Re: My reply to Interesting Letter (long)

August 8, 1999

Apple: I cut out a lot of stuff because you responded so well. I just added

some comments that struck me.

> > (Apple didn't write this, the original letter writer did) One of the

meetings I regularly attend is one of the larger meetings in the Chicago

area, where AA birthdays are celebrated. The joke is told that some women

are reluctant to announce their anniversary, because it is an announcement

that now that they have a year, they are fair game. > >

My comment: Ha ha that's a really funny joke NOT. Why would they be

reluctant if they felt comfortable with the men in the meeting? Your

response is good.

> (Apple wrote) If you were referring to the guru/disciple example I

mentioned in the predator piece, please note that I wasn't talking about a

sponsee/sponsor relationship. Young women do in fact, date AA gurus, and the

reason is that these young girls haven't found their own power, so they are

drawn to the apparent power of the guru. What do you think really goes on in

such relationships??? First of all, whether or not the gal has a sponsor,

she will be getting her understanding of the AA program primarily from the

guru himself, because of the closeness of their relationship. Now if the

guru has a fine young piece of a** do you think he will teach his new

girlfriend ways to have better boundaries? To become strong and empowered?

To learn how to stop tolerating mistreatment? To at long last learn that

she has a right to be angry at mistreatment??? Probably not...>

My comment: Professed powerlessness is an asset in some situations,

especially when it allows an authority figure to believe " she wanted it. "

> (Apple:) You see, we are controlled in many ways, and we too control

others based on our positions and power in life (maybe not in the ways we

always would like - but through power we can and do control each other to a

certain extent)>

My comment: I am affected by most people I meet. Influenced by many. And I

exert influence. I believe it is passive aggressive to exert influence,

then claim to be powerless when it comes to difficult decisions or negative

consequences (e.g., she's pregnant, or he commits suicide).

> > (original letter) Your hypothetical abused wife is unlikely to see her

situation improve as long as she stays drunk and wonders how she got into

this mess.> >

My comment: This is the first reference to the wife being a drinker. What

about the situation where an AA husband beats his wife who is NOT alcohol or

drug dependent? Or cheats on his wife? Or isn't around because his first

responsibility is to the group? Will the group encourage him to be a good

husband if it " interferes with his recovery? "

> > (original) A moral inventory would likely reveal why it is she is still

there, and the vanity of the belief that she can control her husband's

conduct by just being nicer. > >

> (Apple wrote a lot of good stuff, then) Of course, the result of both such

introspective processees (You call it moral inventory, I call it situational

analysis) should lead to the same end - namely that she should not tolerate

the mistreatment, the moral inventory lays the blame on her " vanity " or

" stupidity " which may increase her feelings of low self esteem, while my

situational analysis points out the broader issues - namely that she was

repeating what she learned from her environment -- this does not contribute

to low self esteem.>

My comment: As Rita said, destruction of self is the first step in cult

indoctrination. I have heard there is a rift between chemical dependency

treatment providers, and other mental health care providers. Chemical

dependency treatment under the disease model apparently requires an outcome

of lower self esteem; other mental health treatment anticipates an outcome

of higher self esteem. That's why a person with depression who gets the 12

steps instead is, in my opinion, at greater risk than if there were no

intervention whatsoever.

> > (original) It would be disingenuous however, to ignore the fact that a

woman getting drunk and passing out substantially increases her chances of

suffering such a fate. > >

My comment: Statistics, please. How many rape victims are passed out drunk?

How many are children? How many are disabled, elderly, vulnerable in some

way? How many are in the wrong place at the wrong time because they don't

have their own car, or a safe place to live?

How many sex (or other violent) criminals have ever been involved in a 12

step program? Now THERE'S an interesting research question! It would be

easy to administer too, upon incarceration:

1) Have you ever been involved in a 12 step group?

2) If yes, how long?

> > (original) A moral inventory should suggest to your hypothetical

housewife that she cannot base her self-image on the approval of someone

else. It might

also lead her to try to figure out why she is living with such an

inappropriate partner.> >

My comment: again he's beating up on the poor abused housewife? My god,

hasn't she got enough problems without people telling her upon what she can

and can't base her self image?

> (Apple) I've gone to therapy. I put the site up when I had just come to

the realization that what I had been hearing in AA was making me feel worse

about the rape. The website was a very large therapeutic chunk of my

healing from the rape. I got my therapy, thank you very much.>

Right on.

> (Apple wrote) I am so thrilled at the compassionate way that you assisted

the woman in question. I generally do not distribute my " story " to anyone,

but I will in this case. You will see that I did not have such an

experience. Had that been the case, undoubtedly I would feel differently

about AA.>

My comment: One story of compassion is nice. But what are the larger

patterns in AA? If AA is not hiding patterns of abuse, research (at least

observation) by outside, skeptical researchers like Bufe should be

encouraged.

> >(original) True, not everyone who drinks after a period of sobriety dies

shortly thereafter, although the number who do die either from direct

medical effect or alcohol-induced accident is great enough that this has to

be considered a substantial possibility.> >

My comment: Again, Apple, for this guy to be talking on the same level you

are, he needs to back up a statement

like this with statistics and sources. We have read anecdotal data on 12

step free of people who committed suicide in AA, while sober, while

attending meetings. What ARE suicide rates among AA members?

> > (original) AA has long maintained that we have no monopoly on the truth.

If you or anyone else find something that works better for you, you are

welcome to it. It is difficult, however, to give you the same credit for

good will and tolerance of other's views. You site contains foolish,

inaccurate and silly comments almost too numerous to mention. > >

Tolerance of an abusive situation is wrong. When a person first leaves AA

they may need time to feel strong enough to talk about it. It took me 15

years. And I was only in AA and treatment for one or two years.

Saying people who were hurt by AA should just be quiet because AA is such a

good organization, is like saying the Catholic church was right to continue

putting priests who were known pedophiles into contact with children

because...oh, choose any good work the Catholic Church has done, there are

lots.

> > (original) Tell me, how did you accidentally wander into your first AA

meeting? > >

I made the mistake of going to my Employee Assistance Program for mental

health treatment. I didn't know they were connected with the 12 step

treatment industry. I wouldn't have gone if I'd known that. It should be

printed on all informational literature about EAPs. Because what else do

they do? Financial assistance? Legal aid? Can anyone on the list speak to

this?

> > Your cartoons of Lois with a beard and Dr. Bob with rabbit ears

are not only unenlightening, but downright childish.> >

Oh! I loved those!

Judith

________________________________________________________________

Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com

Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com

August 8, 1999

Hi Apple;

Fraid I didn't see anything new in the guys letter. Steppers are so

bloody predictable. When all else fails quote from The

Bible. He sounds very much like a predator himself, at least an

abusive sort. Notice the referene to " Girl " an attempt to put you in

your AA place. What a creep.

August 8, 1999

Hi Apple;

Fraid I didn't see anything new in the guys letter. Steppers are so

bloody predictable. When all else fails quote from The

Bible. He sounds very much like a predator himself, at least an

abusive sort. Notice the referene to " Girl " an attempt to put you in

your AA place. What a creep.

August 8, 1999

Hi Apple;

Fraid I didn't see anything new in the guys letter. Steppers are so

bloody predictable. When all else fails quote from The

Bible. He sounds very much like a predator himself, at least an

abusive sort. Notice the referene to " Girl " an attempt to put you in

your AA place. What a creep.

August 8, 1999

> > If you expect to be taken seriously, you might consider a more

> >open-minded view.

> >

> >And FOR GOD'S SAKE GIRL, GROW UP!

>

> Not nice.

>

Hi Apple,

What a freakin rat eater. I think the thing many of these mind numbed

zealots fail to realize about you is that you do not come across as a

woman with a chip on her shoulder. I find your comments and actions to

be motivated by a desire to air the truth and gain a firm grasp of

reality rather than to merely strike back at the patriarchally biased

twelve step monopoly in a purely vindictive manner. In fact you seem to

maintain a calm perspective in the face of some incredibly exaggerated

unbridled ignorance. I wouldn't be surprised if his little overview

pissed me off more than it did you.

I must also commend many of the other women on this site for their

ability to differentiate between past abusers and us guy's on this site.

I can say that I have never felt like I was ever running interference

for some other man's past bad behavior. Quite the opposite. What's

furthermore, I've never felt like I had to tiptoe around issues or even

be politically correct for that matter. Thanks so much for all of your

honesty, understanding, and sense of humor.

I hope you all don't find these comments patronizing. I am only good at

detecting patronizing comments when they are directed at me so please

cue me in if I am in error.

AppleDTP@... wrote:

>

> First of all, thank you for writing. I do share certain views with AA,

> and one is that we learn the most from our harshest critics (although I

> have encountered much harsher critics than yourself) I will respond to

> what you written in the context of your letter.

>

> >

> >Here are some observations about your site.

> >

> > Some of your comments about the origins of AA are correct. It was

> >founded primarily by and for white males. It was not however, made up

> >of educated, wealthy professionals. Actually, the bulk of its early

> >members were decidedly working-class folk. The first centers of AA

> were

> >in Akron and Cleveland, Ohio, and New York City. While there were a

> >number of pretty wealthy members from the Akron area, including the

> heir

> >to the Firestone fortune, those communities were full of steel workers,

> >factory workers, etc. The diversity of the population of New York need

> >hardly be mentioned. As for the suggestion that all these folks were

> >wealthy, that is preposterous. AA's early years were during the

> >Depression. In the Big Book, Dr. Bob, who, being a physician, one

> might

> >expect to be a fairly wealthy guy, describes his financial condition

> as,

> > " as good as can be expected in these uncertain times. " Aside from a

> few

> >notable exceptions, these men were not rich. Hardly anyone in the

> >country was.

> >

> >I am happy that you pointed out the problem with the demographic

> sample which I have referenced in the piece " Why So Many Get Worse or

> Die " . You are right, the time that the material was written was indeed

> the depression, and if my piece indicates that the men of this time

> were characterized by wealth & priveledge, it can be misleading.

> Nevertheless, it's important to note that although the nation was

> suffering terribly due to the depression, the group that Dr. Bob & Bill

> belonged to would certainly had been the one most prone to wealth,

> should the economy of the nation have been healthier, so in this sense,

> those two were indeed higher than average in the hierarchy. As far as

> the typical membership at that time, if it was indeed composed of

> working class men, this is something I must address. This would seem to

> indicate that the character problems of the early members were based

> more in culture and gender than hierarchy. As far as I know, the men in

> the late thrities had the following characteristics (which still

> prevail today, albeit less strongly) They expected to be the king of

> the castle in the home. They were socialized to exhibit strength,

> independence, a conquering/dominating personality, boldness, hiding

> sensitive feelings and behaviors which would have been seen as

> weakness. The semantics and the ritual of the AA program

> counterbalance these aforelisted behaviors first and foremost. Mention

> is made of the opposite characteristics which are more often attributed

> to women (not always!), and which you have backed with examples,

> however the text gives much less attention to fixing these typical

> female problems which include but are not limited to:

> 1.) overdependence (in fact, the structure of AA reinforces dependent

> behavior, transferring dependence onto a group/sponsor)

> 2.) caretaking - doing for others (in fact, AA encourages doing for

> others)

> finding

> 3.) lack of boundaries - (AA encourages telling your dark secrets)

> etc, etc.

> 4.) having a weak sense of self (AA encourages abandoning the self

> rather than defining a strong sense of self)

>

> > The question of women in the fellowship is another matter. You

> >correctly note that only one woman's story appears in the first edition

> >of the Big Book, although in fairness, you should have mentioned that

> >subsequent versions contain quite a few stories by women. The reason

> >there were so few women mentioned in the first addition, and the reason

> >there were so few in the program, was not a result of misogyny, but

> that

> >the founders, and Dr. Bob in particular, were very concerned about

> >another problem you cite, namely 13th-stepping.

>

> Actually, what I read was that the early members were afraid of the

> women, labelling them as nymphomaniacs. I have not read anything

> indicating that Bob was afraid that the women would be 13th stepped...

>

> Also, subsequent editions of the Big Book may have contained more

> stories by women, but he meat of the program -- the part which is to be

> " worked " had no female influence whatsoever, and that is the greater

> issue since Bill claims that it works equally well for women while he

> never asked a single woman if that were the case.

>

> > While we are on the subject of 13th-stepping, your description of that

> >phenomenon is pretty misleading and incomplete. First of all, you

> >assert that there is a certain insincerity in the claim in AA that

> there

> >are no rules, only suggestions. You state that while this may be

> >technically true, people are pretty strongly encouraged to follow the

> >rules. Fair enough, but if that is your position, you must conceded

> >that 13th-stepping is not only not condoned, it is pretty clearly

> >condemned. Although it does not appear in the Big Book, the idea that

> >one should choose a sponsor of the same sex appears prominently in

> other

> >AA literature, and you will hear it referred to in just about any AA

> >meeting. The idea is so well-ingrained that there are even pamphlets

> of

> >suggestions of what gay members ought to do to find a sponsor. This

> >suggestion is so well established that admissions that one has an

> >opposite-sex sponsor are often met with raised eyebrows, even when the

> >sponsee has been sober for a number of years, and there is little

> >likelihood of a sexual relationship. One of the meetings I regularly

> >attend is one of the larger meetings in the Chicago area, where AA

> >birthdays are celebrated. The joke is told that some women are

> >reluctant to announce their anniversary, because it is an announcement

> >that now that they have a year, they are fair game. That would

> >obviously not be the case unless it was pretty clearly understood that

> >you should steer clear of people with less than a year of sobriety.

>

> You are right here, but please do not mistake my piece on predators to

> apply merely to opposite sex sponsor/sponsee relationships (I do not

> even mention such a relationship!!) Predatory behavior happens to

> women AND men, and not just those with under 1 year sober. As a

> seasoned AA member, I'm sure that you are also aware of the other

> saying " it takes 2 years to get your brain out of hock and 3 more to

> unscramble them " . When I see elder members with 8/10/12 years going

> after newer members who have just a few days over one year (before the

> medallions even have time to cool), it's pretty clear that there is

> some advantage being taken. People with 1 year are spiritual zeros.

> They have just begun to dry up.

>

> If you were referring to the guru/disciple example I mentioned in the

> predator piece, please note that I wasn't talking about a

> sponsee/sponsor relationship. Young women do in fact, date AA gurus,

> and the reason is that these young girls haven't found their own power,

> so they are drawn to the apparent power of the guru. What do you think

> really goes on in such relationships??? First of all, whether or not

> the gal has a sponsor, she will be getting her understanding of the AA

> program primarily from the guru himself, because of the closeness of

> their relationship. Now if the guru has a fine young piece of a** do

> you think he will teach his new girlfriend ways to have better

> boundaries? To become strong and empowered? To learn how to stop

> tolerating mistreatment? To at long last learn that she has a right to

> be angry at mistreatment??? Probably not...

>

> >While I will grant you that the Big Book was written predominantly by

> >men, and pretty much uses male pronouns throughout the first 164 pages,

> >the scenario you set out of a humble wife stoically accepting beatings

> >from her abusive husband, because she is looking for where she is at

> >fault, is a little ridiculous. I would be astonished to hear anyone

> >suggest at a meeting that such a person should examine her behavior to

> >see if she brought on the assault by burning the toast. They might

> very

> >well suggest that she examine her behavior to figure out why she is

> >living with an abusive jerk, and why she thinks she can control his

> >behavior by improving her culinary skills. Indeed, the Big Book, while

> >again referring to men, directly contradicts such reasoning. Check out

> >p. 61, which describes the behavior of the alcoholic as " potentially

> >patient, generous, even modest and self-sacrificing. " The next

> >paragraph mentions how if the alcoholic does not get his way, he

> >becomes, " still more demanding or gracious, as the case may be. " The

> >point of this paragraph is to point out the futility of trying to

> >control someone else's actions by our own behavior. It would hardly

> >endorse your suggestion that an abused woman should conclude that

> >everything will be alright if she can just make her behavior more

> >pleasing.

>

> Actually, the example of the wife blaming herself for assault is not as

> ridiculous and uncommon as you think. I went for counseling at a

> women's crisis center, and met some women who were involved in violent

> relationships. Believe me, they had NO self esteem left, and had come

> to believe that if they were beaten, it was because of some

> housekeeping or personal flaw of theirs!!!

> Where does this backwards thinking come from??? It starts off in our

> family of origin. Traditional childrearing methods teach children that

> when they are punished/spanked, etc. it is because they did something

> BAD. If they stop doing the bad thing, they will not be

> spanked/punished. So the child learns, if I am GOOD, I won't be

> punished. The child grows up into an adult, and if she lands an abusive

> husband (I'm stereotyping here with gender pronouns, please keep in

> mind that it could be an abusive wife, although it is less common), she

> will naturally apply the same thinking to such scenarios, if she hasn't

> been enlightened to the fact that such treatment is unacceptable. There

> are many unenlightened women/men out there. In the case of family

> discipline, the child accepts the punishment/beating/spanking but

> identifies and loves the parent nonetheless. This dynamic is often

> tranferred into spousal relationships. Don't believe me? Read some

> Alice " For Your Own Good - Hidden Cruetly in Traditional

> Childrearing Methods and the Roots of Violence "

>

> As far as the futility of trying to control the actions of another. AA

> takes this thinking to extremes when one after another, members shrug

> their shoulders " accepting " the fact that they cannot control the

> behavior of another person. This is just plain silly. While we do not

> have ultimate control, we certainly do have ways of influencing the

> behavior of others, just as much as others have influence over us. It

> is elementary Pavlovian thinking to assume that if one is beaten for

> burning toast, then if one stops burning toast, beatings will stop.

> This kind of logic is not uncommon.

>

> In fact, I can give you many scenarios, where one person does in fact

> control the behavior of another.

>

> 1.) Does your boss (by virtue of his power) control your behavior or

> not?

> 2.) When you dress nicely for a date, are you not trying to influence

> the behavior of another person?

> 3.) Does not a salesman use his knowledge of human nature to influence

> the buyer?

> 4.) Does the media not try to exercise control over the consumer?

> 5.) Does the government not control its people?

>

> You see, we are controlled in many ways, and we too control others

> based on our positions and power in life (maybe not in the ways we

> always would like - but through power we can and do control each other

> to a certain extent)

>

> > There is another reference in the Big Book, which suggests that our

> >moral inventory will usually show that when we have been hurt, we have

> >almost invariably put ourselves in a position to be hurt. I can

> >understand that such advice can be abused, and have myself commented in

> >meetings about the simplicity of such an approach. I would not suggest

> >that one make such a suggestion to Kosovo refugees as their houses were

> >being burned. However, your suggestion that praying for one's enemies

> >is " Christianity run riot, " is both foolish and inaccurate. If you

> don't

> >believe me, check out the Dalai Lama's view on the People's Republic of

> >China. To my knowledge, His Holiness has never been baptized.

>

> I must interject here... I have recently finished the book " The Key To

> Happiness " by the Dalai Lama, in which he speaks about anger. The

> interviewer asks what one should do in cases of abuse, and D.L.

> responds that in such cases, the anger must be " blown out " as a speck

> of dirt in a conch. This metaphorically means to " let it out " -

> presumably in a therapeutic setting. That is a very different message

> from AA's one which states that justifiable anger is best left to

> someone who can handle it. That is a foolhardy statement if I ever

> heard one. With the high number of individuals coming through the

> hallowed halls of AA, the advice in the rooms should be rote that abuse

> issues should be worked out in therapy, that the victim has every right

> to be angry, and that the feelings which result from such treatment are

> perfectly natural (and not a disease symptom). I don't think that the

> Dalai Lama would object to such advice. As far as your criticism of my

> expression " Christianity Run riot " is concerned, the objection stemming

> from denominational issues, would you say that " overzealous religious

> ideals run riot " is more accurate?

>

> Your

> >hypothetical abused wife is unlikely to see her situation improve as

> >long as she stays drunk and wonders how she got into this mess. A

> moral

> >inventory would likely reveal why it is she is still there, and the

> >vanity of the belief that she can control her husband's conduct by just

> >being nicer.

>

> I don't think that the above scenario should be handled with a " moral "

> inventory at all. Why is it a question of morality? I like the

> interjection of " vanity " here, that's very Christian, and very fitting

> with AA ideology, however, the problem does not seem to stem from the

> wife's " vanity of belief " , but is due to much broader issues:

> 1.) where did she learn to tolerate abuse- could it be a

> cultural/family of origin issue?

> 2.) where did she get such low self esteem as to tolerate it at all?

> Again, is it a cultural/family of origin issue?

>

> Of course, the result of both such introspective processees (You call

> it moral inventory, I call it situational analysis) should lead to the

> same end - namely that she should not tolerate the mistreatment, the

> moral inventory lays the blame on her " vanity " or " stupidity " which may

> increase her feelings of low self esteem, while my situational analysis

> points out the broader issues - namely that she was repeating what she

> learned from her environment -- this does not contribute to low self

> esteem.

>

> >You remarks about rape are illustrative. Certainly, no

> >woman deserves to be raped. It would be disingenuous however, to

> >ignore the fact that a woman getting drunk and passing out

> substantially

> >increases her chances of suffering such a fate. I recall seeing a news

> >broadcast when I was several year sober describing a shooting which

> took

> >place outside a motorcycle hangout bar. It suddenly dawned on me that

> I

> >had been there at one time. Exactly what I was doing there escapes me,

> >but it had something to do with giving someone a ride who I had met in

> a

> >bar earlier that evening. Fortunately, I was not robbed, beaten, or

> >shot at. Since this place was located in a shady area of town, and

> >catered to a violent clientele, if such a thing had happened, I could

> >hardly have claimed to be entirely without fault. I believe that this

> >is clearly what is meant by examining one's own behavior in a

> >situation.

>

> Good point above.

>

> The fact is, none of us can control the behavior of others.

>

> I disagree in ways I have explained earlier.

>

> >A moral inventory should suggest to your hypothetical housewife that

> she

> >cannot base her self-image on the approval of someone else. It might

> >also lead her to try to figure out why she is living with such an

> >inappropriate partner.

>

> Again, there are broad cultural issues to consider. Another aspect I

> didn't mention earlier is a woman's biological predisposition for

> dependence based on the fact that she is the childbearer and primary

> caregiver for the child's first few years. Dependence can sometimes

> mean that the individual will have to tolerate treatment that in not

> normally acceptable, because of the position of dependency itself.

>

> > I am terribly sorry you were raped, do not excuse it in any way, do

> not

> >suggest that it must have been your fault, do not believe that this is

> >or should be a natural part of the AA program. Since you offer no

> >further details of the incident, I cannot comment further, save to

> >suggest that you please, please, please get yourself to a competent

> >therapist and come to try to come to terms with your rape issues

> (which,

> >I might add, would be specifically encouraged by the Big Book. See p.

> >133.)

>

> I've gone to therapy. I put the site up when I had just come to the

> realization that what I had been hearing in AA was making me feel worse

> about the rape. The website was a very large therapeutic chunk of my

> healing from the rape. I got my therapy, thank you very much.

>

> To your flippant and insensitive remark that " looking for genuine

> >compassion within the rooms can be like looking for a hug in a mine

> >field, " I will only offer that I personally, in a professional

> capacity,

> >escorted a rape victim who I knew in AA to the police department to

> file

> >a report, to the district attorney's office to file a complaint, to

> >another appearance in that office when the perpetrator was ordered in,

> >to court to get her a restraining order, and to another attorney to

> >discuss the possibility of civil action. I spent at least two days on

> >the matter, provided many hundreds of dollars of professional services,

> >and charged her nothing. This was done with the purpose of helping her

> >to figure out where she was to blame in all of this, which was not at

> >all. I might point out that the woman in question remained sober

> >throughout the entire traumatic ordeal, and attributed this largely to

> >the car and compassion she found within the AA program. I fear looking

> >for insightful commentary on you web page can be like looking for a

> >sense of humor at a convention of feminists.

>

> I am so thrilled at the compassionate way that you assisted the woman

> in question. I generally do not distribute my " story " to anyone, but I

> will in this case. You will see that I did not have such an

> experience. Had that been the case, undoubtedly I would feel

> differently about AA.

>

> Also, the last line of your above paragraph is very cute. Two points

> for clever.

>

> > You suggest that AA simply cannot provide a solution for many

> different

> >people of different cultural, religious, and racial backgrounds, and

> >that the reason so many people show up to AA is that there is no

> >alternative. I would suggest that the evidence is to the contrary. AA

> >has spread to most of the countries on Earth, regardless of their

> >ethnic, religious or racial make-up. I recently contemplated taking a

> >job in Korea, and was assured that I would have little difficulty

> >locating meetings there. I have received correspondence from an AA

> >group in Russia. This would seem to belie the argument that AA is just

> >an organization for White American Christian men. This however, begs

> >the question. If so many people show up at AA only because there is no

> >alternative, why isn't there any alternative? There is, for instance,

> a

> >fellowship out there which you make reference to on your web site,

> >where, from what I gather, women who drink too much can decry the sins

> >of mankind, worship the goddess, exchange casserole recipes, and watch

> >reruns of " Ellen. " Why isn't that group growing at the rate of AA?

>

> I don't agree that AA spreads so fast because it's the best. It spreads

> so fast because it is the biggest. It is the biggest because it was the

> first. It filled a huge societal need. The other groups don't grow as

> fast, because people tend to go to AA first. Why? Because AA is the

> biggest and most well known. By the time many end up in alternative

> groups, they have been run through the AA wringer and many are turned

> off to groups alltogether.

>

> Which fellowship do you refer to where the members can exchange

> casserole recipes? I'm dying to know.

>

> >Surely it is not because feminism is a new idea. When AA had been in

> >existence for as long as the feminist movement currently has, it had

> >spread throughout the nation and much of the world. It would hardly

> >spread at that rate if people did not find what they needed therein.

>

> People often do find what they need, because the human resource in AA

> is so big. Undoubtedly, with a huge pool of people, it is easier to

> find someone who has gone through what you're going through than it is

> in a small pool of people. This does not take away from the fact that

> AA is problematic, and these problems need to be aired.

>

> > Finally, I must take exception to your suggestion that AA frightens

> >people into submission, with obviously false and exaggerated threats. I

> >have been sober for nearly ten years. I have seen many people return

> to

> >AA after relapsing after many years of sobriety. Almost without

> >exception, they say, " I quit going to meetings, and pretty soon, I was

> >drunk. " You suggestion that people who do drink again are unlikely to

> >die as a result is so foolishly inaccurate that I must assume either

> >great stupidity or malevolence on your part.

>

> Sorry, we disagree here. I am convinced that AA frightens people into

> submission. You've seen many people return to say " I relapsed because I

> stopped going to meetings " simply becaue those people who stopped

> meetings and who do not relapse don't go back to meetings! Very

> simple. The latter group is much much larger.

>

> True, not everyone who

> >drinks after a period of sobriety dies shortly thereafter, although the

> >number who do die either from direct medical effect or alcohol-induced

> >accident is great enough that this has to be considered a substantial

> >possibility. A friend of mine went back out after ten or more years

> >sober. He returned without his left eye. Another friend in a similar

> >position died within a year. Beyond that, the obvious effects of

> >alcoholism on human health are nearly too numerous to mention. My

> >maternal grandfather was a long term alcoholic. He didn't die of

> >alcoholism exactly. He also smoked a couple packs of cigarettes a day

> >for many years, and emphysema got him first. What do you suppose the

> >chances were that many years of alcohol abuse substantially hastened

> >his death? A cousin of mine also didn't die of alcoholism. He hung

> >himself instead. A defy you to find a single medical professional

> >anywhere who will deny that an alcoholic who resumes drinking after a

> >period of sobriety substantially lowers his or her life expectancy.

>

> All I can say is that you may want to read the piece on my site,

> written by an MD, entitled " Alcoholics Can Be Cured Despite AA " .

>

> > AA has long maintained that we have no monopoly on the truth. If you

> >or anyone else find something that works better for you, you are

> welcome

> >to it. It is difficult, however, to give you the same credit for good

> >will and tolerance of other's views. You site contains foolish,

> >inaccurate and silly comments almost too numerous to mention.

>

> I obviously don't agree.... If my style bothers you, so be it. It is

> my style.

>

> For

> >someone who has supposedly read the Big Book in detail, you apparently

> >absorbed little.

>

> You suggest that alcoholism is often merely a

> >secondary problem, and expound on the need to face the primary one. I

> >would suggest you review p. 103: " After all, our problems were of our

> >own making. Bottles were only a symbol. "

>

> Well then why is it that when people wish to discuss

> abuse/gender/ptsd/mental health/family of origin issues in the rooms,

> they are so often told " we're here to talk about alcohol " ? That is the

> reality of what happens. Members are expected to talk about alcohol,

> and their related moral failings (which had better sound like the 7

> sins), which led them to the bottle.

>

> Did you perhaps miss that

> >part? You take offense at the suggestion that few people wind up at AA

> >meetings accidentally, and compare it to wandering into the wrong

> >bathroom. Tell me, how did you accidentally wander into your first AA

> >meeting? Better yet, how did you continue to make the same foolish

> >mistake if you were so clearly in the wrong place? You offer a list of

> >flippant comments to use at AA meetings, but are clearly unable to

> >answer the most simple question. If it was so unpleasant, what were

> you

> >doing there?

>

> I could have really used a support group at that time. I kept going

> back because there was nothing better in the area. I tried to work

> around the problems. If a meeting was really lousy, I'd go to a

> different one, however similar problems kept cropping up. I've chosen

> to write down what those problems are. There are several stories on

> the site by people who ended up in AA because they were abusing alcohol

> at a low point in their lives. This does not mean that they are

> automatically alcoholics who required daily meetings and nightly moral

> cleansing! Please read these stories and you'll see that not everyone

> who walks through the doors needs to be there!

>

> Your cartoons of Lois with a beard and Dr. Bob with

> >rabbit ears are not only unenlightening, but downright childish.

>

> My sense of humor is my style. Some like it, others don't.

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Click here for 4 FREE TRIAL ISSUES of Sports Illustrated! If you're

> satisfied, your subscription will continue at the guaranteed lowest rate

> of $.75 an issue for 52 issues! http://clickhere./click/678

>

> eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free

> - Simplifying group communications

August 8, 1999