Devin's AA rant - part 1

[Guest guest]

Hi, folks,

I'm doing this one in a few parts to make sure that no one is

overloaded. I intend to present this to a few people in my

community that are in the CD proffesional services, who are also

anti-stepper sympathizers. I B open to critisism, suggestions,

compliments, insults, irrelevant non-sequeters, etc.

Devin

** Professional Ethics and the Twelve-Step Recovery Program

What I have seen happening in the field of chemical dependency

rehabilitation is that the disciplines of medicine, psychology, and

sociology have been at the mercy of dominant attitudes within

our societal structure. This prevailing attitude has lead to the

detrimental stagnation and gross comprimise, if not

abandonment of ethics within such fields. I am specifially

refering to the overwhealming dominance of 12-step ideology in

the field of chemical dependency recovery.

This may, at first, be interpreted as a strong reactionary thesis

based on a personal antipathy toward 12-step ideolgy. In

accordance with dominant discourse it is. This thesis requires

one to question the basic tenets of not only the chemical

dependency (CD) treatment industry, but, to a degree, our

society, itself. Naturally, opening oneself to the possibility of

radical ideology carries with it a tremendous amount of fear,

guilt, risk, confusion, etc., subsequently, a significant portion of

society will be automatically unwilling to take such ideology into

consideration.

In order to begin, we can first take a look at the most obvious and

often ignored aspects of the 12-step program. The creation of all

12-step programs and thier core ideology comes from the

specific program of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and the

acompanied text of the same title, which is commonly refered to

as the " Big Book. " The Big Book, contains the basic struture of

the program, first published in 1939. Since its original

publication, there have been two revisions, the first in 1955, and

the second in 1976. As stated in the preface to the third edition of

the Big Book;

Because this book has become the basic text for our Society

and has helped such large numbers of alcoholic men and

women to recovery, there exists a sentiment against any radical

changes being made in it. Therefore, the first portion of this

volume, describing the A.A. recovery program, has been left

untouched in the course of revisions made for both the second

and the third editions.

Here we see that the basic description of the recovery proccess

has been unaltered for over sixty years. This element renders the

proccess by definition unscientific. That is not to say that science

is not dependent on theories and/or laws from distant historical

origin, nor is it to say that new and conflicting information

nessecitates the obsolescence of existing tenats. The point is

that we have an ideology that does not allow the introduction of

conflicting information to be considered and tested, which is one

of the most basic properties of scientific research, discovery, and

advancement. This puts the 12-step program on the same

scientific and medical level as faith-healing, which is, exactly

what it is. Like faith-healing, the proof of efficacy of the 12-step

programs relies soley on personal testimony of its practitioners.

This is nothing more than an emotional elaboration on the

fallacious argument; " It worked for me, therefore, it will work for

you. "

Next we look at the obvious properties of 12-step ideology as it

relates to professional ethics and intellectual integrity. The

primary manifestation of the deployment of the 12-step program

as a remedy to chemical dependency is the 12-step meeting.

The meetings themselves are by their own definition and in

practice non-professional. These meetings are facilitated by

those who have learned, and adhere to the 12-step philosophy.

Naturally a hierarchy developes, those who have been with the

program for the longest period of time and claim to have

achieved abstinance in accordacne with the doctrine are

considered to be those members that have attained the most

infallable wisdom. When a newcomer attends a meeting, they

are told to get a " sponsor, " one who has a longer period of time

in the program and is to be seen as an authority. The newcomer

is often expected to accept the advice and guidance of the

sponser without question. Even though, in practice, the degree of

authority that the sponsor posseses is open to interpretaion, I

will discuss later that the actual intent of the program itself is an

extremely rigid authoritarian structure.

A professional couselor is bound by very specific, legal

guidelines that corresponds with a code of professional ethics.

These guidelines are designed to prevent the proffessional from

abusing thier power in a way that it would lead to the detriment of

the client, the counselor, the organization, or ultimately the

credibility of the counseling profession itself. Why then, is it not

only permissble, but in many cases standard procedure to refer

clients to an organization that is not bound by any such legal or

ethical guidelines? Is the act of refering clients to the said

organizations in and of itself a violation of professional ethics? I

stand firm that it is, and I intend to explain exactly why I take that

position, and that taking such a position is indeed in the best

intrest of persons who are seeking help with problems of

chemical dependecy.

When someone struggling with alcoholism is refered to AA

meetings, just what is it that goes on at the meeting, and what

exactly is the philosophy that is being promoted to the

newcomer? Traditionally each meeting begins with readings

from the Big Book and a christian prayer (The Serenity Prayer.)

The readings are; an exerpt from chapter five of the Big Book

entitled " How it Works " followed by a list of the " Twelve Traditions

of Alcoholics Anonymous. " The introductory information about the

AA program that the newcomer hears in the first paragraph of

" How it Works " is as follows:

Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed

our path. Those who do not recover are people who cannot or

will not completely

give themselves to this simple program, usually men and

women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with

themselves. There are such unfortunates. They are not at fault;

they seem to have been born that way. They are naturally

incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which

demands rigorous honesty. Their chances are less than

average.

There are those, too, who suffer from grave emotional and

mental disorders, but many of them do recover if they have the

capacity to be honest.

The message is clear, this program works, it will work for you,

unless you are intrinsically dishonest. Those who posses the

quality of honesty can and will copletely give themselves to this

simple program.Here we have presented the newcomer with a

litmus test. If you believe that you are not one of those people

who was born constitutionally and naturally incapable of

honesty, here is how you prove it, give yourself to this program.

Now let's imagine a professional therapist who has come up

with a theoretical process to cure depression, this therapist tells

his or her clients that this proccess will work for everyone, well

almost everyone, the only people that will find the procces

ineffective are those that are inveterate liars, hopelessly

dishonest. Those people simply can't be helped. Would this be

considered a violation of professional ethics? Of course it is, this

would be blatent disregard of the clients' welfare in favor of

self-promotion, not to mention a very brutal and dishonest

manipulation tactic. So, why is it acceptable to send an

alcoholics to an organization that employs this tactic. Here is a

tactic that society considers to be highly unethical when used in

professional fields like; medicine, psycholgy, and tailoring new

clothes for emporers, but appearantly finds it perfectly

acceptable in the treatment of chemical dependency.

So why is honesty the specific, deciding factor, why not morality

in general, or intellegence, or worthiness, etcetera. To answer

this we look at what AA really is, a program of religeous

conversion wich has direct roots in fundamentalist christianity.

The fundies (for short,) hold firm to the beliefs; we know the real

truth, the real truth is the bible, the bible is absolute and

indisputable truth, those who refuse to aknowedge this truth are

not being honest with themselves. AA is using the same tactic,

and that is where it came from.

As we look further into the AA philosophy, I find myself more at a

shortage of ink and paper than examples that support my thesis.

The next thing we should look at are the steps to recovery that

are called " suggestions. " I think it obvious that the intention of

these steps to be mere suggestions is highly questionable. The

chapter " How it Works " starts by saying that if we do not

" completely give ourselves to this simple program " we are

naturaly dishonest. From chapter two; " There is a Solution; "

If you are as seriously alcoholic as we were, we be-

lieve there is no middle-of-the-road solution. We were

in a position where life was becoming impossible, and

if we had passed into the region from which there is

no return through human aid, we had but two alterna-

tives: One was to go on to the bitter end, blotting out

the consciousness of our intolerable situation as best

we could; and the other, to accept spiritual help.

It is shown that without the guidance of " spiritual help " life will

be intolerable, there is no other altenative. Here they " suggest "

spiritual help, in preferance of an intolerable life. This is clearly

dogmatism, there is no variety of interpretation offered, no

exceptions, black and white thinking. From the fourth chapter;

" We Agnostics: "

  To one who feels he is an atheist or agnostic such an

experience seems impossible, but to continue as he is

means disaster, especially if he is an alcoholic of the

hopeless variety. To be doomed to an alcoholic death

or to live on a spiritual basis are not always easy

alternatives to face.

Now the stakes are raised, if you reject the information that we

are giving you, the consequences are certian death. Note that the

Athiest or Agnostic person is discredited he just " feels " that he is

an Athiest The point of view of the idividual is invalid, the dogma

is indisputable truth. In the AA community this has prompted the

often used slogans such as; " it is suggested that you work the

steps, like it is suggested that you use a paracute when jumping

out of an airplane, " or the more common and brief; " work the

steps or die. " Now we look at the steps that are designed to save

the alcoholic from certian death. From chapter five " How it

Works, " here are the first three steps:

Here are the steps we took, which are suggested as

a program of recovery:

       1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol-

              that our lives had become unmanageable.

       2. Came to believe that a Power greater than our-

              selves could restore us to sanity.

       3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives

              over to the care of God as we understood Him.

In the first step the alcoholic is labeled a powerless person with

an unmanagable life.The first step is by far the easiest for the

addict to accept, here is someone who is experiencing severe

problems and has sought help. To admit the obvious is does not

require much on the part of the addict.

It is the second step where several leaps in logic are required.

The specific use of the word " sanity " labels the addict as insane,

in other words this person does not have the capabilility of

making rational descisions. This judgement is applied after the

person has already taken the first step to admit that they have a

problem, and the would like assistance in dealing with it, a very

sane and rational descision, yet after this descision has been

made, our addict is still insane according to the second step.

The addict must " come to believe " that a power greater can help.

The addict is not presented with evidence or logic, they simply

start to believe this, why? The reasons why we " came to believe "

are supported only with the dogma presented within the

structure itself. The term " power greater than ouselves " when

isolated can mean just about anything, the police department,

society at large, forces of nature, laws of physics, a group of

people, on and on. When the open-ended " power greater than

ouselves " is follows the phrase; " came to believe " the definition

of power greater becomes more specific, it does not refer to the

previously mentioned examples. The addict already belives in

them, the power must be something that the addict does not

currently believe in, and cannot be proven. To clarify the intention

behind the second step, I quote a passage from chapter four

" We Agnostics: "

Yes, we of agnostic temperament have had these

thoughts and experiences. Let us make haste to reas-

sure you. We found that as soon as we were able to

lay aside prejudice and express even a willingness to

believe in a Power greater than ourselves, we com-

menced to get results, even though it was impossible

for any of us to fully define or comprehend that

Power, which is God.

Here the " power greater than ourselves " is specifically defined

as god, why then does the addict have to " come to believe " in

god, perhapse, and not unlikely, they already do believe in god.

Because the addict's conception of god does not match the

belief in a specific god that the dogma requires. It is right here in

the first part of the second step that AA reviels itself as not an

ecumenical, and pluralistic spiritual path, but a religion, not just

a religion, but a very strict, authoritarian, dogmatic interpretation

of a religion.

Still looking at step two, we examine the function of the specific

term " sanity. " the inffered definition of lack of sanity is in relates

to the addicts' inability to use good jugement as it relates to

drinking. So why is it that, after taking the first step which

demonstates better judgement, is the addict not restored to

sanity? Because being restored to sanity is not the employment

of more sound and rational judgement in dealing with one's life.

Sanity requires an adhearance to the specific dogma that is

presented. Is the intention to say that all those who do not accept

the dogma are insane? Yes, it is.

Step three is where all logic is abandoned, and any ideas that

the individual may have are considered invalid. The concept of

god is further narrowed, and the priorities of the program are

established. Turning or will and our lives over to the care of god,

is not a spiritual concept, this is strictly an authoritarian concept.

After this god has restored the addicts' sanity (acceptance of the

dogma) the addict is then instructed to abondon their own will

and life, leaving the addict without any structure. The structure is

immeadiatly replaced with adhearance to the dogma and

obedience to authority. The hierarchy is establised; the authority

stems from a concept that is labeled " god; " the intentions of this

concept are described in the dogma, the dogma is interpreted by

one who has learned it, and passed to the newcomer who has

abandoned thier own will and life and left with no alternative but

to obey the chain of command.

We are then presented with the phase " as we understood him. "

Is this an allowance for a more open and individual interpretation

of god? No, this is precisely the opposite. As stated in the forth

chapter " We Agnostics: "

When, therefore, we speak to you of God, we mean

your own conception of God. This applies, too, to

other spiritual expressions which you find in this book.

Do not let any prejudice you may have against

spiritual terms deter you from honestly asking yourself

what they mean to you. At the start, this was all we

needed to commence spiritual growth, to effect our

first conscious relation with God as we understood

Him. Afterward, we found ourselves accepting many

things which then seemed entirely out of reach. That

was growth, but if we wished to grow we had to begin

somewhere. So we used our own conception, how-

ever limited it was.

       We needed to ask ourselves but one short question.

" Do I now believe, or am I even willing to believe,

that there is a Power greater than myself? " As soon

as a man can say that he does believe, or is willing to

believe, we emphatically assure him that he is on his

way. It has been repeatedly proven among us that

upon this simple cornerstone a wonderfully effective

spiritual structure can be built.

Here they start with the idea that god is equated to your own

conception of god, then your own conception is described as

" limited, " but it sets him " on his way. " It creates a " simple

cornerstone. " This is a common trick of the trade in proselytizing,

begin with an open and ecumenical message that progressivly

narrows as more agreement is obtained. At step three the

addicts' own conception of god is limited to;a singular god, a

god that posseses direct power over an individual, a god that

must have a degree of interaction that enables it to restore one's

sanity, a god that is willing and able to handle the will and life of

an individual, and in the last part of step three " god as we

understood him, " the god must be male.

Now it is established that ones' own conception of god is not

neccesarily anthrpomophic, but god, whatever species, must

have a penis. Infact, this god could even be a penis. As tempting

as it is to accuse AAers of being a group of weenie worshipers

who have given thier will and lives over to the almighty severed

ding-dong in the sky, we have to look at the real intent and

purpose of the exclusily male god. This, I'm convinced is no

accident, a female Goddess is not acceptable. Why?

As I stated earlier, AA is not about a spiritual path, it is really

about an authoritarian structure, specifically a patriarchal

authoritaian structure as it is established in step three. The

subjugation of women is a vital element in the etablishment and

preservation of an autoritaian, patriarchal structure. Since the

patriachal structure is based on perceived rather than existing

authority, the subjegation of women comes naturally to those

who hold the archaic beliefs of women being " weaker. "

Maintaing the illusion of power requires subjegation, and the

creation of an imaginary authority, such as a male god. A

Goddess would be a serious threat, not to sobriety, not to

spirituality, but to a patriarchal structure of authority. If you don't

believe this, just read the " To Wives " chapter in the Big Book.

2bcontinued

[Guest guest]

(snip)

-------------

Devin, this is an excellent presentation! Could you describe where and in

what form you intend to present it?

I especially like your comments on the second step:

>

> The addict must " come to believe " that a power greater can help.

> The addict is not presented with evidence or logic, they simply

> start to believe this, why? The reasons why we " came to believe "

> are supported only with the dogma presented within the

> structure itself. The term " power greater than ouselves " when

> isolated can mean just about anything, the police department,

> society at large, forces of nature, laws of physics, a group of

> people, on and on. When the open-ended " power greater than

> ouselves " is follows the phrase; " came to believe " the definition

> of power greater becomes more specific, it does not refer to the

> previously mentioned examples. The addict already belives in

> them, the power must be something that the addict does not

> currently believe in, and cannot be proven. To clarify the intention

> behind the second step, I quote a passage from chapter four

> " We Agnostics: "

>

> Yes, we of agnostic temperament have had these

> thoughts and experiences. Let us make haste to reas-

> sure you. We found that as soon as we were able to

> lay aside prejudice and express even a willingness to

> believe in a Power greater than ourselves, we com-

> menced to get results, even though it was impossible

> for any of us to fully define or comprehend that

> Power, which is God.

>

> Here the " power greater than ourselves " is specifically defined

> as god, why then does the addict have to " come to believe " in

> god, perhapse, and not unlikely, they already do believe in god.

> Because the addict's conception of god does not match the

> belief in a specific god that the dogma requires. It is right here in

> the first part of the second step that AA reviels itself as not an

> ecumenical, and pluralistic spiritual path, but a religion, not just

> a religion, but a very strict, authoritarian, dogmatic interpretation

> of a religion.

>

> Still looking at step two, we examine the function of the specific

> term " sanity. " the inffered definition of lack of sanity is in relates

> to the addicts' inability to use good jugement as it relates to

> drinking. So why is it that, after taking the first step which

> demonstates better judgement, is the addict not restored to

> sanity? Because being restored to sanity is not the employment

> of more sound and rational judgement in dealing with one's life.

> Sanity requires an adhearance to the specific dogma that is

> presented. Is the intention to say that all those who do not accept

> the dogma are insane? Yes, it is.

>

-----------

Look forward to the other parts.

~Rita

p.s. tho perhaps it might be wise to slightly tone down the " patriarchal

oppression " rhetoric -- the point can be made in somewhat less harsh language...

[Guest guest]

> Devin, this is an excellent presentation! Could you describe

where and in what form you intend to present it?

>

> I especially like your comments on the second step:

>

> Look forward to the other parts.

>

> ~Rita

>

> p.s. tho perhaps it might be wise to slightly tone down the

" patriarchal oppression " rhetoric -- the point can be made in

somewhat less harsh language...

Thank you!!!, Rita,

I find this very encouraging. My situation is that I'm sceduled to

start work this fall at a halfway house for people who are

dual-diagnosed with chemical dependency and some form of

mental illness. Most who come in are homeless and

unemployed, have little or no resources to get themselves

started. The program is designed to help the clients build a

platform of self-sufficency and move out. Clients are allowed to

stay up to one year, or as little as one or two months if that's all it

takes. The current staff members are all aware of my point of

view toward the 12-step programs, they are all tolerant and

accepting of my ideas, some are openly supportive. What I'm

looking to do is to establish a strategy for the state-funded

organizations that deal with CD therapy and case management

to lessen their dependence on 12-step groups. That is why I'm

dealing with the issue of proffesional ethics. This document is

first going to members of the CD proffesionals that I know to be

allied with me, then to a wider range of people throughout the

community. At that point, I need to tone it down. I'm curious how

you see the language concerning the patriarchal authority too

harsh. I thought it likely that a group of well-educated,

proffesionals would be very accepting of the language. There are

folks who are very active in publicizing alternative recovery

options. One thing that I would be very interested in finding (if it

exists) is an analysis of reports of abuse of clients in CD

inpatient treatment settings. Anyone know of such info?

Devin

[Guest guest]

>

> > Devin, this is an excellent presentation! Could you describe

> where and in what form you intend to present it?

> >

> > I especially like your comments on the second step:

> >

> > Look forward to the other parts.

> >

> > ~Rita

> >

> > p.s. tho perhaps it might be wise to slightly tone down the

> " patriarchal oppression " rhetoric -- the point can be made in

> somewhat less harsh language...

Devin,

What is your deadline? I'd like to spend a little more time with what

you've written here. My initial reaction is " YAY! " But, then, I'm on

this 12-step-free list and I know that many people feel that my

viewpoint is on the fringe. But I feel that your analysis is

excellent and needs to be heard.

I too look forward to the next installments. Talk about

" patriarchial " ! (More 'pee-pee' as the HP?! The world may not be

ready for that, I agree with Rita there).

PS: I am developing a big crush on you, (WNL). You go!

[Guest guest]

I hate to be a bitch, because you have a good rant here. But if you are going

to present

this to people in authority you'd be doing well to go over it with a

spell-checker and

correct spelling mistakes.

You're probably going to run into opposition. There will be people who don't

like your

position, and if they find spelling errors in your essay, they may well use

those spelling

errors against you, as a way to discount your writing. This is too bad, but

<sigh> some

people will resort to ad hominem attacks when they bump into ideas they don't

like.

You might want to avoid the word, " fundie " . You could ruffle some feathers with

that

word, and immediately minds would close. There will be people looking to

discredit you,

and right there is something that could be used against you.

" ...but god, whatever species, must

have a penis. Infact, this god could even be a penis. As tempting

as it is to accuse AAers of being a group of weenie worshipers

who have given thier will and lives over to the almighty severed

ding-dong in the sky, we have to look at the real intent and

purpose of the exclusily male god. "

I happen to agree with you. And I'm sitting here grinning. But if you're

trying to work

in a halfway house, this little ditty could get you in trouble. It would be a

*terrific*

Carlin routine. Carlin would have 'em rolling in the aisles

laughing with

this. (I have a hilariously funny Carlin routine that came rolling in on

a list.

Was it this list? Or was it another one? I will go and look, and perhaps

forward it to

this list if it came from somewhere else.) But if you're trying to convince

professionals

to go against such a sacred cow as AA, this paragraph might well be

counter-productive. I

understand you're going to send it first to people who agree with you. I think

there will

well be people who will laugh at your description. But I think there is a

danger that

some will be offended by this. They may well agree with your position but still

come to

discount you. I know for myself that there have been instances when I've

thought, " Well,

on the one hand I agree with the *position* this person is taking. OTOH s/he

sounds like

a wing-nut, and I wonder how reliable s/he is. "

And while you're first going to send it only to people who agree with you, it

could still

make its way to people who disagree with your position before you're ready to

have them

see it. AA supporters could use this paragraph to discredit you.

Remember that while the people you're writing to agree with you, they could

still be

pretty vulnerable where AA is concerned. It's one thing to agree with you, but

another

thing to be willing to go up against the almighty 12-step program.

Devin asks, " One thing that I would be very interested in finding (if it

exists) is an analysis of reports of abuse of clients in CD

inpatient treatment settings. Anyone know of such info? "

I'm going to ask my partner. I don't know whether he knows where to find an

analysis, but

he sure can tell us about the abuses. He was interning at New Beginnings at

Cove Forge.

He told me about a staff meeting in which the staff was discussing how they were

going to

*force* a client to believe in god. My partner objected to this and pointed out

that they

were violating the first amendment.. The director of therapy drew my partner

aside and

told him firmly and in no uncertain terms, " If you want to work in the treatment

field,

you don't talk that way! You don't say that! You go along with the Program! "

Blatant

religious coercion. Go along with it, participate in it, and keep your damn

mouth shut.

The question, I gather, is where is the documentation of this sort of thing.

Cheers,

nz

[Guest guest]

> I hate to be a bitch, because you have a good rant here. But if

you are going to present

> this to people in authority you'd be doing well to go over it with a

spell-checker and

> correct spelling mistakes.

>

> You're probably going to run into opposition. There will be

people who don't like your

> position, and if they find spelling errors in your essay, they may

well use those spelling

> errors against you, as a way to discount your writing. This is

too bad, but <sigh> some

> people will resort to ad hominem attacks when they bump into

ideas they don't like.

>

> You might want to avoid the word, " fundie " . You could ruffle

some feathers with that

> word, and immediately minds would close. There will be

people looking to discredit you,

> and right there is something that could be used against you.

>

> " ...but god, whatever species, must

> have a penis. Infact, this god could even be a penis. As

tempting

> as it is to accuse AAers of being a group of weenie worshipers

> who have given thier will and lives over to the almighty severed

> ding-dong in the sky, we have to look at the real intent and

> purpose of the exclusily male god. "

>

> I happen to agree with you. And I'm sitting here grinning. But if

you're trying to work

> in a halfway house, this little ditty could get you in trouble. It

would be a *terrific*

> Carlin routine. Carlin would have 'em rolling in

the aisles laughing with

> this. (I have a hilariously funny Carlin routine that

came rolling in on a list.

> Was it this list? Or was it another one? I will go and look, and

perhaps forward it to

> this list if it came from somewhere else.) But if you're trying to

convince professionals

> to go against such a sacred cow as AA, this paragraph might

well be counter-productive. I

> understand you're going to send it first to people who agree

with you. I think there will

> well be people who will laugh at your description. But I think

there is a danger that

> some will be offended by this. They may well agree with your

position but still come to

> discount you. I know for myself that there have been instances

when I've thought, " Well,

> on the one hand I agree with the *position* this person is

taking. OTOH s/he sounds like

> a wing-nut, and I wonder how reliable s/he is. "

>

> And while you're first going to send it only to people who agree

with you, it could still

> make its way to people who disagree with your position before

you're ready to have them

> see it. AA supporters could use this paragraph to discredit

you.

>

> Remember that while the people you're writing to agree with

you, they could still be

> pretty vulnerable where AA is concerned. It's one thing to agree

with you, but another

> thing to be willing to go up against the almighty 12-step

program.

>

> Devin asks, " One thing that I would be very interested in finding

(if it

> exists) is an analysis of reports of abuse of clients in CD

> inpatient treatment settings. Anyone know of such info? "

>

> I'm going to ask my partner. I don't know whether he knows

where to find an analysis, but

> he sure can tell us about the abuses. He was interning at New

Beginnings at Cove Forge.

> He told me about a staff meeting in which the staff was

discussing how they were going to

> *force* a client to believe in god. My partner objected to this

and pointed out that they

> were violating the first amendment.. The director of therapy

drew my partner aside and

> told him firmly and in no uncertain terms, " If you want to work in

the treatment field,

> you don't talk that way! You don't say that! You go along with

the Program! " Blatant

> religious coercion. Go along with it, participate in it, and keep

your damn mouth shut.

>

> The question, I gather, is where is the documentation of this

sort of thing.

>

> Cheers,

>

> nz

Thank you, ,

This is far from a polished copy, and unfortunatly, my spell-check

is kaput. I do, however have a girlfriend who was an adjunt

English professor and a magazine editor, she is going to go over

it and offer assistance to correct mistakes.

As far as the initial introduction goes, the paople who will see it

first are those who have post-graduate degrees in psychology,

sociology, and related fields. The idea of the almighty phallus

has been used throughout the 20th century in critical analysis,

literary critisizm, and has roots in Freudian theory. This would not

be anything new or shocking to these folks. The half-way house

is a done deal I'm hired, I just don't start until October. I have had

lengthy discussions with the current staff members, they happen

to be a liberal, and open-minded lot. I can find out just what the

GP is willing to handle. In comparrison to contemporary

entertainment and the messages in them by bit about god being

a prick seems relatively inocuous. You're right about " fundie " this

is not going to serve any purpose.

You are absolutely right about typos, I, infact, will discredit

something on that basis if it is intended to be a final copy and

and have some validity.

Thank you very much for the helpful information, and I really

appreciate you looking into my inquiry.

Devin

P.S. You are not being anything similar to a " bitch. " Your

information is helpful and relavent.

[Guest guest]

> >

> > > Devin, this is an excellent presentation! Could you

describe

> > where and in what form you intend to present it?

> > >

> > > I especially like your comments on the second step:

> > >

> > > Look forward to the other parts.

> > >

> > > ~Rita

> > >

> > > p.s. tho perhaps it might be wise to slightly tone down the

> > " patriarchal oppression " rhetoric -- the point can be made in

> > somewhat less harsh language...

>

> Devin,

>

> What is your deadline? I'd like to spend a little more time with

what

> you've written here. My initial reaction is " YAY! " But, then, I'm on

> this 12-step-free list and I know that many people feel that my

> viewpoint is on the fringe. But I feel that your analysis is

> excellent and needs to be heard.

>

> I too look forward to the next installments. Talk about

> " patriarchial " ! (More 'pee-pee' as the HP?! The world may not

be

> ready for that, I agree with Rita there).

>

>

>

> PS: I am developing a big crush on you, (WNL). You go!

Thank you, ,

I flattered! I'm going to present an edited version of this to a

select, trusted group of folks in about a week. The question of

professional ethics is very pertinant to these folk, as it is to me.

Folowing the analysis, I will be discussing more ethical ways to

deal with clients. One thing that is bothering me, I just found out

that there is a Teen Challenge branch in my community. These

centers have been notorious for gross human rights violations.

That is why I'm looking to get analysis on abuse incidents in

treatment centers.

Devin

P.S. My girlfriend saw your response and says she can't blame

you for having good taste in men. By the way what is WNL?

[Guest guest]

> > >

> > > > Devin, this is an excellent presentation! Could you

> describe

> > > where and in what form you intend to present it?

> > > >

> > > > I especially like your comments on the second step:

> > > >

> > > > Look forward to the other parts.

> > > >

> > > > ~Rita

> > > >

> > > > p.s. tho perhaps it might be wise to slightly tone down the

> > > " patriarchal oppression " rhetoric -- the point can be made in

> > > somewhat less harsh language...

> >

> > Devin,

> >

> > What is your deadline? I'd like to spend a little more time with

> what

> > you've written here. My initial reaction is " YAY! " But, then,

I'm on

> > this 12-step-free list and I know that many people feel that my

> > viewpoint is on the fringe. But I feel that your analysis is

> > excellent and needs to be heard.

> >

> > I too look forward to the next installments. Talk about

> > " patriarchial " ! (More 'pee-pee' as the HP?! The world may not

> be

> > ready for that, I agree with Rita there).

> >

> >

> >

> > PS: I am developing a big crush on you, (WNL). You go!

>

> Thank you, ,

>

> I flattered! I'm going to present an edited version of this to a

> select, trusted group of folks in about a week. The question of

> professional ethics is very pertinant to these folk, as it is to me.

> Folowing the analysis, I will be discussing more ethical ways to

> deal with clients. One thing that is bothering me, I just found out

> that there is a Teen Challenge branch in my community. These

> centers have been notorious for gross human rights violations.

> That is why I'm looking to get analysis on abuse incidents in

> treatment centers.

>

> Devin

>

> P.S. My girlfriend saw your response and says she can't blame

> you for having good taste in men. By the way what is WNL?

Within Normal Limits - I don't think you are always right, but when

you are wrong you are wrong for the right reasons.