to improve your position, argument, and strategy without resorting to mockery and buffoonery that targets Black women.

We will not allow Black women to be used this way.

Not as symbols.
Not as shields.
Not as silence.

It’s not about saying one group is flawless and another isn’t.
It’s about recognizing what people reach for under pressure.

Because once Blackface enters the conversation:

the focus shifts away from the actual issue
people get pulled into defending or condemning the tactic
the original point gets buried

People who are not Black being judge and jury on what that feels like ……betrayal.

Blackface is not neutral. It is tied to:

Mockery
Dehumanization
Entertainment built on humiliation

So when it shows up today—even in “activism”—it carries that same energy.

You do not get to decide how I feel about that.

How about respecting that boundary on the way to campaigning for respect for your boundaries?

You pretend that you “need” to participate in blackface to make a point about women’s rights and create a divide?

There is no trust. There is no unity. There is nothing. You choose not to see me as a person…..too.

If a Black woman has to walk alone, she will. Powerfully.

We will speak truth with care.
We will hold boundaries with strength.
And we will refuse the lie that one must be sacrificed for the other.

—

*PS. Stop pretending that there is “universal care and concern” about how people feel about blackface. Anti-blackness and racism in general haven’t been defeated. Battles have been won. Obstacles have been overcome. People are still fighting against unnecessary ignorance.

**PSS….we have supported others in making points about girls’ safety in boundaries. There is no requirement to agree on all things, but being non-racist in your assertions isn’t a high bar, and yet……..

Again, the verbal debate over blackface, comparisons….whatever.

But smearing yourself? Using the very tools of dehumanization to argue against…dehumanization?

Organizing across cultures is more respectful.

🔥 Affirmations

I honor Black women without allowing our pain to be used as a tool.
I do not allow my identity or anyone else’s to be turned into a prop.
I move with respect—for myself and for others.
Women’s rights do not require tawdry performance to be understood.
I recognize when something feels off, and I trust that knowing.
I do not need theatrics to stand in truth.
I recognize when pain is being used instead of honored.
I am allowed to protect my space without apology or performance.
I do not need to shrink my truth to prove my compassion.
I hold clarity even when the conversation tries to shift.
I do not accept false choices disguised as moral pressure.
I see the difference between care and control.

The post If Your Argument Needs Blackface, It’s Already Weak and Shifty appeared first on WESurviveAbuse.

Why Blaming Porn Alone Won’t End Violence Against Women

Tonya GJ Prince — Sat, 21 Mar 2026 15:02:54 +0000

When we treat symptoms as causes, harm finds new ways to grow.
When we face the root, we begin to change what is possible.

When We Make Porn the Only Answer, We Miss the Real Danger

Definition of Consent word with a meaning on a book.

There is a growing conversation that centers pornography as “the cause of violence against women.”

It sounds simple.
It sounds actionable.
It even sounds like protection.

But it is incomplete.

And when something this serious is reduced to one cause, it quietly leaves women and girls exposed to the very forces that drive harm.

What Real Cases Show Us About “Fixing the Surface”
We have already seen what happens when warning signs are treated as something small… something manageable… something that will pass.

In one widely known case, a teenage boy created disturbing drawings—images of violence, pain, and a clear internal crisis.
School officials alerted his parents. They saw the drawings.

But instead of immediate, deep intervention, the response stayed at the surface.

That same day, the situation escalated into irreversible violence.

In another case, there were warnings—clear ones. Concerns had already been raised about a young boy’s behavior and mindset. Authorities had even been alerted.

Still, the deeper issue was not addressed with the urgency it required.

Access remained. Intervention did not deepen.

And again, the violence escalated.

What These Cases Teach Us
These cases are not about pornography.

But they reveal something we cannot afford to ignore:

Removing the visible sign of a problem is not the same as addressing the problem itself.

The drawings were not the cause.
The access was not the cause.

They were signals.

And when signals are treated like the issue itself, the real danger continues to grow—quietly, privately, and often more intensely.

Lifting your name, Sudan

Porn Is Not the Beginning of This Story
Violence against women did not begin with the internet. Or dvds. Or magazines.

Long before any modern media:

Women and girls are assaulted during war and treated as spoils
Enslaved women and girls are violated with no legal protection
Girls are forced into marriages and expected to endure
Survivors are blamed or ignored when they spoke
The largest crowd. The silent folks and the enablers

The violence was already here.

Porn did not create it. It is a wicked and evil tool that excacerbates the problem. Still, without it…..we STILL have problems with violence and abuse.

What We Risk When We Oversimplify
When we place all responsibility on porn, we unintentionally:

ignore entitlement and control as core drivers
overlook how boys are taught to override boundaries (girls are conditioned to support this. Leaders do it and we don’t blink)
miss the role of power, status, and dominance
fail to confront systems that protect abusers and question victims

And most dangerously:

We begin to believe that removing content will remove harm.

Violence Is About Power—Not Just Exposure
If porn disappeared tomorrow, we would still be left with:

beliefs that access to women’s bodies can be taken
environments where “no” is negotiated instead of respected
systems that silence women and protect harm
communities that dismiss early warning signs

Because violence is not just something people see.

It is something people are taught, reinforced, and allowed to carry out.

We Cannot Afford Surface-Level Solutions
Taking something away—whether it is a device, an image, or access—can feel like action.

But the cases remind us:

It is not enough.

We must ask:

What beliefs are forming underneath this behavior?
What has already been ignored or dismissed?
What needs intervention right now—not later?

Because when we stop at the surface, harm does not disappear.

It evolves.

What Real Prevention Requires
If we are serious about protecting women and girls, we have to go deeper.

Teach, early and consistently, that “no” is final
Take disturbing behavior seriously the first time it appears
Refuse to minimize patterns that signal harm
Early and consistent education around deepfakes, digital safety, and online predators
Prioritizing addressing deep fakes, digital safety, online predators, violation of children in images through law
Prioritizing affordable and free mental health (practitioners with integrity and expertise)
Address entitlement, not just exposure

When we treat symptoms as causes, harm finds new ways to grow.
When we face the root, we begin to change what is possible.

*This post is in no way advocating for any of us to ease up on fighting against non-consensual images, deepfakes, digital safety, or online predators.

The post Why Blaming Porn Alone Won’t End Violence Against Women appeared first on WESurviveAbuse.

Pornography Didn’t Start the Fire: A Clear Look at History, Power, and Violence

Tonya GJ Prince — Wed, 18 Mar 2026 09:10:39 +0000

With war, comes murder and rape

Pornography is often blamed as the reason violence—especially violence against women—has escalated.

That sounds clean. It sounds decisive. It feels like an answer.

But history refuses to cooperate with that claim.

1. Sexual imagery existed long before modern violence narratives

Long before the internet…
Long before film…
Long before mass distribution…

Human beings were already creating sexual imagery.

Ancient Rome had explicit brothel art
Greek pottery depicted sexual acts
Temples in India carved sexuality into sacred spaces
Early texts described sex in detail, without shame

Pornography, in some form, has always been present.

And yet—so has violence. Against women and children for that matter.

2. Violence against women did not begin with porn

If porn were the root cause, we would expect violence to appear after its creation.

But history shows the opposite.

Women were treated as property in many societies
Marital rape was legal in many countries until the late 20th century
Enslaved Black women in the Americas were systematically raped with no legal protection (no remorse & no reparations to this day)
In many legal systems, a woman’s testimony was not considered equal to a man’s (and is not to this day)

Violence was structured. Protected. Normalized.

(not enough has changed)

3. War, mass violence, and what came home with it

This is where the conversation often goes silent—and it shouldn’t.

Across history, war has included large-scale sexual violence against women and children.

Here are just a few documented examples:

Nanjing Massacre
Tens of thousands of women and girls were raped by soldiers over weeks of occupation.
World War II
“Comfort women” across Asia were forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military.
Mass rapes also occurred across Europe during and after the war.
Bosnian War
Rape camps were systematically used as a tool of ethnic cleansing.
Rwandan Genocide
Hundreds of thousands of women were raped in a matter of months.
Enslavement in the Americas (1600s–1800s)
Black women were routinely sexually violated, bred, and exploited—with no legal recourse.

And then something critical happened:

Many perpetrators were:

never prosecuted
lightly punished
or fully reintegrated into society without challenge

They returned home without accountability, rehabilitation, or even acknowledgment.

What happens when large-scale violence is practiced and never confronted?

It doesn’t disappear.

Sidebar: Though we are the primary targets, women and children are not alone as victims. I’ve personally spoken with men who were assaulted and violated by other men. Their fellow soldiers. Then retaliated against IF they chose to speak. It seems that this is not too uncommon, as the stories come from various fighting militaries around the globe.

It does not disappear.

It becomes embedded. Normalized into families, schools, communities, leadership, and institutions.

4. Not all women are having the same conversation

Here’s a truth that doesn’t get said out loud enough:

When some women confidently name porn as the cause of escalating violence,
other women—across regions and histories—are quietly thinking:

That’s not the whole story.

Because they’ve seen, lived, and survived through:

violence during war
violence in colonization
violence in displacement
violence in their own homes—long before internet access, at the hands of someone who did not buy the magazines or go to the peep shows or clubs.

Women from these realities understand something deeply:

Violence does not need porn to exist.

So when the conversation narrows,
It can feel incomplete, even disconnected from lived experience.

5. Porn may be a factor—but not the foundation

Let’s stay grounded.

Porn can:

reinforce harmful and violent ideas
shape expectations about sex
desensitize some viewers (especially young and immature viewers)
normalize aggression in certain contexts
spread the sharing of images of children (*here is where the punishment ought to be set at a life in prison, including animal and non-consensual person abuse)

That matters.

But calling it the cause ignores systems that were already producing harm at scale around the globe.

Porn didn’t:

create war-time rape
legalize marital rape
decide that some women were legal to rape (Black women, Native American women, immigrant women, women and men in prison, children in juvenile systems, children in foster homes, members of faith communities ……)
protect perpetrators
or silence victims—especially victims from marginalized communities

Those systems were already in motion.

6. What actually escalates harm

If we’re serious about reducing violence, we have to look deeper.

Escalation grows in environments where:

entitlement goes unchecked
boundaries are negotiated instead of respected
communities protect reputations over truth
institutions fail to act
mental health and wellness is not addressed and prioritized
and harm is minimized—again and again.

From global conflict…
to private homes.

7. Oversimplifying the problem delays real solutions

When everything is blamed on porn:

history gets erased
accountability gets softened
systems stay intact
and patterns continue

It becomes easier to name one modern factor
than to confront generations of stored up and tolerated harm.

8. A more honest direction forward

If the goal is safety—not just argument—then the focus has to shift.

We need:

accountability that does not disappear after war or status
early, clear teaching of boundaries
systems that respond to violence consistently (regardless or race, sex, proximity to power)
cultural shifts that stop protecting harm
conversations that hold truth—even when it’s uncomfortable

We can’t continue to fear looking back to the roots of violence.

Porn didn’t invent violence. I am for standing against the devastation that it causes to children, animals, and non-consenting folks. The destruction. Heck, I confront it.

I remain concerned about what is happening with digital technology,

its rise,

and using that against young people.

We must make this world habitable for women and girls…

Still, it is a tool for violence. A deadly one. And we still have women and men among us who support and uplift violent individuals who use every tool to be violent against women and children. Again and again. As if they are confused.

If you are confused, follow people who are clear. Follow people who can’t afford to be confused.

So clarity about the roots of violence is critical for all of us.

What perpetuates it? Who perpetuates it? Who is benefitting from the silenced voices of victims?

When we ignore the history of unchecked harm—from slavery across the globe (without reparation or remorse) to war zones to homes—we risk mistaking a symptom for the source while the real roots continue to grow.

People who do not engage in porn can still be unsafe and violent.

That is a remix of something we were told about “good people” when we were young.

Many of us are seasoned adults now. We know differently.

We also understand this:

Even when harm is right in front of you, those who don’t recognize it… often won’t act to stop it. In fact, you will return for more. Then say strange things like “no one could have predicted this.”

And that matters.

Because it means we cannot rely on misunderstanding to suddenly become protection.

We have to build awareness, accountability, and action—on purpose.

The Rwandan genocide unfolded over roughly 100 days — from April to July 1994. an estimated

800,000 people were murdered.

250,000 women were raped.

20,000 children were born.

Sending my love and heart to the Survivors of the Rwandan genocide today.

In the US, you can’t talk with some young people about (contemporary) porn being the root cause if you aren’t ready to talk about a few other very uncomfortable topics around sexual violence. They grew up with a computer in their pocket and elders with stories textbooks refuse to teach.

The post Pornography Didn’t Start the Fire: A Clear Look at History, Power, and Violence appeared first on WESurviveAbuse.

15 Surprising Reasons Women Choose to Take Their Husband’s Last Name

Tonya GJ Prince — Thu, 12 Mar 2026 13:21:19 +0000

Society is still micromanaging the choices of women far more than men. She can be an empowered woman AND take her husband’s last name.

1. Creating a Shared Family Identity
Many women want the household to feel unified.

When parents and children share one name, it can create a simple sense of belonging.

Photo by Stacey Vandas/Unsplash.com

Sometimes it is not about tradition at all.
It is about family cohesion.

2. Making Life Easier for Children
A shared surname can simplify many everyday moments:

school forms
travel documents
medical records
introductions

Some women simply want their children to never have to explain anything.

3. Leaving Behind a Painful Family History
Not every surname carries warm memories.

For some women, taking a new name means:

stepping away from abuse
breaking with family estrangement
closing a chapter tied to hardship

A new name can feel like a new beginning.

4. The Name May Simply Sound Better
Sometimes the decision is surprisingly simple.

The new name might:

flow better
be easier to spell
be easier to pronounce
feel more distinctive

People change names for these reasons all the time.

5. Professional Simplicity
Some women want a single shared name that works smoothly in professional settings.

It avoids:

confusion in introductions
mismatched paperwork
administrative headaches

In certain industries, simplicity matters.

6. Honoring Cultural Traditions
In many cultures around the world, taking a spouse’s surname carries meaning tied to:

heritage
family lineage
community identity

For some women, it is not submission.
It is cultural continuity.

7. Signaling Commitment Publicly
Marriage is both private and public.

For some couples, sharing a name is a visible sign that they are building a life together.

It becomes a marker of partnership.

8. Avoiding Constant Explanations
Women who keep their last name often report frequent questions:

“Are you married?”

“Why are your names different?”

“Are those your children?”

Some women simply prefer to avoid the constant conversation.

9. Because the Couple Chose It Together
Sometimes the decision happens in quiet conversation between two people.

It may feel right for their particular relationship.

And that can be enough.

10. Admiration for the Husband’s Family

Some women are coming from a background of foster care, families broken apart, loss, tragedy, and so on.

Having a new family may feel hopeful.

A woman may deeply respect or feel embraced by her spouse’s family.

Taking the name can feel like honoring that connection.

11. A Fresh Identity at a New Life Stage
Marriage often marks a transition.

Some women enjoy the symbolic feeling of:

starting a new household
entering a new chapter
carrying a new name into the future

12. Practical Legal Simplicity
In some legal systems, shared surnames can make certain bureaucratic processes easier.

Examples include:

inheritance paperwork
hospital visitation questions
travel with children

13. Blending Families
In second marriages or blended families, sharing a surname can help create a sense of unity.

It signals that this is one household now.

14. Because She Simply Wants To
Sometimes the answer is beautifully simple.

A woman might take her husband’s last name because she prefers it.

Personal choice does not always need a deeper explanation.

15. Rewriting Her Own Story
Names carry history.

For some women, changing a name is part of shaping their own narrative.

It becomes a personal declaration:

“This is the life I am choosing now.”

A Thought Worth Remembering
The conversation around names sometimes becomes louder than it needs to be.

“If you take your husband’s last name then……”

Women choose many different paths:

keeping their name
hyphenating
creating a new name
taking their spouse’s name

Each choice can carry meaning, intention, or practicality.

And the most powerful part is this:

The decision belongs to the woman making it.

The post 15 Surprising Reasons Women Choose to Take Their Husband’s Last Name appeared first on WESurviveAbuse.

When Words and Actions Don’t Match: Why Women Must Trust What People Do, Not Just What They Say

Tonya GJ Prince — Tue, 10 Mar 2026 11:36:18 +0000

For years now, a message has echoed across schools, workplaces, and social media campaigns:

Be kind.
Be nicer.
Be more understanding.
Be more compassionate.

On the surface, kindness is a beautiful value. Many women already live by it. Women raise children, care for elders, nurture communities, volunteer, mediate conflicts, and hold families together.

Yet something strange happens when we look closely at who these campaigns are aimed at.

The message so often lands squarely on the shoulders of women and girls.

Women are told to soften their tone.
Women are told to be more patient.
Women are told to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Meanwhile, a simple reality sits quietly in the background:

Across nearly every country on earth, males commit the overwhelming majority of violent crimes — including homicide, assault, and sexual violence.
This is documented consistently in global crime statistics.

And yet the cultural pressure continues to fall on women to be nicer.

Not safer.
Not wiser.
Not more discerning.

Nicer.

At some point, women begin to notice the gap between what people say and what people actually do.

Words are easy.

Behavior tells the truth.

This is the wisdom behind the feeling so many women carry when they hear songs like “I Can’t Believe What You Say.”

Because every woman eventually learns the lesson hidden in that lyric:

Sometimes a person’s mouth tells one story, while their actions tell another.

And when that happens, actions deserve our attention.

Watching Actions Instead of Apologies

Women have long been trained to listen to explanations.

He didn’t mean it.
He’s just stressed.
He’s going through something.
He didn’t understand.

But explanations cannot erase patterns.

A pattern of disrespect.
A pattern of intimidation.
A pattern of manipulation.
A pattern of violence.

Kindness should never require women to ignore reality.

True kindness begins with truth.

A Different Kind of Kindness

Women are not the least compassionate people on earth. Quite the opposite.

But compassion without boundaries becomes permission.

And permission is exactly what harmful people rely on.

So perhaps the message women need is not “be kinder.”

Perhaps the message is:

Be wiser.
Be observant.
Be rooted in truth.

Kindness that protects life is sacred.

Kindness that silences women is something else entirely.

Affirmations Inspired by I Can’t Believe What You Say

Let these words settle where they need to.

• I trust what people do, not just what they say.

• I honor the wisdom that rises in my body when something feels wrong.

• My awareness is not cruelty. It is clarity.

• I no longer confuse politeness with safety.

• My discernment is a form of protection.

• Words without consistent action no longer persuade me.

• I am allowed to step back when behavior contradicts promises.

• I recognize patterns early and respond with wisdom.

• I am not responsible for maintaining comfort around harmful behavior.

• My kindness will never require me to abandon my safety.

• I listen carefully to actions, because actions reveal truth.

• My intuition has survived more than doubt ever will.

A Quiet Shift

Something powerful is happening in many women right now.

A quiet shift.

Women are beginning to observe more carefully.
Listen more closely.
Trust their instincts sooner.

Not because they have become less kind.

But because they have become more awake.

And awakening always begins the same way:

A woman stops arguing with reality.

She watches.

She notices.

And she finally believes what she sees.

Closing Reflection

When words and behavior disagree, the truth is never hiding in the sentence.

It is always visible in the pattern.

And women everywhere are learning to read those patterns with clear eyes.

Survivor Affirmations
WeSurviveAbuse.com

….I am closed to any prompting, pushing, or persuading around “being kind”.

I am a kind person who LOVES doing for others, but people prompting or trying to persuade me, is now officially a red flag.

Go sell it on a big male mountain somewhere. They could use more kindness campaigns over there.

The post When Words and Actions Don’t Match: Why Women Must Trust What People Do, Not Just What They Say appeared first on WESurviveAbuse.