Guest guest Posted June 3, 2000 Report Share Posted June 3, 2000 My impression is that this is an example of self-help book/therapy lingo seeping its way into AA meetings. I remember another book about " Dealing with Toxic People " or something like that several years ago. Would think that the " don't take anyone else's inventory " & " own your part " mottos would fly in the face of this ... IMO it's healthy to be able to recognize whatever is draining me - whether it be a thought process, a behavior pattern, or a manipulative, grasping person - and " toxic " is a succinct term for use in therapy to that end. Outside of a therapeutic situation, though, I don't think I'd feel justified in using the term to describe another person - I mean, toxic - that's to me more damning than " shit on a stick " - at least shit makes things grow > >Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups >To: 12-step-freeegroups >Subject: toxic AA >Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 13:58:19 -0700 > >I've never heard the word toxic used in AA, but I haven't been to a meeting >for some years. I have heard it used, and used it myself to describe a >certain kind of person, or more accurately certain kinds of behaviour. It >gets attached to people because people who do this behaviour tend to do it >a lot. My own parents were toxic in this sense. What it means used in this >way is someone who has an exaggerated critical sense and who is constantly >faultfinding in others, condescending, patronising, and with whom a >relationship free of such phenomena cannot be maintained. Or something >along those lines. " Toxic people " are likely to be continually dripping >acid into your mind (not in a good sense) with little bits of criticism and >subtle put-downs, or worse. There was a book published sometime recently >called " Toxic Parents " that I assume used a similar definition. It is >ironic that AA is now assimilating and redefining this expression to apply >to people who " don't get it " - if so, these are the least " toxic " people in >AA! It is ironic because as defined above it describes a great many AA >members and the way they operate with newcomers, sponsees, and others, and >may well describe the family backgrounds of many members that have made >them more susceptible to the undermining and disempowering of the AA >program. FWIW I think the use of the word " toxic " is related to what Alice > describes as " poisonous pedagogy " . Note that there is the idea of >being poisoned in both instances. > >Joe B. > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2000 Report Share Posted June 3, 2000 I had a therapist once. A big al-anon. She was very supportive of Alice 's work, calling it " seminal, " to her own. She's pretty big on the ACA circuit. I then showed her Ken 's work with the Alice support (The Liberating Experience of Painful Truth). The therapist just stared at me dumb. AA -- critiqued. AA -- harmful according to -- impossible. She went into a full scale denial, would not discuss. Nedless to say, that was the end of the therapy. Now, I would never get near a pro-12-step " so called " professional. I have met more toxic people in AA that almost any other organization. And some real sociopaths (mean, senselessly cruel). There is a sadism in the rooms. Even to the level that if you don't do the program, they'd rather that you died! No all, of course, but enough. - -- In 12-step-freeegroups, " Joe B. " <joe-b@d...> wrote: > I've never heard the word toxic used in AA, but I haven't been to a meeting > for some years. I have heard it used, and used it myself to describe a > certain kind of person, or more accurately certain kinds of behaviour. It > gets attached to people because people who do this behaviour tend to do it > a lot. My own parents were toxic in this sense. What it means used in this > way is someone who has an exaggerated critical sense and who is constantly > faultfinding in others, condescending, patronising, and with whom a > relationship free of such phenomena cannot be maintained. Or something > along those lines. " Toxic people " are likely to be continually dripping > acid into your mind (not in a good sense) with little bits of criticism and > subtle put-downs, or worse. There was a book published sometime recently > called " Toxic Parents " that I assume used a similar definition. It is > ironic that AA is now assimilating and redefining this expression to apply > to people who " don't get it " - if so, these are the least " toxic " people in > AA! It is ironic because as defined above it describes a great many AA > members and the way they operate with newcomers, sponsees, and others, and > may well describe the family backgrounds of many members that have made > them more susceptible to the undermining and disempowering of the AA > program. FWIW I think the use of the word " toxic " is related to what Alice > describes as " poisonous pedagogy " . Note that there is the idea of > being poisoned in both instances. > > Joe B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2000 Report Share Posted June 3, 2000 I don't agree that all shame is toxic. There is something that I would describe as appropriate shame. For example, a child pornographer should feel shame over his actions, but often that shame is absent. A natural built in shame is what keeps people operating on a moral level. If I steal from you, I feel shame about it. I thus, don't steal from you. With sociopaths, the shame just isn't there. Of course, the shame instilled by religion is often not in line with natural shame which I do believe must exist in order to maintain a healthy society, or religion maximizes the natural shame effect. If I steal from you, and I'm a devout Catholic, I will feel really really shameful, versus shameful. Apple > My ex was fond of the phrase " toxic shame " -- but then, I suppose in ye REAL > WORLD all shame is pretty toxic. > > yrs > > DFouglas. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2000 Report Share Posted June 3, 2000 : I couldn't agree with you more when you state that there is sadism in the rooms. It is usually perpetrated against someone who is a relapser, or who questions the dogma of the program. There have been a number of people in AA who have disgusted me when they take out their litttle knives and stick someone a few times, of course, if you asked them what they were doing they would say something assinine like, " showing tough love " , or some other rationalizaton. What has really bothered me the most in the past few months, is that a couple of people who were relapsers themselves, people who were so oversensitive that they spent much time on the phone with me telling me how " mean " other AA members were to them, these people turned into the little sadists and intolerant bitches as sponsors. Looking back now, I can see I have been moving away from AA for more than a year. For a long time I would try and block out the things I didn't like, but there came a day when I could no longer block it out. I am really unsure what I am going to do. My therapy is a positive in my life. Aside from that, my recovery has been limited to harm reduction. In other words, I try to control what I use and have been successful 90% of the time. It is that other 10% that worries me. Anyway, I never heard it stated that there is sadism in the rooms, that basically goes unchecked by other members of the group. Originally Mikena@... I had a therapist once. A big al-anon. She was very supportive of Alice 's work, calling it " seminal, " to her own. She's pretty big on the ACA circuit. I then showed her Ken 's work with the Alice support (The Liberating Experience of Painful Truth). The therapist just stared at me dumb. AA -- critiqued. AA -- harmful according to -- impossible. She went into a full scale denial, would not discuss. Nedless to say, that was the end of the therapy. Now, I would never get near a pro-12-step " so called " professional. I have met more toxic people in AA that almost any other organization. And some real sociopaths (mean, senselessly cruel). There is a sadism in the rooms. Even to the level that if you don't do the program, they'd rather that you died! No all, of course, but enough. - -- In 12-step-freeegroups, " Joe B. " <joe-b@d...> wrote: > I've never heard the word toxic used in AA, but I haven't been to a meeting > for some years. I have heard it used, and used it myself to describe a > certain kind of person, or more accurately certain kinds of behaviour. It > gets attached to people because people who do this behaviour tend to do it > a lot. My own parents were toxic in this sense. What it means used in this > way is someone who has an exaggerated critical sense and who is constantly > faultfinding in others, condescending, patronising, and with whom a > relationship free of such phenomena cannot be maintained. Or something > along those lines. " Toxic people " are likely to be continually dripping > acid into your mind (not in a good sense) with little bits of criticism and > subtle put-downs, or worse. There was a book published sometime recently > called " Toxic Parents " that I assume used a similar definition. It is > ironic that AA is now assimilating and redefining this expression to apply > to people who " don't get it " - if so, these are the least " toxic " people in > AA! It is ironic because as defined above it describes a great many AA > members and the way they operate with newcomers, sponsees, and others, and > may well describe the family backgrounds of many members that have made > them more susceptible to the undermining and disempowering of the AA > program. FWIW I think the use of the word " toxic " is related to what Alice > describes as " poisonous pedagogy " . Note that there is the idea of > being poisoned in both instances. > > Joe B. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations. Remember the good 'ol days http://click./1/4053/2/_/4324/_/960053529/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2000 Report Share Posted June 3, 2000 At 05:55 PM 6/3/00 -0000, you wrote: >I don't agree that all shame is toxic. There is something that I >would >describe as appropriate shame. For example, a child pornographer >should >feel shame over his actions, but often that shame is absent. A >natural >built in shame is what keeps people operating on a moral level. If I >steal from you, I feel shame about it. I thus, don't steal from you. >With sociopaths, the shame just isn't there. > >Of course, the shame instilled by religion is often not in line with >natural shame which I do believe must exist in order to maintain a >healthy society, or religion maximizes the natural shame effect. If I >steal from you, and I'm a devout Catholic, I will feel really really >shameful, versus shameful. >Apple I see the " toxic shame " [the phrase may have originated with Bradshaw - he used it a lot] given by AA, abusive parents and many religious environments to go much further than feeling " really really shameful " for stealing (or doing anything else commonly seen as wrong). The shame they give is for 'wrong' things that you can't possibly not do or make right. In AA it's easy to get shamed for not going to enough meetings, not calling your sponsor every day (yet when you do call him he is sure to shame you about something), not taking the steps, etc. This puts one in a bind of not ever being able to do enough of the right things, so it's not at all surprising that there are, as discussed in other messages here, a signifucant number of suicides. I can agree that not all shame is toxic, but depending on previous life experiences, any amount of shame can feel toxic. >> My ex was fond of the phrase " toxic shame " -- but then, I suppose >in ye REAL >> WORLD all shame is pretty toxic. >> >> yrs >> >> DFouglas. ----- http://listen.to/benbradley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2000 Report Share Posted June 3, 2000 Hi Apple! Nice to hear from you. I would add a few thingss to your comments. What you say below fits into my personal definition of guilt. It helps me to separate this from shame. Guilt is about behavior.....connected to those things you have the power to control. (not the AA " I couldn't help it syndrome) Shame on the other hand springs from an intangible and hard to pin down internal belief that there is something evil and disgusting about me fundementally. That it is something about me that will come out eventually and be found out no matter what I do. It's far different than accepting that we are fallable human beings. I can't help but think of various " Fundies " When they slip....it's a big deal. LIke the Jerry Falwells of the world (maybe that is the wrong one) anyway those moral types who end up being caught with hookers or in massage parlors, you know? That's what I hate about the programs....they seem to breed this underlying feeling of self-loathing that convinces you that when you make a bad choice it is both inevitable and has to be devastating. The whole stinking-thinking rhetoric and the confession thing. Also the belief that you are always trying to hide something, get away with something like a wicked child. ....hence the need for a sponsor or someone always available to " confront you " . Also I think too many people in the program have such an intense level of trying to control thier behavior and feelings. Someone could be labeled as " toxic " just for having very real and authentic feelings. It scares the hell out of people. I believe that healthy people are able to make good decisions about behavior because they are capable of feeling empathy and compassion-for themselves and others....not because they fear getting caught or being punished. So anyway I am glad too hear you are doing great in spite of not everything being perfect. Have you read any Alice ? Been reading some lately and I like it. She talks a lot about being able to make lasting changes in behavior by acknowledging buried feelings. I really like it. It makes sense to me. Rebekah (I am on the final countdown. My plane leaves for Albuquerqe August 15! hoorah!) >I don't agree that all shame is toxic. There is something that I >would >describe as appropriate shame. For example, a child pornographer >should >feel shame over his actions, but often that shame is absent. A >natural >built in shame is what keeps people operating on a moral level. If I >steal from you, I feel shame about it. I thus, don't steal from you. >With sociopaths, the shame just isn't there. > >Of course, the shame instilled by religion is often not in line with >natural shame which I do believe must exist in order to maintain a >healthy society, or religion maximizes the natural shame effect. If I >steal from you, and I'm a devout Catholic, I will feel really really >shameful, versus shameful. >Apple > > >> My ex was fond of the phrase " toxic shame " -- but then, I suppose >in ye REAL >> WORLD all shame is pretty toxic. >> >> yrs >> >> DFouglas. >> > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations. >Remember the good 'ol days >http://click./1/4053/2/_/4324/_/960054946/ >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2000 Report Share Posted June 3, 2000 Hey Rebekah I first read Alice in January of this year (I've already shared this here) and it had such a powerful impact on me that I was like physically sick for a week. Her theory about the origins of violence fits in with the ideas in Why They Kill (), which I've been raving about for a couple of weeks. Congrats on the move to Albuquerque! Judith > So anyway I am glad too hear you are doing great in spite of not everything > being perfect. > Have you read any Alice ? Been reading some lately and I like it. She > talks a lot about being able to make lasting changes in behavior by > acknowledging buried feelings. I really like it. It makes sense to me. > Rebekah (I am on the final countdown. My plane leaves for Albuquerqe > August 15! hoorah!) _______________________________________________________ Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2000 Report Share Posted June 3, 2000 Dear , I agree with you that the psychopathology of AA and hard-core stepNazism in general includes a distinct streak of sadism, yours, . from: " Price " >Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups >To: 12-step-freeegroups >Subject: Re: toxic AA >Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 17:32:00 -0000 > >I had a therapist once. A big al-anon. She was very supportive of >Alice 's work, calling it " seminal, " to her own. > >She's pretty big on the ACA circuit. > >I then showed her Ken 's work with the Alice support >(The Liberating Experience of Painful Truth). > >The therapist just stared at me dumb. > >AA -- critiqued. AA -- harmful according to -- impossible. > >She went into a full scale denial, would not discuss. > >Nedless to say, that was the end of the therapy. > >Now, I would never get near a pro-12-step " so called " professional. > >I have met more toxic people in AA that almost any other >organization. And some real sociopaths (mean, senselessly cruel). > >There is a sadism in the rooms. Even to the level that if you don't >do the program, they'd rather that you died! > >No all, of course, but enough. >- > > >-- In 12-step-freeegroups, " Joe B. " <joe-b@d...> wrote: > > I've never heard the word toxic used in AA, but I haven't been to a >meeting > > for some years. I have heard it used, and used it myself to >describe a > > certain kind of person, or more accurately certain kinds of >behaviour. It > > gets attached to people because people who do this behaviour tend >to do it > > a lot. My own parents were toxic in this sense. What it means used >in this > > way is someone who has an exaggerated critical sense and who is >constantly > > faultfinding in others, condescending, patronising, and with whom a > > relationship free of such phenomena cannot be maintained. Or >something > > along those lines. " Toxic people " are likely to be continually >dripping > > acid into your mind (not in a good sense) with little bits of >criticism and > > subtle put-downs, or worse. There was a book published sometime >recently > > called " Toxic Parents " that I assume used a similar definition. It >is > > ironic that AA is now assimilating and redefining this expression >to apply > > to people who " don't get it " - if so, these are the least " toxic " >people in > > AA! It is ironic because as defined above it describes a great many >AA > > members and the way they operate with newcomers, sponsees, and >others, and > > may well describe the family backgrounds of many members that have >made > > them more susceptible to the undermining and disempowering of the >AA > > program. FWIW I think the use of the word " toxic " is related to >what Alice > > describes as " poisonous pedagogy " . Note that there is the >idea of > > being poisoned in both instances. > > > > Joe B. > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2000 Report Share Posted June 3, 2000 Thanks Apple -- my remark was unconsidered and shame is a healthy reflex in the respects you suggest. 12steppers seem to wish to annul it as a moral-affective response. Good to hear from you, With best wishes, . > >Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups >To: 12-step-freeegroups >Subject: Re: toxic AA >Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 17:55:44 -0000 > >I don't agree that all shame is toxic. There is something that I >would >describe as appropriate shame. For example, a child pornographer >should >feel shame over his actions, but often that shame is absent. A >natural >built in shame is what keeps people operating on a moral level. If I >steal from you, I feel shame about it. I thus, don't steal from you. >With sociopaths, the shame just isn't there. > >Of course, the shame instilled by religion is often not in line with >natural shame which I do believe must exist in order to maintain a >healthy society, or religion maximizes the natural shame effect. If I >steal from you, and I'm a devout Catholic, I will feel really really >shameful, versus shameful. >Apple > > > > My ex was fond of the phrase " toxic shame " -- but then, I suppose >in ye REAL > > WORLD all shame is pretty toxic. > > > > yrs > > > > DFouglas. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2000 Report Share Posted June 3, 2000 " Showing tough love " does seem to be the principal " cover story " for stepNazi emotional bullying. Thanks for pointing this out. . >From: MikeknapNY@... >Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups >To: 12-step-freeegroups >Subject: Re: Re: toxic AA >Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 14:06:44 -0400 (EDT) > >: > >I couldn't agree with you more when you state that there is sadism in >the rooms. It is usually perpetrated against someone who is a relapser, >or who questions the dogma of the program. > >There have been a number of people in AA who have disgusted me when they >take out their litttle knives and stick someone a few times, of course, >if you asked them what they were doing they would say something assinine >like, " showing tough love " , or some other rationalizaton. > >What has really bothered me the most in the past few months, is that a >couple of people who were relapsers themselves, people who were so >oversensitive that they spent much time on the phone with me telling me >how " mean " other AA members were to them, these people turned into the >little sadists and intolerant bitches as sponsors. > > >Looking back now, I can see I have been moving away from AA for more >than a year. >For a long time I would try and block out the things I didn't like, but >there came a day when I could no longer block it out. > >I am really unsure what I am going to do. My therapy is a positive in my >life. Aside from that, my recovery has been limited to harm reduction. >In other words, I try to control what I use and have been successful 90% >of the time. > >It is that other 10% that worries me. > > >Anyway, I never heard it stated that there is sadism in the rooms, that >basically goes unchecked by other members of the group. > > >Originally Mikena@... > ><< Message5.txt >> ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2000 Report Share Posted June 3, 2000 I suppose the 4th step is the " shame defuser " part of the programme, but it's hopelessly selective -- it's a sort of " pick a sin " moral shopping mall. I wonder how often vicious self-righteousness gets listed in the inventory, especially with senior stepheads on repeat step 4s? Yours, . > >Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups >To: 12-step-freeegroups >Subject: Re: Re: toxic AA >Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 15:32:57 -0400 > >At 05:55 PM 6/3/00 -0000, you wrote: > >I don't agree that all shame is toxic. There is something that I > >would > >describe as appropriate shame. For example, a child pornographer > >should > >feel shame over his actions, but often that shame is absent. A > >natural > >built in shame is what keeps people operating on a moral level. If I > >steal from you, I feel shame about it. I thus, don't steal from you. > >With sociopaths, the shame just isn't there. > > > >Of course, the shame instilled by religion is often not in line with > >natural shame which I do believe must exist in order to maintain a > >healthy society, or religion maximizes the natural shame effect. If I > >steal from you, and I'm a devout Catholic, I will feel really really > >shameful, versus shameful. > >Apple > > I see the " toxic shame " [the phrase may have originated with >Bradshaw - he used it a lot] given by AA, abusive parents and many >religious environments to go much further than feeling " really really >shameful " for stealing (or doing anything else commonly seen as wrong). >The shame they give is for 'wrong' things that you can't possibly not >do or make right. In AA it's easy to get shamed for not going to enough >meetings, not calling your sponsor every day (yet when you do call him >he is sure to shame you about something), not taking the steps, etc. > This puts one in a bind of not ever being able to do enough of the >right things, so it's not at all surprising that there are, as >discussed in other messages here, a signifucant number of suicides. > I can agree that not all shame is toxic, but depending on previous >life experiences, any amount of shame can feel toxic. > > >> My ex was fond of the phrase " toxic shame " -- but then, I suppose > >in ye REAL > >> WORLD all shame is pretty toxic. > >> > >> yrs > >> > >> DFouglas. > >----- >http://listen.to/benbradley ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2000 Report Share Posted June 3, 2000 I find the 'shame' in the rooms is limited to shame on you for not going to enough meetings, not having a sponsor, not working the steps, etc. When someone is cheating on their spouse or steals or does things normal people wouldn't tolerate, well in AA they are sick people and we must not pass judgement. If you are the recipient of these behaviors and feeling angry naturally, the members wave their hands at it and counsel you (with a little shame thrown in) for not being accepting. jan Re: Re: toxic AA > Hi Apple! Nice to hear from you. > I would add a few thingss to your comments. What you say below fits into my > personal definition of guilt. It helps me to separate this from shame. Guilt > is about behavior.....connected to those things you have the power to > control. (not the AA " I couldn't help it syndrome) Shame on the other hand > springs from an intangible and hard to pin down internal belief that there > is something evil and disgusting about me fundementally. That it is > something about me that will come out eventually and be found out no matter > what I do. It's far different than accepting that we are fallable human > beings. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2000 Report Share Posted June 4, 2000 Janice, Yes -- there's accepting and then there's accepting. I always had this problem with the steps. The form of acceptance called for or prescribed can amount to a quietistic turning away from what one's better instincts must confront as morally bad. . > >Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups >To: <12-step-freeegroups> >Subject: Re: Re: toxic AA >Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 20:19:02 -0700 > >I find the 'shame' in the rooms is limited to shame on you for not going to >enough meetings, not having a sponsor, not working the steps, etc. When >someone is cheating on their spouse or steals or does things normal people >wouldn't tolerate, well in AA they are sick people and we must not pass >judgement. If you are the recipient of these behaviors and feeling angry >naturally, the members wave their hands at it and counsel you (with a >little >shame thrown in) for not being accepting. > >jan > > Re: Re: toxic AA > > > > Hi Apple! Nice to hear from you. > > I would add a few thingss to your comments. What you say below fits >into >my > > personal definition of guilt. It helps me to separate this from shame. >Guilt > > is about behavior.....connected to those things you have the power to > > control. (not the AA " I couldn't help it syndrome) Shame on the other >hand > > springs from an intangible and hard to pin down internal belief that >there > > is something evil and disgusting about me fundementally. That it is > > something about me that will come out eventually and be found out no >matter > > what I do. It's far different than accepting that we are fallable human > > beings. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2000 Report Share Posted June 4, 2000 Joe: thank you for this, it is just what I needed to hear today. Judith > That is happening. One thing that works towards this end is that open > discussion is happening, and it is a powerful thing. Take a traditional > belief such as " AA is the only way " , or something like " it is healthy to > overlook all hurts; do not defend yourself or seek justice " . These are > beliefs that cannot be supported by any rational argument, and once they > are brought out into the light, they start to look pretty stupid. The more > this stuff is talked about, the more clearly it can be seen to be false. > The more it is dishonestly defended, the more dishonest those people > defending it look. The very act of discussing these things itself changes > things. The step program has depended for its survival and expansion on > dissent and disagreement being silenced, the voices of those harmed by it > ridiculed and marginalised. And now that cannot be done any more, things > automatically start to change. > > Joe B. > _______________________________________________________ Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2000 Report Share Posted June 4, 2000 At 09:10 05/06/00 -0400, you wrote: >When > > someone is cheating on their spouse or steals or does things normal people > > wouldn't tolerate, well in AA they are sick people and we must not pass > > judgement. > >Ain't that the truth! When I bring up what happened, which is rarely, in >the past 5 years to some " friends " (who have been hurt by the program too >and have no clue that things done to them need to be addressed too) still >react, with no empathy or support to my plight. " Just let it go " is their >robotic response....like I'm bothering them with expressing my needs. Then >they wonder why I don't make much of an effort to associate with them >anymore. > >The insanity needs to be exposed for what it really is! > >Carol That is happening. One thing that works towards this end is that open discussion is happening, and it is a powerful thing. Take a traditional belief such as " AA is the only way " , or something like " it is healthy to overlook all hurts; do not defend yourself or seek justice " . These are beliefs that cannot be supported by any rational argument, and once they are brought out into the light, they start to look pretty stupid. The more this stuff is talked about, the more clearly it can be seen to be false. The more it is dishonestly defended, the more dishonest those people defending it look. The very act of discussing these things itself changes things. The step program has depended for its survival and expansion on dissent and disagreement being silenced, the voices of those harmed by it ridiculed and marginalised. And now that cannot be done any more, things automatically start to change. Joe B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2000 Report Share Posted June 5, 2000 When > someone is cheating on their spouse or steals or does things normal people > wouldn't tolerate, well in AA they are sick people and we must not pass > judgement. Ain't that the truth! When I bring up what happened, which is rarely, in the past 5 years to some " friends " (who have been hurt by the program too and have no clue that things done to them need to be addressed too) still react, with no empathy or support to my plight. " Just let it go " is their robotic response....like I'm bothering them with expressing my needs. Then they wonder why I don't make much of an effort to associate with them anymore. The insanity needs to be exposed for what it really is! Carol Re: Re: toxic AA > > > > Hi Apple! Nice to hear from you. > > I would add a few thingss to your comments. What you say below fits into > my > > personal definition of guilt. It helps me to separate this from shame. > Guilt > > is about behavior.....connected to those things you have the power to > > control. (not the AA " I couldn't help it syndrome) Shame on the other > hand > > springs from an intangible and hard to pin down internal belief that there > > is something evil and disgusting about me fundementally. That it is > > something about me that will come out eventually and be found out no > matter > > what I do. It's far different than accepting that we are fallable human > > beings. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Free @Backup service! Click here for your free trial of @Backup. > @Backup is the most convenient way to securely protect and access > your files online. Try it now and receive 300 MyPoints. > http://click./1/4935/2/_/4324/_/960086164/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2000 Report Share Posted June 5, 2000 And I will continue to ride my " bloody stallion of revolt " toward the AA program 'til I die!!!! Carol Re: Re: toxic AA > At 09:10 05/06/00 -0400, you wrote: > >When > > > someone is cheating on their spouse or steals or does things normal people > > > wouldn't tolerate, well in AA they are sick people and we must not pass > > > judgement. > > > >Ain't that the truth! When I bring up what happened, which is rarely, in > >the past 5 years to some " friends " (who have been hurt by the program too > >and have no clue that things done to them need to be addressed too) still > >react, with no empathy or support to my plight. " Just let it go " is their > >robotic response....like I'm bothering them with expressing my needs. Then > >they wonder why I don't make much of an effort to associate with them > >anymore. > > > >The insanity needs to be exposed for what it really is! > > > >Carol > > That is happening. One thing that works towards this end is that open > discussion is happening, and it is a powerful thing. Take a traditional > belief such as " AA is the only way " , or something like " it is healthy to > overlook all hurts; do not defend yourself or seek justice " . These are > beliefs that cannot be supported by any rational argument, and once they > are brought out into the light, they start to look pretty stupid. The more > this stuff is talked about, the more clearly it can be seen to be false. > The more it is dishonestly defended, the more dishonest those people > defending it look. The very act of discussing these things itself changes > things. The step program has depended for its survival and expansion on > dissent and disagreement being silenced, the voices of those harmed by it > ridiculed and marginalised. And now that cannot be done any more, things > automatically start to change. > > Joe B. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations. > Remember the good 'ol days > http://click./1/4053/2/_/4324/_/960150010/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2000 Report Share Posted June 5, 2000 Does this mean any stepNazi bullies are actually stepping down? . > >Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups >To: 12-step-freeegroups >Subject: Re: Re: toxic AA >Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 21:19:10 -0700 > >At 09:10 05/06/00 -0400, you wrote: > >When > > > someone is cheating on their spouse or steals or does things normal >people > > > wouldn't tolerate, well in AA they are sick people and we must not >pass > > > judgement. > > > >Ain't that the truth! When I bring up what happened, which is rarely, in > >the past 5 years to some " friends " (who have been hurt by the program >too > >and have no clue that things done to them need to be addressed too) still > >react, with no empathy or support to my plight. " Just let it go " is >their > >robotic response....like I'm bothering them with expressing my needs. >Then > >they wonder why I don't make much of an effort to associate with them > >anymore. > > > >The insanity needs to be exposed for what it really is! > > > >Carol > >That is happening. One thing that works towards this end is that open >discussion is happening, and it is a powerful thing. Take a traditional >belief such as " AA is the only way " , or something like " it is healthy to >overlook all hurts; do not defend yourself or seek justice " . These are >beliefs that cannot be supported by any rational argument, and once they >are brought out into the light, they start to look pretty stupid. The more >this stuff is talked about, the more clearly it can be seen to be false. >The more it is dishonestly defended, the more dishonest those people >defending it look. The very act of discussing these things itself changes >things. The step program has depended for its survival and expansion on >dissent and disagreement being silenced, the voices of those harmed by it >ridiculed and marginalised. And now that cannot be done any more, things >automatically start to change. > >Joe B. > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2000 Report Share Posted June 5, 2000 Yes, I'm with you in the cavalry! . > >Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups >To: <12-step-freeegroups> >Subject: Re: Re: toxic AA >Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 17:51:27 -0400 > >And I will continue to ride my " bloody stallion of revolt " toward the AA >program 'til I die!!!! > >Carol > > > > Re: Re: toxic AA > > > > At 09:10 05/06/00 -0400, you wrote: > > >When > > > > someone is cheating on their spouse or steals or does things normal >people > > > > wouldn't tolerate, well in AA they are sick people and we must not >pass > > > > judgement. > > > > > >Ain't that the truth! When I bring up what happened, which is rarely, >in > > >the past 5 years to some " friends " (who have been hurt by the program >too > > >and have no clue that things done to them need to be addressed too) >still > > >react, with no empathy or support to my plight. " Just let it go " is >their > > >robotic response....like I'm bothering them with expressing my needs. >Then > > >they wonder why I don't make much of an effort to associate with them > > >anymore. > > > > > >The insanity needs to be exposed for what it really is! > > > > > >Carol > > > > That is happening. One thing that works towards this end is that open > > discussion is happening, and it is a powerful thing. Take a traditional > > belief such as " AA is the only way " , or something like " it is healthy to > > overlook all hurts; do not defend yourself or seek justice " . These are > > beliefs that cannot be supported by any rational argument, and once they > > are brought out into the light, they start to look pretty stupid. The >more > > this stuff is talked about, the more clearly it can be seen to be false. > > The more it is dishonestly defended, the more dishonest those people > > defending it look. The very act of discussing these things itself >changes > > things. The step program has depended for its survival and expansion on > > dissent and disagreement being silenced, the voices of those harmed by >it > > ridiculed and marginalised. And now that cannot be done any more, things > > automatically start to change. > > > > Joe B. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations. > > Remember the good 'ol days > > http://click./1/4053/2/_/4324/_/960150010/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2000 Report Share Posted June 5, 2000 Sorry Joe, but I just don' see the breakdown of AA and other 12 step programs as being anywhere near the critical mass you are speaking about. I do see another phenomena however, that is causing little rips in the seam of AA. There is a battle of sorts going on in AA in parts of NY that does dramatically illustrate the schism between the " Big Book is the only way step nazis people " , who for matters of brevity I'll describe as zealots, and the people who see this philosophy as harmful, close minded, regressive intolerant and sadistic. (which was the camp that I was in) Unfortunately, about 80% of the people have very little knowledge of this battle that keeps raging on. From what I understand in states where fundamentalism thrives the battle has already been decided. The zealots in the last few years have become much more bolder. In the past there was always different factions but it was very rare for one faction to actually try and sabotage the other faction. This is no longer the case. The zealots now, run these meetings called " Big Book Study Meetings " . It is basically code words that people in this " movement " understand. When someone in the know sees Big Book Study as opposed to just a listing as a Big Book Meeting, he will rightfully assume a few things. First, the newcomer will be working the steps from their first meeting. They will be working on their fourth step within 2 months and will be doing their fifth step usually by 4 months, certainly no less that 6 months. Usually they like a person to be finished with the first 9 steps by their first anniversary. They believe that anyone who has not taken all of the steps but just goes to meetings are living with " untreated alcoholism. " You see to these people, everything that goes on in AA besides doing the steps from the Big Book is just extraneous bullshit. The saddest thing is they usually prey on people who are a little more messed up than others, they are especially successful in grabbing relapsers. When these people don't get the " spiritual awakening " and he " promises " from the steps, they tend to blame themselves and instead of sharing what is going on in their life, or God forbid that they feel like drinking, they will tough it out and act as if, because the other premise of these people is that if you are " spiritually fit " you should not crave a drink. They also believe that prayer is the most effective way to deal with negative feelings about drinking. Anyway, this battle for the " soul " of AA is one way that I think will cause AA to unravel a bit. Secondly, the people who are in the addiction field now are more willing to try new things, and you are right that AA has lost its image as being unfallible. I think there will be more discussion on whether the disease concept is real or not. Ironically, a lot of people who played lip service to the disease concept really didn't buy it. They went along with it because they felt it made the alcoholic feel better about herself. People forget how alcoholics were treated and what they were called before AA and the disease concept. Now,, addictionologists are seeing the harm that the disease concept causes to the alcoholic. It has been used as a license not to stop a relapse after a couple of days but rather go on an all out bender because once we picked up " we were powerless " . It wasn't until I let go of the disease concept completely did I no longer carry on with my binges to the very end. Originally Mikena@... At 23:38 05/06/00 +0000, you wrote: >Does this mean any stepNazi bullies are actually stepping down? > >. Not yet- they can't read the writing on the wall. Well probably they can read it, but they refuse to believe it and just get nasty instead. True denial! Consider two current trends; [1] the idea that AA can be harmful, traumatic AND ineffective is catching on; what may have been unbelievable a few years ago is now getting wider exposure and some significant acceptance (note the media, which I believe would not have touched this not so long ago) and [2] it is becoming more widely known that there are effective modern alternatives to AA. Because of these things, it will matter less and less whether those guys " step down " or not. They will have increasingly less significance in the overall scheme of things. They only have influence now because a lot of people still think AA really works. In a shrinking, less popular and less well respected AA, it won't matter much. People will know they can go elsewhere anyway. Joe B. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Old school buds here: http://click./1/4057/2/_/4324/_/960250928/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2000 Report Share Posted June 5, 2000 Mike: Apparently I've characterized you incorrectly in regards to the below. For that I apologize. I was under the impression that you were of the Big Book Step Nazi variety. Re: Re: toxic AA There is a battle of sorts going on in AA in parts of NY that does dramatically illustrate the schism between the " Big Book is the only way step nazis people " , who for matters of brevity I'll describe as zealots, and the people who see this philosophy as harmful, close minded, regressive intolerant and sadistic. (which was the camp that I was in) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2000 Report Share Posted June 6, 2000 At 23:38 05/06/00 +0000, you wrote: >Does this mean any stepNazi bullies are actually stepping down? > >. Not yet- they can't read the writing on the wall. Well probably they can read it, but they refuse to believe it and just get nasty instead. True denial! Consider two current trends; [1] the idea that AA can be harmful, traumatic AND ineffective is catching on; what may have been unbelievable a few years ago is now getting wider exposure and some significant acceptance (note the media, which I believe would not have touched this not so long ago) and [2] it is becoming more widely known that there are effective modern alternatives to AA. Because of these things, it will matter less and less whether those guys " step down " or not. They will have increasingly less significance in the overall scheme of things. They only have influence now because a lot of people still think AA really works. In a shrinking, less popular and less well respected AA, it won't matter much. People will know they can go elsewhere anyway. Joe B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2000 Report Share Posted June 6, 2000 At 00:01 06/06/00 -0400, you wrote: >Sorry Joe, but I just don' see the breakdown of AA and other 12 step >programs as being anywhere near the critical mass you are speaking >about. I do see another phenomena however, that is causing little rips >in the seam of AA. I didn't mean to suggest that it was all visibly crumbling just yet! What I am getting at is that the signs are already there if you look for them that important changes are starting to happen. The important changes are happening outside of AA, not inside it- in fact I think now that what happens inside AA is largely irrelevant- it will never change enough to become healthy, or become the benign organization it pretends to be. I wouldn't wait for AA to suddenly get honest about its ineffectiveness or the harm it does and in penance decide to dismantle itself- we just need a widespread popular realization that AA isn't all it is cracked up to be, and that there are viable alternatives, and the problem is largely solved. Given up to date an accurate information, people are perfectly capable of making up their own minds about what kind of help they want, and I believe that a majority will no longer choose AA when they realise it is not their best option. The breaking of AA's monopoly of influence (as exerted by " anonymous " AA " professionals " and as enforced by the silencing of those who were harmed by it), and of AA's stranglehold on information are important and will make all the difference in time. Joe B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2000 Report Share Posted June 6, 2000 : Apology accepted. For the last two years up until about 3 months ago, I was very involved in this battle between the zealots and what I consider the typical NYC approach to AA, which is basically take all the time you need to do the steps, (in fact don't do them if you don't want to) and I think you can tell by the way I act on this list, I do not back down if I think I am right. After a while it just became too depressing. Many people surprised me by falling in with the zealots, usually because they were not getting alll the " miracles " in their life that the zealots promise will come if they just do the steps as outlined in the Big Book. It got to a point where I could't stand to be around some friends I had in the other camp. They came on like moonies used to back in the 70s. They were going on pure emotionalism and they really believed the stuff that was shoved down their throat. When other people in AA saw them coming they would remember a place they were supposed to be an hour ago! In fact, a woman in AA that I was very close to over the years became the most fanatical of the fanatical. We always had a great time when we went out before her conversion to Big Book Nazism, but it got to the point where although I still loved her, I couldn't take that continuous type of conversion talk from her. It was so sad to see what happened to her. This conversation about God has bothered me too. I never would try to convert anyone to what I believe in, and I think that non-believers trying to prove to believers that there is no God is just as arrogant and obnoxious. Originally Mikena@... Mike: Apparently I've characterized you incorrectly in regards to the below. For that I apologize. I was under the impression that you were of the Big Book Step Nazi variety. Re: Re: toxic AA There is a battle of sorts going on in AA in parts of NY that does dramatically illustrate the schism between the " Big Book is the only way step nazis people " , who for matters of brevity I'll describe as zealots, and the people who see this philosophy as harmful, close minded, regressive intolerant and sadistic. (which was the camp that I was in) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FREE shipping, 30-Day No Question Returns, daily giveaways and much, much more at zZounds.com. Your music gear superstore! http://click./1/3736/2/_/4324/_/960266147/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2000 Report Share Posted June 6, 2000 MikeknapNY@... wrote: > This conversation about God has bothered me too. I never would try to > convert anyone to what I believe in, and I think that non-believers > trying to prove to believers that there is no God is just as arrogant > and obnoxious. > > > Originally Mikena@... I couldn't agree more, and I'll be honest, Charlene: I take offense at being told that my belief in God is a result of " brainwashing " . Your stance is hardly respectful or tolerant of my beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.