tw: physical abuse

Ed, Edd n Eddy are all victims of abuse

I didn’t notice it till now but when watching the show again, it’s kinda obvious. Let’s start with Ed.

Ed’s abuse seems to be more emotional abuse. His parents spoil his sister Sarah, while Ed lives in the basement. They also seem to take Sarah’s side more often. These can be signs of parental favoritism. I mean, look at Ed’s room.

now look at sarah’s:

Sarah’s room is much larger, cleaner and more comfortable than Ed’s. Sure, Ed’s a messy guy but you’d think a good parent would start showing SOME concern when their child’s room is as bad as Ed’s. 

Now to Double D. His abuse is more about neglect and lack of affection from his parents. Not only are his parents never home but they communicate through sticky notes they leave around the house. and what are on those notes?

Chores. Double D’s parents seem to treat him more like a maid that cleans the place while they’re away most of the time, instead of their son.

and finally, Eddy. His is the most obvious. 

While not a parent, Eddy has been shown to be physically and verbally abused by his older brother. This was revealed in the series finale. 

I can’t believe I actually missed this until now. 

This also shows another difference between them and the rest of the kids in the cul-de-sac.

Jimmy’s parent’s don’t seem to mind that their son has more feminine interests, buying him things like an easy bake oven and letting him have a feminine room and stuffed animals. Kevin’s dad constantly showers him in gifts. Nazz lives a carefree and happy life. Johnny’s parents seem to be tree-huggers(they have arbor day parties and bring nature inside as a christmas tradition) and don’t find it strange that their son talks to inanimate objects and Rolf has a close, very large and traditional family.

These are kids that most likely wouldn’t understand what the eds go through. That could be another reason why the eds are outcasts in the show. 

It should be obvious.

Never tell your kid that they are a mistake. 

Never look at your kid like you are distgusted.

Never lay a hand on them.

Never tell them that everything that happens is their fault.

Never call them a bitch.

Never threaten your kid with death or violence.

If you do this, they aren’t “your” kid. Then they are just a kid and they will never be yours. 

In psychology, the ‘foot-in-the-door phenomenon’ is the tendency for people who have first agreed to small things to later comply to much larger things.

This is how abusive relationships work. They do not start out violent and brutally abusive. They warm you up to it slowly. It is a psychological wearing down of your sense of self-worth and safety. Do not ever think “why did they start dating him?” or “why don’t they just leave?” because victims of abusive relationships have been psychologically conditioned to accept, or even think they agreed to and deserve the abuse.

Abusive relationships are not miserable 24/7.
There are more than just physical and verbal types of abuse.
Someone may not know they were abused until after it happened.
The abuser is not always INTENTIONALLY harming the abusee.
You cannot always judge whether or not someone is being abused based solely on your interactions with the abuser.

But abuse is abuse no matter how small please talk to someone if you suspect abuse at all.

If I had to choose between physical and verbal abuse, I’d take a beating anytime. You can see the marks, so at least people feel sorry for you. With the verbal stuff, it just makes you crazy. The wounds are invisible. Nobody cares. Real bruises heal a hell of a lot faster than insults.
—  Anonymous Radio Show Caller

anonymous asked:

I saw your post about why you think John hit the boys and I have a question. I've always thought he hit Dean, but not Sam, due to a few things including Dean's protectiveness and Sam's comment in 'Nightmare' about how lucky they were to have John not act like Max's dad. I suppose I'm just wondering on your opinion of that and the whole 'did he hit Sam?' debate

Hi, Anon. Let me start by saying that I’m of the firm belief that, if he hit one, he hit both of them. I’ll explain why in just a second.

First things first: Yes, John Winchester was a terrible parent. He was abusive, emotionally at the very least, and quite possibly physically as well. I do not believe he hit his boys just because he liked hitting his boys. I think Dean learnt his own violent tendencies from his dad—Dean hits when anger bubbles up or he thinks physical violence will help him get his own way. That is the context I’m speaking of when I say physical abuse here (not that this excuses it or mitigates it, but rather just explains it).

Okay. Back to Sam and Dean. Starting with all the times Sam just takes violence from Dean, even responding by telling Dean it’s not going to change anything, but Dean can hit him all he wants. It’s a calm, settled reaction, and it shows a certain amount of familiarity of being in such a position. Sam (unless he’s possessed, high, under Supernatural influence, or, in Southern Comfort, trying to end Dean’s possession) never lashes out first. Most of the time, he doesn’t even lash out at all. Sam was always at the bottom of the pecking order in that family, which is something a lot of Sam’s emotional conflict in the early seasons reflects on. If John was violent and Dean learnt such tendencies from his father (and Dean did learn them, we canonically see that, we just don’t know from whom), then it follows that Sam would’ve taken the occasional hit. Sam is accepting of Dean’s violence to him, which shows familiarity. Sam is used to being hit in anger.

Sam also tells Amy that she doesn’t want to see John when he’s drinking. This could mean fifty different things, from he’s an insulting asshole, to he throws things, to he’s just a pathetic drunk to, possibly, he lashes out in physical anger. This is open for much interpretation, but one obvious interpretation is that John is physically and emotionally abusive, especially when drunk, and Sam has first-hand experience in the matter.

Next, we have Sam running away from home. Now, people always say Sam ran away because he wanted to be normal, but I call bullshit on that. Sam was a smart kid. What kind of normal could he expect to have as a teenager on his own hiding out in an abandoned house in a strange city with a stray dog? He had a reason to leave, and we’re never told. But Dean’s expression when he says “And when Dad came back” in regards to John’s reaction to Sam running away indicates that he hit Dean. It’s subtextual, of course, and could be interpreted as John was just pissed and said some over-the-line, rude things to Dean. But it’s often interpreted as physical violence. And since we don’t know why Sam ran away and in the same scene the hint of possible physical violence is brought up, well…anyone can draw their own conclusions, of course, but the clearest explanation I see is Sam was trying to escape physical abuse (and, unfortunately, Dean took some as a result of Sam’s actions).

The next thing I want to do is remind people that, while Dean later tries to tell Sam that John loved him (and John may really have), the fact is John never expressed that love to Sam. Sam firmly believed throughout his life that he was less-then, in a way, because his father didn’t trust him, didn’t respect him, and never provided him with any praise (which, it should be noted, he occasionally does for Dean, though obviously not nearly enough). John and Sam fought throughout Sam’s adolescence. John made it clear to Sam that Sam, in his opinion, was selfish, not as good as his brother, not good enough for their family. Now, that is emotional abuse, but we’ve already discussed the likelihood of John lashing out in anger or because he thinks it will get him his way. Here is where it would be likely to happen, and considering the number of fights they had, the odds that it happened on a semi-regular basis escalate rapidly.

You bring up Dean’s protectiveness, and I think that’s interesting, because you’re right—Dean is most certainly protective of his baby brother, a trait, ironically, instilled in him by John. But I’d like to remind you, first, of Dean’s complete and utter devotion to his father, his absolutely belief in the man. You would probably say that belief does not extend past his love for Sam, but I remind you of a scene in “The Girl Next Door,” where Dean calls Sam for all of Sam’s research. Sam, it should be noted, is not sleeping because he is researching this massive, confusing case on top of being a stellar student. Evidently what Sam provides is not enough, because Dean hands the phone to John despite Sam begging him not to, allowing John to verbally castigate Sam’s work. Yes, that’s emotional abuse that Dean allows, not physical, and they are different (though abuse is abuse, and please never say that one type is better or more forgivable than another). But it sets a precedent, one continued in the fact that Dean hits Sam. When he is mad, he hits Sam, and justifies it with his anger. Dean is an abuse apologist. He victim-blames. If John clocked Sam in an argument, Dean probably would have helped Sam clean up the mark and said something along the lines of “Sammy, why do you have to make him so mad?” Dean learnt to justify abuse from somewhere and it’s very likely that stems from childhood, meaning that an adolescent Sam being abused would not necessarily have been protected by Dean. Dean is protective of his brother, yes, but he learned this type of abuse from his father and perpetuates it into adulthood. Counting on a protective Dean to have stopped John from hitting Sam is not possible.

Finally, you mentioned Nightmare. This calls back to my first point, on the difference from John taking pleasure in being abusive to doing it because he believes it serves a purpose. Max’s father and uncle took a certain amount of sadistic pleasure in their horrible acts. They tortured this kid for the fun of it. Sam and Dean, raised to reflect this abuse apologist behavior, would see the situations as completely separate. John, while a terrible father, was a good man who saved people. He doesn’t torture for the fun of it, creating a big distinction between Max and Sam and Dean, one that Sam and Dean may not even be able to see across to realize that, intentions aside, both situations are abusive.

Short answer, Anon, yes. Yes, if John hit one, he hit both. If one is digging into subtext and inferences about the series to show that John hit Dean, then it’s easy to see that he hit Sam as well.

You can be physically abused without being hit.

Physical abuse is also when someone threatens to hit you, when they say you deserve to be hit, when their actions cause you to worry they’ll hit you even if they never actually do. Physical abusers often express their anger through slamming doors, breaking things, throwing things, raising fists, restraining you or blocking your way, and stomping around or towering over you so that you feel physically afraid of them and bow to their will. These are all signs of physical abuse, especially when part of a larger pattern of intimidation and abuse in general.


Everyday Ableism presented by Facebook. I initially commented on this video found within the article. (DIsclaimer: i do not have Downs Syndrome, I am primarily physically disabled and face/witness prejudice regularly.) People I think might want to read/boost this: @annieelainey @disabled-activist @disabilityhealth @katblaque @petitetimidgay @kat-blaque @marinashutup

This exchange just goes to show that no matter how well worded and polite I am, disability activism (even just progressive conversation) is taken as an enormous threat by abled people - this one in particular. The commenter does not deserve to have her name blurred, she chose to spew these hateful things on the public internet and I will not let it slip under the rug. 

There are SO many different types of ableist thought she is displaying, so I won’t go in depth. But in summary, Hannah fits in insults, speaking over disabled voices harmfully, fake activism (”we’re all the same!”), minimizing oppressed experiences , infantilization, abled superiority, identity and ability erasure, gaslighting and abuse all into two comments! Wow! That might be a record. 

Overall, I think this experience reminds us that people with disabilities are not even recognized as in need of help or allyship. That’s how damn negatively we are viewed. Either disgusting, dramatic, “inspirational,” or invisible. The awareness about struggle of disabled people is extremely low on all planes (economic, social, accessibility, representation, political, opportunity, and more) EVEN THOUGH we make up the largest marginalized group. We make up 15% of all humans. One Billion people. STOP LEAVING DISABILITY OUT OF YOUR ACTIVISM.


If you hate Nathan for what he’s done because you think he had a “choice”to walk away from his relationship with Mr. Jefferson you are a victim blamer and an abuse apologist.


Not only are you basically blaming Nathan for his own abuse – that somehow he is responsible for all of the terrible things that have happened to him/he was pushed to do under pressure by an authority figure because he didn’t have the strength to say “no” to them – you also fail to take into account the obvious power imbalance in their relationship.

A teenager cannot always just walk away from an adult in a position of power who is actively abusing them.

No this does not excuse his behavior or mean that he shouldn’t be held accountable, it just means that you don’t even have the human decency to accept or understand the varied experiences of abuse victims without erasing or invalidating them.

Nathan is a victim of abuse end of story. Nothing you can say will change that fact, nothing Nathan can do can change that fact, it is officially canon and set in fucking stone.

And if you think that people who have done the things that Nathan has done deserve to die regardless of whether or not they’re victims of abuse – WHOOPS TOO LATE Nathan already consented to his death at the hands of his abuser you are wrong take a seat.

It should also be considered that:

Jefferson was planning to pin the entirety of this gig onto Nathan to start with–do people really think he hadn’t and couldn’t threaten to pin it all on Nathan the second he wanted out? It’s as simple as “You leave and this entire thing goes on your head. I’ll tell your father, I’ll tell the town.” and soforth.

Canon subtext implies Nathan resented Mr. Jefferson at a certain point:

Upon closer examination, you’ll realize this is a doodle of Jefferson holding a camera–alongside the word “FUCKER” scrawled in nearly illegible handwriting. 

  • The only instance in which Nathan acknowledges Jefferson’s existence is the scene where Nathan confronts Max in EP 1, prefacing his…angry spiel with “You’re one of Jefferson’s groupies.” Lack of an honorific as well as the delivery of that line imply spite. That resentment? Not the sign of a guy who totally and wholeheartedly wanted to be a part of this. 
  • Mark Jefferson, in EP 5, states: “Your friends almost beat Nathan to death…you and I, we’re not so different.” Jefferson also gets violent with ease–the second Max wasn’t accommodating him, he’d hurl a threat at her or start screaming. Do folks really think he wouldn’t and wasn’t doing the same to Nathan? Especially when taken into consideration he way he spoke to him in his note?
  • Nathan was not conscious in the photo with Rachel Amber. Do you see the way his body is distorted? The way his hip and legs are positioned? Where his eyes are focused? Yeah, those are not the features of someone who is conscious. It is physically impossible, or at the least very uncomfortable to position yourself that way if you’re conscious. Your eyes also shouldn’t be unfocused or drifting off in that way with a default, lifeless sort of frown if you’re conscious. It’s also stated in Max’s journal that he was posed alongside Kate as well. The fact that he was being drugged to accomplish this is a red flag to start with.
  • Mark Jefferson was in possession of a gun. Do you realize how easily he could’ve used that against Nathan? Especially given his circumstances? 

Even if people refuse to acknowledge that Nathan was abused due to their ignorance, a lot of these bits and pieces can be pieced together using logic and rationale. It’s ridiculous, honestly–Nathan is a bad person. That shouldn’t be denied because it’s important to his narrative. Not all abuse survivors are pleasant: the ugly, dislikable ones shouldn’t be invalidated, shouldn’t be ignored simply because you want to ignore them. Nathan’s a bad person. He’s a god awful one. Understandably so, but still a bad person. Nathan Prescott is being exploited, he is being abused, he is being manipulated and coerced, but he violently projects it onto other people, he is terrible to a world that’s been terrible to him. And people unwilling to acknowledge that are people who just don’t want to see the abuse survivors, the survivors of trauma who aren’t pleasant to the ears, who are hard to look at–these people exist and you can’t treat them like this. And to be frank, it’s awful and what Dontnod did to him is awful and god, am I grateful for this post.
Click to help my friend get out of an abusive home environment.

My father is extremely emotionally abusive, manipulative, and cruel. He calls me a whore, tells me he wishes I would have succeeded in killing myself the first time I tried, and constantly makes little remarks about how much of a failure and terrible person I am. We often get in fights, usually ab…

My friend did not even begin to explain how truly bad her situation really really is. My friend has severe depression along with a history of severe self harm that can be triggered in a mere conversation by her father. I can’t take her in to my home because she’s in Nebraska and I live in Florida, but I skype her every day and I have personally witness her father say horrible things, I’ve personally witnessed him trigger her and cause her to break down, I’ve seen the scars on her skin without her even trying to show me because of how bad they really are. Her father abuses her every day, he’s physically abused her in the past, and even if she doesn’t believe he will do it again, I do, and I can see it slowly happening. I love my friend, but she’s left out SEVERAL extremely important experiences that have happened recently. Her father has raised his hand at her like he was going to hit her in the last several months, he has thrown kitchen items like forks at her just recently, he told her to go kill herself, and when my friend went and actually TRIED he didn’t do a thing, he knew she was doing it right downstairs under his feet and he didn’t do a single thing to stop her. My friend is one of the absolute most important people in my life, she’s basically a part of me I could honestly never survive with and every day I see her recovery lessening, I can visibly see how her dad has changed her and ruined her in so many ways. Just yesterday, he walked in her room while we were skyping and started making jokes about how he’s gonna abuse her and how he likes to abuse the child, to me. I have witnessed him break my friend down to the point where I truly am beginning to believe I’m going to lose my friend in the next year and I can’t survive if that happens. I’ve witnessed him call her names, tell her she doesn’t matter, I’ve witnessed him tell her I don’t matter and that I’m not her real friend and I don’t care about her. I’ve witnessed him tell her she’s worthless, that she should kill herself. She doesn’t know half the time that I hear these things but I do. I don’t think she’s admitting how bad it really is. She’s tried numerous shelters but they’ve turned her away because they don’t think she needs it, she’s can’t get a job due to her disability to make money. She’s done everything she could to move but it wont work, he’s killing her slowly and I have to sit and watch. She’s not asking to move into a brand new house, she just needs enough money to move herself into an apartment and get herself out of this horrible abusive situation. Please donate anything you can to get her out of this horrid abusive situation, and if you can’t donate please share this on every social media you have because it may not sound bad or important but it really is. Please.

Studies report early childhood trauma takes visible toll on brain; changes found in regions controlling heart and behavior

Trauma in infancy and childhood shapes the brain, learning, and behavior, and fuels changes that can last a lifetime, according to new human and animal research released today. The studies delve into the effects of early physical abuse, socioeconomic status (SES), and maternal treatment. Documenting the impact of early trauma on brain circuitry and volume, the activation of genes, and working memory, researchers suggest it increases the risk of mental disorders, as well as heart disease and stress-related conditions in adulthood.

Today’s findings show:

• Physical abuse in early childhood may realign communication between key “body-control” brain areas, possibly predisposing adults to cardiovascular disease and mental health problems (Layla Banihashemi, PhD, abstract 691.12).
• Rodent studies provide insight into brain changes that allow tolerance of pain within mother-pup attachment (Regina Sullivan, PhD, abstract 399.19).
• Childhood poverty is associated with changes in working memory and attention years later in adults; yet training in childhood is associated with improved cognitive functions (Eric Pakulak, PhD, abstract 908.04).
• Chronic stress experienced by infant primates leads to fearful and aggressive behaviors; these are associated with changes in stress hormone production and in the development of the amygdala (Mar Sanchez, PhD, abstract 691.10).

Another recent finding discussed shows that:
• Parent education and income is associated with children’s brain size, including structures important for memory and emotion (Suzanne Houston, MA).

So you know how people try to act as though representation isn’t important?

So as a preteen/young teenager I remember veeeerryy seldom ever seeing or hearing of fat girls in an even remotely positive light.

I remember watching Degrassi, which had Terry in it.

So for one, she wasn’t even really what I consider fat (now), but hell..I identified as her because her entire plot line revolved around her being fat and being really insecure about it and she was relatively bigger than the rest of the girls on the show.  Fast forward a couple seasons and in comes Rick - the guy who is standing behind her.  I remember thinking to myself that it was absolutely amazing that Terry actually have a love interest and it gave me hope that maybe someday I could have one, too!  You want to know what this was in spite of?  Rick was known for being physically abusive and not only hitting Terry on numerous occasions, but actually putting her in a coma!  Despite that - I was still so glad to see a fat girl with SOMEONE because god knows that never happens.

The other instance I remember in reference to fat girls and it being ‘positive’ - was from Captain Spaulding! 

If you don’t recognize him - he’s one of the serial killers in House of 1000 Corpses and the Devil’s Rejects.  He immediately had my adoration and attention when he said, “You know, I like ‘em with a little more meat on 'em. Ha ha. The bigger the cushion, the sweeter the pushin’.”  What a wonderful catch he is!  I found this line so inspiring that I actually quoted it on my Myspace for quite some time.

I am so angry and grossed out that there was so little representation for fat women being treated like other women that I actually had fondness for a physically abusive asshole and a misogynistic serial killer clown.  You know that there is SOMETHING wrong when this is the kind of thing a young girl is looking forward to because she thinks she deserves no better because of what she looks like.

Edit: this post is specifically about my experiences as a person who grew up as a fat cis white women - I know that the experiences and representation for those who are PoC, LGBQT+, poor, non able bodied, and otherwise marginalized is even worse.  It needs to get better on ALL ends, not just this one.