Cycle of abuse? Really?

I heard some people say that what Jennifer does to those culprits, yes the r-worded deed and r-worded matter including those men as such no doubt, as portrayed in this movie, was (metaphor?) for cycle of abuse that happens in life. I don't deny that cycle of abuse of course DOES exist and it has been known about and spoken for over 100 years.

But here, wouldn't INSTEAD it simply be seen as an example of, besides it being revenge and vengeance, a brutalized and innocent female character simply taking down evil villains and bad guys and being somewhat if not completely in the right to do so, its not as if she was merely hurting INNOCENT people even as a result of her undeniably terrible and brutal ordeal?

Or is this matter including in general AND if portrayed like this in THIS movie simply, and factually, more COMPLICATED than mere dichotomies of good versus evil, heroes and villains, good guys and bad guys (or in this case a good WOMAN versus bad MEN), good defeating evil or even there being a BITTERSWEET ending with culprits (albeit brutishly) punished in vengeance and a woman hurt and obviously traumatized following the very nature of such matters in general and their effects, irrespective of how even NASTY and VERY UNPLEASANT ALSO we find the culprits to be beyond the very fact of their guilt in such a matter.

In action movies where we see villains (and at times they have been guilty of rape/sexual abuse as well) battling it out with heroes be it James Bond films, Lethal Weapon and Die Hard actioners or those with Arnie and Sly, we don't refer to heroics seen there as "cycle of abuse" or even "cycle of DEADLY VIOLENCE", we just (and rightly so, apparently!) see it as good guys defeating bad guys, happy endings etc and bad guys on the receiving end are de-facto seen as villains who get their comeuppance, not an indication of some or other type of cycle existing.

So why is it different here, thanks. )