According to (Horsman, J., 1998) states, learnings from the therapeutic field offer reframing’s of old problems to help us to work differently in literacy. However, this discourse can easily be a slippery slope to new deficit models for literacy work with those who have experienced violence. A therapeutic focus only on individual "healing," implies that the person is sick and can be well. According to (Butler, S., 1992) notes from lectures and work critiques "individualized, de-contextualized, and de-politicized healing." "Healing" should not be seen as an individual problem. It may not even be "abnormal" in this society for women to have experienced trauma and so to have learned important survival strategies which they continue to bring to all future situations. The goal of literacy work with those who have experienced trauma should not be simply to support their individualized "healing" or to help them to become well, or "normal." Trauma survivors should not be seen as "poor souls" in need of healing. It is, however, the responsibility of literacy workers, funders, and others in the field to recognize that all literacy learning must be carried out in recognition of the needs of survivors of trauma. Those needs should be "normalized" as an everyday part of the literacy program.