Our Sponsors are an important foundation of our online community. Please visit their websites.
Our Associate Sponsors provide valuable support to our community and help build 'The Wall'.
Our partners help move the Wired In agenda forward.
Join our community, create your own profile page, and communicate about what matters to you.
I was surprised today to read the cover story in Drink and Drug News questioning whether 12 step programmes leave abused women more vulnerable. The editorial too ‘isolates’ this particular group “for whom they [12 step programmes] may do more harm than good”.
Cover story. Editorial. Double page spread. Important research I was thinking, but I remained surprised.
The reason I was surprised is that I have worked with many abused women over the years who go to AA and I have never once come across this phenomenon.
I looked to the article to read the study which led to the conclusion. Despite the prominence of the article, the sample size was one. That’s right, one person’s experience and some philosophical argument.
I decided to do a straw poll in case I was missing something. I asked a consultant addiction psychiatrist who has worked with hundreds of patients over a 20 year career in addictions what he thought.
He had never come across it as an issue either and was concerned, like me over hearsay, anecdote and unreferenced work. He pointed me to work published in peer reviewed journals supporting the role of sponsorship and told me not to worry about “articles in free sheets”.
I asked some of the addiction professionals I work with in our recovery focussed service, who between them have dozens of years of experience: “Is this a significant problem folks?”.
No, they hadn’t come across it as a problem either, though it was pointed out that many women coming for help fall into the category of “abused” in one form or another and that this is handled sensitively in the fellowships in the vast majority of cases. It applies to so many of us in recovery, we support each other.
Finally I asked some women, long term sober in AA. Not an issue in their experience either. One wondered about the motivation of the editor and the writer, so odd was the conclusion. Okay, so this is not scientific either, but it’s already more evidence than DDN went with on a major feature.
I believe that inappropriate comments or interventions happen from time to time in AA and in other communities of support. This needs to be challenged and corrected. A bad experience with your GP’s advice when you consult because of abuse doesn’t mean you dismiss all GPs as making women more vulnerable.
We should not accept the unacceptable, but neither should we extrapolate one point of view to all and then draw these serious and spurious conclusions.
To imply that this is a pervasive, widespread problem is not only to do a disservice to AA, but to the many women who are AA members supporting each other.
We have some UK evidence showing the prejudice of some professionals towards the fellowships. I believe that this is just prejudice wrapped up as concern. I have serious concerns about why DDN ran it as a cover story.
It’s likely to add to existing prejudice and that’s something that some of us working with vulnerable women are really concerned about.
Ive been around AA for two decades as a male and women are looked after and encouraged to find same sex sponsorship thet tend to do well abused or not..Any male predators are given short shift.
Yes I agree its the first article in DDN that did not sit comfortably with my reading at least its not in general circulation and we know the difference and should encourage women to at least try one or two AA meetings to decide for themselves.
In life thier will always be biased opinion for and against groups and if an individual is on a pedestal knocking AA who are they God I think not.
As a practitioner I have always valued the support offered to users by the 12 step fellowships and have always encouraged my clients to go to meetings which can provide fantastic support and understanding as well as a place to meet people and socialise. AA and NA are also ‘open’ at times when most services are shut.
Like Sarah Galvani, however, I do have reservations about whether some of the traditional 12 step messages are necessarily the right ones for vulnerable abused women, whose problems are not overweening arrogance or a lack of humility but quite the opposite. I do also worry about them going to meetings for safety reasons, and have direct experience of some of my female clients meeting men who are unstable and have not yet addressed their own tendencies to be abusive. The women, if they have not yet had time to work through their issues relating to sexual abuse or domestic violence, and desperate for love, know no other way of relating to men other than through subservience and/or agreeing to sexual favours; I have seen the results – women dropping out of sessions, then finally returning to treatment post relapse with black eyes and tales of appalling abuse.
These are serious issues, and I hope that the 12 step community can set aside any fears that an ‘attack’ is being launched on their work, and address women’s safety as a matter of priority.
I think we need to be really careful here. My major concern about this article and now this response to it is that it is creating the impression that such issues are widespread. There is no evidence of this. The vulnerable women I’ve looked after over the years have not reported this issue.
If we are saying that AA is not suitable for women (many of whom have been abused and all in early recovery are vulnerable) then it flies in the face of experience and evidence. That is a very serious position to take.
Of course any abuses should be highlighted and dealt with; AA needs to be responsible and members show leadership. To state that meetings are unsafe places potentially full of men waiting to abuse women is very offensive. I have seen no women returning to treatment settings with black eyes resulting from abuse by AA members. (As an AA male, I’m offended by the implication).
In the absence of any significant evidence that this is a serious issue, then of course it will be seen as an attack.
My points about the dubious appropriateness of this cover feature in DDN still stand.
I read this article and it seemed alittle contadictory… its starts saying i send alot of people to the fellowship because of how much it helps and then it talks about the fellowship in a negative way.
I believe AA is not a harmful programme… i also believe though that people sometimes have their own interpretaions of what they believe the AA programme means and these can be harmful… there is a difference
My sponsor is taking me through the steps and we have just done step 5… in step four i wrote about the abusive past i had… and in step 5 my sponsor went through it with me and i was never once made to feel bad about anything…
I had a whole lot of guilt that i was at fault and i was shown that i was not at fault… i was shown i was not to take responsibility for other peoples action… i can only take responsibility for my own and where it was absusive… their was no responsibility…
I am being taken through the steps as laid out in the Big Book.
I have seen articles like this before and heard people tell their experiences… but if their are these predators in the fellowship (which i am sure there are some as there are everywhere)… why is it only women are at risk?… men have been in abused too.
Their are predators everywhere… and to say AA will not be affected by an article like this is wrong… mud sticks… what will AA be remembered for in this article… the good that it does… so good that you are going to send people to it (intot he arms of predators)… or as the arcticle goes on to say… its full of control and abuse?
This article is heavily skewed to one woman’s experience but I also think it is part of a wider movement again to discredit 12 steps using the old arguments of a feminism that I do not recognise of power and control.
Women today are no longer stuck in the way our mothers were, (mine financially dependent) no welfare state well not one that she would recognise today anyway.
I agree with this is its basic form after all my father has been dry for over 25 years and continued to physically abuse my mother and myself well into his sobriety and given the chance now would emotionally abuse us…… but one main distinction here… he has never been through the 12 step programme and it has not worked through osmosis of turning up at meetings regularly for 25 years either. He is quite simply a dry drunk and still suffering from all the isms of alcoholism, although he has not drank for 25 years he has still not healed and is sadly still very damaged.
So yes abuse can still part of our life’s in recovery IF WE LET IT BE!!!! SIMPLES really.
For my mother myself and my sister all who are currently in recovery via alanon and AA we choose to not have people who abuse us in our lifes today, hence we no longer have any contact with the main perpretrator in our family.
From the recent issues, I am inclined to think that DDN has an agenda to keep the old arguments going…… perhaps because like many others in the field, they know nothing else and are stuck in a destructive pattern they are not yet ready to let go of, this is completly unacceptable.
Like Louis above I found the article contradictory and somewhat confused, also I was very blessed to receive the type of sponsorship she describes above. My sponsor was like me a sexual abuse survivor had also been physically abused and was a CBT psychodynamic therapist, and perhaps for me most importantly because she was 16 years clean, gave me great hope that not only would I recover but I would thrive.
I have to add she gave me her time freely almost on a daily basis for the first three years of my recovery. She made it very clear to me where I was and where I was not responsible for having abuse in my life.
The article for me describes a big bad patriarchal sexist abusive monster that subtly skulks around AA waiting for vulnerable women to pounce upon, this in my 12 years of attending has not been my or anyone I have met in AA over the years experience.
I am unclear why this article was written at all, was it just to highlight one woman’s contradictory and confused experience or was it about something else? 2 pages devoted? I think it’s about something else don’t you?
Cassandra I do believe you. Thanks so much for writing this. Please do not think for a moment i do not believe you I DO. This is a horrendous experience and I am so sorry you were not taken care of by the women at the meeting you attended, you know AA suggests men for men and women for women for good reason. I was so blessed that the women in AA embraced me nurtured me and suggested to me to stay away from relationships for at least a year (not an official AA) suggestion but one i took on board grudgingly. I would like to offer the hand of friendship to you if you ever need a chat or help with what it was you so painfully experienced, you can cotact me by accepting my friend request and I will send you my phone no or email, what ever you are comfortable with. You make some great points and I can see you are trying to be fair, it is a travesty that you were abused like this and I can only suggest that the women in aa DID NOT TO A VERY GOOD job of helping or protecting you. I want to say how upset i am at what you have experiened but also to tell you how gratefull I am that you had the courage to share, my deepest respect to you for that. Please if you ever think it may be useful…. get in touch.
Big hug
Annemarie x
Cassie, I’m upset to read about your experience and admire your courage in speaking up. I hope you are getting the support you need from people who you can trust.
You are right when you say there are people who abuse their power in all walks of life; in the nursing and medical professions; in teaching; in the army; in politics; in the church. These abuses must be identified and condemned and victims supported to recover. Just be clear: it is NEVER okay.
It doesn’t mean though that we then say: we must never go near the medical or nursing professions; that we must avoid all ministers and priests and that teaching is full of predators so avoid it at all costs. We say lets look at the good that these institutions do and we stand up and protest when people abuse their power.
I was really sad to read this article and disappointed by the prominence it was given; it does recovery few favours and is disrespectful of the safety and support hundreds of thousands of women have found in AA.
Hi all
While interested to read response to our latest cover story, ‘Care or control?’, I’m alarmed by some of the comments – not least the accusation that DDN is trying to discredit 12-step programmes. This is absolutely not the case, as any regular reader will know from the extent of positive material we publish about 12-step successes.
DDN is an independent magazine, not funded by any organisation (it pays for itself through advertising) whose only agenda is to raise issues for further examination. I do not feel we do this irresponsibly – we may be a ‘free sheet’, but the fully referenced version of this article is on our website (http://www.drinkanddrugsnews.com/ViewIssue.aspx?mag_id=114 then scroll to the bottom of the page).
The point here is that the author, Dr Sarah Galvani, is looking at whether 12-step support groups are the most appropriate way forward for one particular group – women who have experienced abuse. The questions she raises – yes raises, not attempts to supply all answers to – are about the ethos of a programme that asks you to surrender to a higher power. It is not in any way suggesting that 12-step support groups are full of violent predators, waiting to give them black eyes. To imply that we are attempting to discredit people in the group is to completely miss the point of the article, which looks at the method of the programme.
12-step support groups cradle many people in their recovery and are nothing but entirely helpful. But for those who have struggled to gain any kind of control over life, is it always the best route? She examines these issues with Grace, who offers her own experience. This does not purport to be a comprehensive scientific study, but raises questions.
I’d welcome your responses to the article for our letters page (up to 350 words, emailed by Thursday 26 November, to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)).
Peapod: You ask why we run an article that doesn’t reflect received wisdom. So you would not examine one client’s problem if it was not considered important to all your other clients? Should we only publish articles about subjects people know all about and agree on? You wonder about ‘the motivation of the editor’ in publishing this: the motivation of the editor is to published well-reasoned topics for debate (and whether I personally agree with the subject matter of submissions or not is irrelevant by the way).
Chris D, Louis, Annemarie W, David McC: We’re not in the business of AA knocking – you only need to look at our back issue archive. This is a look at the perspective of one client group that might benefit from additional support. Can I also draw your attention to words in the final paragraph of the article: ‘Grace continues to attend meetings and sponsor other women and while she is critical of some aspects of the fellowship, and concerned that her experiences of abuse and those of other women have not been considered or acknowledged within it, she is open to its power to help people.’
Annemarie, in response to your comment: ‘From the recent issues, I am inclined to think that DDN has an agenda to keep the old arguments going… perhaps because like many others in the field, they know nothing else and are stuck in a destructive pattern they are not yet ready to let go of, this is completely unacceptable.’ I’d like to attempt to answer this sensibly but have no idea where to start, because I don’t know what you’re talking about.
There are two major issues here that need to be honestly considered. The first is that AA is a fellowship of human beings and as in any group of human beings there can be no guarantee that there will not be dangerous people present. Sadly, although the twelve step programme is about becoming a better, more self aware, honest and caring person, completing the twelve steps is not necessarily going to achieve this. I have personal knowledge of a ’12 stepper’ who used his position as a ‘trusted’ member of AA to entice two women back to his flat and then rape them. He is currently serving a long prison sentence. Having said this, I still encourage women to go to AA but I would not encourage a naïve expectation that everyone there will want the best for them.
The other issue is with regard to working through the 12 steps. I have met women who’s sponsors have taken an approach when looking at ‘unmanageability’, ‘fearless moral inventory’ and ‘making amends’ which have left victims of abuse feeling that it was their fault. It is essential to be clear that a child is NEVER responsible for any abuse they are subject to, whatever their character traits. It is also essential to state clearly that physical or sexual violence is NEVER acceptable however drunk the victim is. A victim is injured due to the actions of the perpetrator who is responsible for the abusive behaviour.
Just as a final point; victims of abuse in childhood or adulthood frequently experience long term, deep seated, psychological damage and although remaining abstinent from booze or drink is important to facilitating healing from this it will not necessarily be enough in itself. Those in this category should be encouraged to seek out specialist support and therapy when they have established some level of stability in sobriety.
Lets be honest.
Lisbeth
I get were talking about personal experiences here… my experience was i was sexually abused as a child and into teenage years… i accept no responsibility for that… and dont believe anyone should.
When i went to AA i was pretty damaged by my experiences.. what i have seen in the rooms is always people being told that their are certain situations that people in the rooms of AA are not experenced to deal with and in htese cases people have been told they need to seek professional help… as i was and did…
I wrote my sponsor is taking me through the steps… and as i said i have never once been told i need to take responsibilty for the abuse… the behaviours that i carried into childhood.. ie what you would call self harm i am responsible for… i choose to still use these behaviours… i know there are other ways for expressing how i feel but occassionally i fall back on old methods… there i do take responsibilty…
I ran my life on self will… i didnt want people controling my life anymore… controlling how my body was to be used.. how i felt about myself… i think the difference now about giving up my self will is me running my life all by myself wasnt working…
I choose to try life a different way… its hard giving over my will to a HP…. and days i am like sod this i will do it my way and it dont work…
Not sure i am making sense here… what i am trying to say is the difference now is it is a choice… i choose to do what i do now.. and can stop at anytime… where as before it was someone elses choice.
I hear many times everything in the AA programme is a ‘suggestion’… and if something is only a suggestion then its my choice whether i do it or not…
I am saddened by Graces experience.. my point in my response befoer was that there are people like myself in the fellowship who do not have this experience… and i still stand by… mud sticks…
And again… What about the men who are abused… and the women in the fellowship who could do what this article says… in this i think it is very one sided… i never said it doesnt happen and again i am saddened it does… but i dont believe the fellowship and sponsorship under people who follow the programme as it was set out (not peoples interpretations) can and does help people who have abusive background/pasts.
Claire, welcome to Wired In; it is good to have you here (genuinely!)
I like DDN, read it regularly and like the balanced approach you take. It’s usually a very positive editiorial line with regard to recovery.
That’s why this stood out like a sore thumb for me. As a cover story you add weight to the theme that we need to ‘isolate’ vulnerable women and steer them away from AA.
Based on what? Grace’s experience (very relevant and genuinely upsetting but not generalisable) and an opinion on the understanding of powelessness, which would be foreign to many of us in AA? Not enough to carry the serious and potentially damaging conclusions.
The implication is that this is a widespread issue. The article states that the majority of women who come for help have past or present domestic abuse issues. If we add in other abuse experiences, then this increases again. No argument there.
If we ‘isolate’ this group and direct them away from AA, are we really not saying that AA is not suitable for all women? What about all the women who’ve been members and are members? Is their experience not relevant?
If we then look at the issues of vulnerable abused men, as Louis suggests, it is beginning to look as if AA won’t suit anybody, which of course is ridiculous.
DDN is a well read and well-regarded publication, and, as I said, I’m a regular reader. I’m all for debate and reasoned argument, but in giving such prominence to this on the front page, the editorial and in a two part, four page spread, questions still remain for me around judgement and the responsibility DDN has to the addictions field and mutual aid groups. I’m concerned that this article will cause more harm than good.
Claire I am really glad you have no idea what i am talking about….. and look forward as usual to the next DDN, welcome to the site.
This thread is absolutely astonishing. Bizarre and unfounded allegations about DDN are met with a reasoned response from Claire. And then? Peapod just wheels them out again and Annemarie, well, words fail me! Paranoid nonsense from people who ought to know better. It’s this sort of thing that puts people off Wired In and the so-called ‘recovery movement’.
Hi Ray,
As you may be aware from some of the blogs I have posted on this site I myself have strong opinions. I would like to think that they are good, reasoned and well thought through opinions but I am also aware that I am not always right. I am also sometimes not 100 percent sure what I think and in these cases I tend to mull things over. Sometimes I come down on one side or the other – and sometimes I am still not sure and find it instructive to hear differing views.
I have to be honest that this debate is one where I find myself still working out where I stand which is why I have refrained from commenting up to now. I am not trying to cop out – rather I am aware I am still unsure. I suppose that I can see elements that I agree and disagree with in all of the comments.
However, I feel now that I do have to respond to your comment as it is, whatever view one takes on the previous debate, unfair to the individuals you name, Wired In those of us in and for recovery.
I should stress that I am commenting here as Michaela – rather than as a member of the Wired In team, as I do not wish to make judgements for, or indeed about, others. I merely felt the need to say that for those of us who are perhaps less sure of our opinions, debates like this one can be very helpful. Until, that is, they become unnecessarily personal.
One of the things that I have found so positive about the recovery movement is that it allows for a multiplicity of views to co-exist and inform each other. I am therefore sure that, should my ongoing mulling lead me to come down in agreement with the DDN article – which is still entirely possible – my fellow bloggers will have nothing but respect for my opinions and thoughts – even if they do not agree with them.
Michaela,
Thank you for your considered comment which is a model of tolerance and open-mindedness. David Clark and the rest of the Wired In team (as I’m sure they know) are very lucky to have you on board! I can see you’re going to make a really significant and positive contribution.
Back to the matter at hand. In hindsight, my comment was perhaps intemperate (I notice that elsewhere Androcles has called it ‘judgmental’, although to say that about someone else is a bit, well, judgmental). However, even after considerable reflection, I do think there is a double standard in operation here (which I’ve also seen on other comment threads on the site). Why is my comment ‘unfair’ to individuals (presumably you mean Annemarie and PeaPod) and Wired In but the original post and subsequent comments (by those two individuals and some others) are not similarly unfair to DDN and Claire? It appears that some views, perhaps some people’s views, count for more than others. This, it seems to me, is contrary to the supportive ethos of the Wired In community which, ironically, I have occasionally been accused of losing sight of myself.
For the sake of clarity, I should add that, despite what some people might think, I don’t make these contributions out of a desire to undermine or make trouble. That would be a pretty sad state of affairs on something as important as addiction and recovery. Like most visitors here, I’ve got close personal experience of the pain that addiction problems can bring. I am a supporter of what Wired In is trying achieve. However, I do think that there needs to be a bit more openness towards those people who question things and don’t always feel able to toe the party line. There needs to be a bit more confidence that robust debate is a healthy thing and not something to be scared of. The DDN article that started all this off is a classic example of this – it raises a genuine and important issue that may be uncomfortable but to see it as some sort of generalised ‘attack’ on recovery is just silly and counter-productive.
Susan Cheever’s interesting biography of Bill W “My Name Is Bill” is quite illuminating on this point……………Bill being the original 13th-stepper whose compulsive womanising was an open secret in early AA. Members worried that it would bring the organisation into disrepute and did their level best to keep him away from attractive female newcomers. I guess nobody had invented SAA yet so there was nowhere for him to go……………..
As people have said, any environment that works with vulnerable people also attracts abusers. And AA only helps you get sober, it can’t deal with all the other complex issues that people bring with them and need outside help with. However it does provide both good and bad examples and a place to practise relationship behaviours that will need to be learned anyway. It is quite shattering when the starry-eyed “everyone in AA is so wonderful” bit wears off and you realise that not everyone in meetings is recovering, has good boundaries, or is safe to be around…………..most of us, male and female, find that one out the hard way by trusting the wrong people. Just like life really……….all that glitters is not gold, and some of those talking a wonderful programme are not “practising these principles in all our affairs”. The process of recovering from the appalling breach of trust that is abuse is about learning to trust your own judgment, the difference between abusive relationships and healthy ones, and developing enough self-worth to choose people in your life who treat you well – inside AA and outside it.
However…………Dr Galvani and Grace are certainly not the first to question the concept of “powerlessness” as applied to women who have experienced abuse or other oppressed groups. For those who have experienced abusive parenting or other kinds of physical or emotional violence, the concept of “handing yourself over” to anything is utterly terrifying, and resistance to that notion is not an example of not wanting to stay sober or not working the Steps properly, but of a very appropriate survival instinct. If every “power greater than yourself” in their life up until then has been cruel and hurtful it’s not surprising that the person will struggle to discern how to live and who to trust. We’ve already had some discussion on here about the use of language – the same word can mean quite different things to people depending on what their life experience has been, so women seeking recovery need to be free to use the concepts that are helpful and discard the ones that aren’t. Take what you like, and leave the rest, and all that jazz………..
Cassie’s experience (and thanks for sharing it) tells us that these things do indeed happen in AA, and it does AA no service to pretend that they don’t or try to silence women and men who speak up about them. It needs to be made absolutely clear that such behaviour is unacceptable – so the meeting chair who told Cassie not to report it was completely wrong and has basically given that member carte blanche to carry on targeting vulnerable newcomers. The guidances on cross-gender sponsorship, relationships with newcomers etc are there because all these things have happened before, and there is advice in the service manuals and from trusted servants and old-timers on what to do about them. Healthy meetings will pick up on such behaviour very quickly and deal with it. Having said that, I can remember old-timers saying stuff to me in my early days and clearly trying to warn me – I hadn’t a clue what they were talking about and I had to make my own mistakes! – oh the joys of experiential learning…………..
Hello all, sorry to be late to the debate.
Two points: 1 It is not the job of the fellowships to heal abuse , just keep us off the drugs/ drink etc.
Yes there may indeed be linkages – i.e. drinking/drugging to self medicate but they are not the focus of the programmes.
2. Lets not confuse a partial psychological truth about women and men in recovery from abuse and trauma needing to experience or re-gain a sense of personal efficacy as part of their recovery. Their need for safety, connection, remembering and mourning are one part of that journey. But
one cannot be expecting to exclude all sense of powerlessness from the world in order to facilitate that recovery can we?
I am not in control of the weather, i am powerless in the face of death, i am also powerless over the effect certain substances have on me. ~Powerlessness is a fact of life. This may be a spiritual truth and biological truth rather than the psychological reality pointed to in the article. But such is life, not easy.
On the practical front,I have worked with thousands of women trauma survivors with addiction issues. Our experience has been that we encouraged women to go to meetings of the fellowships and found them helpful to their recovery.
It’s very easy to misunderstand messages like encouraging alkies / addicts to admit powerlessness without really looking at why.
A recovering alki like me can torment myself (no exaggeration!) with internal battles over stuff I clearly have no control over – the weather, late buses, stuff that’s happened in the past, stuff that might happen in the future… the list goes on. This is why you will hear lots of talk about resentments in AA and NA meetings.
While I battle with the stuff I am ‘powerless’ over, I’m doing nothing about the stuff I can have an influence on. So powerlessness is simply reminding ourselves not to fight the stuff we can’t change so we can focus on the stuff we can.
AA actively encourages early members to stay away from the opposite sex (both in and out of recovery) largely due to the emotional vulnerability of both men and women in early stages. Sadly, there are individuals who sometimes take advantage (as in all walks of life) and new members who ignore advice and go out and try to form relationships.
AA and NA is primarily concerned with dealing with alcoholism / addiction. Active addicts and alcoholics often suffer from abuse. They also tend cause their own trail of destruction by harming others. Focusing on the harm done to us buy others while burying the guilt and shame of our own actions in denial is common.
An alcoholic facing the resentment at what has been done to them and the guilt and shame of the harm done to others concludes that the only thing to take these feelings away is drink or drugs. Dealing with the emotions around these two linked issues is important if alcoholics and addicts are to recover emotionally. Recovering emotionally as well as physically is the key to long term sobriety.
Because AA or NA’s primary purpose is recovery from alcoholism or drugs, the fellowships also acknowledged that it is important to seek out external help when appropriate.
This is a very delicate subject and I can see all points of view.
12 step recovery and the programme definitely isn’t for everyone regardless of their past. And as a member of the 12 step community I am more than comfortable with that concept. Its a very effective method of learning to quit drinking or using drugs if it happens to appeal to you and you’re willing to engage. The notion that it is a cure all is spurious.
Perhaps some people who have endured abuse or have traumatic histories would benefit from other forms of therapeutic intervention. I have seen 12 step be very counterproductive with people suffering from PTSD.
I have seen sexual predation by fellowship members and it saddens me. I have seen it both on men and women by men and women. Its commonly referred to as 13th stepping. But to balance that where I have seen it the fellowship have self regulated and taken action to exclude such people from our midst. Does that always happen. Who knows. I would like to think that most fellowships take care of their members but we live in an uncertain world.
As a lover of 12 step recovery I feel very comfortable with the fact that the 12 step programme and the fellowships are imperfect But in the absence of any other “perfect programme” all I can share is my experience and that it’s a great place to recover with a 99.9% membership who are supportive and loving.
My heart goes out to those men and women who have been subject to abuse or harrasment by people masquerading as 12 step fellowship members. And I would urge anyone who is reading this and forming a negative view of the fellowships to go along to open meetings and make up your own minds.
Peapod
I think you frame the essence of the article in your first paragraph:
“…QUESTIONING WHETHER 12 step programmes leave abused women more vulnerable… MAY do more harm than good”.
To my mind the article only raises questions and from the responses you have received it would seem they are valid ones.
I think your questioning the motives of DDN’s editor in designating the article a cover story is a particularly clumsy attempt to attack the messenger rather than address the substance of the article itself. I suggest you need to ask yourself why you feel the need to resort to these tactics – particularly when, as you say later: “It’s usually a very positive editiorial line with regard to recovery.”
You must be particularly attached to AA to be unable to take on board these questions in a dispassionate/serious way. I would hope that we are strong enough to deal with doubt and explore criticisms and questions to, hopefully, useful conclusions.
The questions this article raise for me primarily concern the number of people for whom AA/NA may not be suitable and how we might identify these people at an early stage. Having established this then perhaps we may save a handful – maybe more – from exacerbating their problems in the short-term. Perhaps it may be appropriate to introduce a preliminary stage, for the most vulnerable people going into recovery – and before attending group sessions, that aims to clarify issues around control, blame and responsibility etc.
Knee-jerk reactions will cause damage when they result in people not treating legitimate questions with the seriousness they deserve.
Annemarie W
“I am unclear why this article was written at all, was it just to highlight one woman’s contradictory and confused experience or was it about something else? 2 pages devoted? I think it’s about something else don’t you?”
I believe you need to ask yourself the same questions as Peapod with regard to your inability to question what you hold dear. Furthermore, to dismiss one person’s very painful experience as “contradictory and confused” is harsh, particularly as it seems not to be an isolated case.
Talking about confusion – I think you have missed the point of the article entirely. It’s not describing a sex monster stalking meetings looking for victims it’s describing a certain individual’s suitability to be plunged headfirst into the world of 12 step. I don’t think the author of the article was attempting to portray the fellowship in a bad light at all – simply address the suitability of the process as a universal panacea.
Also you admit that you yourself were “blessed” to receive the sort of sponsorship you did: “She made it very clear to me where I was and where I was not responsible for having abuse in my life.”
So what happens to people who are not similarly “blessed”? Were you lucky? Perhaps yours was a more ‘normal’ AA experience. To dismiss negative experiences of AA out of hand, or maintain it’s all part of a conspiracy to discredit the recovery movement is ridiculous.
To both of you:
The recovery movement needs to prepare itself for an increased level of scrutiny over the coming years as government agencies broaden their approach beyond harm reduction. If supporters of 12-step cannot coherently defend their positions or accept criticism without resort to conspiracy theories then they will find themselves increasingly marginalised, irrelevant and ultimately absent from that recovery movement.
It looks to me as if DDN has realised this already.
Thanks for the considered responses folks and particulary to those of you who shared your personal experience.
I’ve reflected a lot on the feedback and it’s helped me broaden my thinking and understanding somewhat. I’m grateful for that.
Brat, you’ve rather made a lot of assumptions about me, my attitudes and ironically attacked the messenger here yourself rather than my message. I’ve re-read my thoughts above and the points I’ve made stand on their own.
You might not agree with them but it’s a bit of a quantum leap to say that because I hold them I must be defensively protecting AA, presumably bonded to it in a blinded emotional state. That’s not anywhere close.
Take some time to read other stuff I’ve written before being so fast to judge. Also, to be honest, the lecturing tone doesn’t do it for me.
I am hugely supportive of recovery in all its variety and richness and very excited by its potential to turn lives around. I can do that and hold my own views on this article.
Brat I do accept that I hold this very dear (it saved my life) I am well aware of the frailties and a defect of human beings, my point is these are not exclusive to AA members.
Also our perception of the message of this is obviously bent to our individual frames of reference.
The article was clearly confused and contradictory and this is my judgement harsh as it is, I make harsh judgements some days but not because they threaten me or my beliefs because I have the ability to think critically today.
I do not quite evidently on this page and many more dismiss negative experiences of AA out of hand.
Was I lucky to have the type of sponsorship I got/get. No. But I was blessed without a doubt.
So what happens to people who are not similarly “blessed”?
Cassandra shares eloquently and very painfully about this above.
”If supporters of 12-step cannot coherently defend their positions or accept criticism without resort to conspiracy theories then they will find themselves increasingly marginalised, irrelevant and ultimately absent from that recovery movement.”
Your final comment made me smile as I quite clearly do none of these things and find it somewhat ironic that because I ask others to question something that you believe I resort as you say to conspiracy theories, also the threat of marginalisation, irrelevant and being ousted or absent from the recovery movement is I believe absurd for supporter of 12 steppers or was this more persoanl in its direction at me?
Now perhaps I am being paranoid! Lol.
big hug
Am
Peapod – my issue is with your contention that the article has a hidden agenda, that is all. The valid points you make in criticising the lack of evidence are trivialised when it becomes clear that they are simply building to the conclusion:
“I believe that this is just prejudice wrapped up as concern. I have serious concerns about why DDN ran it as a cover story.”
At no point do you concede that, for some people, 12-step might not be appropriate.
You are accusing DDN of manipulating its audience.
Annemarie – please don’t get paranoid ! :)
My final comment was most certainly not directed at you personally. I just feel that the movers and shakers in 12-step are going to have to face a lot worse than that DDN article in the near future and they need to have reasoned and measured responses to their critics and be responsive if and when evidence points to the need for action.
By facing up to these questions now solutions will become apparent. By dismissing them as attacks we risk brushing a POTENTIAL problem under the carpet.
Okay, my belief is simply that; an opinion. It may be wrong. God knows I’m accomplished at that. It’s okay for us to disagree on this.
Of course 12 step doesn’t fit everyone. I have said that several times elsewhere. However prejudice against 12 step is alive and well and needs to be challenged. Most of the time folk are pretty unaware of this.
We know from British research that 12 step approaches suit a lot of people. There is research which shows that around 50 per cent of professionals in addictons have negative views, out of kilter with clients views and current evidence.
I’ve had more than one blog shut down on Wired In because of prejudicial, personalised attacks on this subject, so there is certainly a context and edge to the debate. You’ve picked that up.
In a very real sense I’ve had to deal with worse here and I’ve had to deal with much more vicious stuff in ‘real life’. You’d think that dealing with the prejudice of being an addict was challenging enough and then you find out that there are folk who don’t think much of your brand of recovery!
And like many here, I have a personal debt to the programme. But the arguments are not all skewed necessarily by that background.
The article states that most women coming for help with addictions are likely to fit the category that ‘may not’ be suitable for AA. I don’t buy the argument. There is no credible scientific evidence that I can find and to give an emotionally charged (and tragic) example such prominence is unwise in my opinion.
I couldnt comfortably pass this article on to vulnerable women in early recovery as I genuinely feel it is misleading and likely to cause fear. I don’t think I’ve read an article in DDN like that before.
I don’t know why DDN ran this as a cover story, reinforced it in the editorial and will run a second part in the future. I find that perplexing and yes it does stand out as odd given the lack of science.
I work with clients seeking recovery and we practise assertive referral to mutual aid as part of that. In the absence of any scientific evidence that there is an issue that merits this degree of highlighting, then yes, it may be prejudice, recognised or unrecognised.
Again I may be wrong, but this continues to leave me feeling uneasy.
I think I’ve made my views clear. Some folk agree to some extent and some disagree, so I’m going to finish up on this subject here.
Any one else can continue to debate!
Hi to all, I just feel it is just so sad the way this site has side turned, PeaPod – Annemarie Ward andm David McCartney, you know myself only to well, and mean no offence or harm to any on this site.
The article you are all becoming engrossed and fanatical about, does not need science to prove! (Fact) Is widley a huge issue within any sector of recovery and was not in any way condeming AA in the power and support it helps so many with recovery.
This site was for support to addicts both in recovery and wanting recovery and support to families and friends with support from the professionals, sadly it has slowly turned to knocking articles with a judgemental and unrealistic aim for the site to thrive.
If this site is to survive? it needs to be more in a positive approach to attract new members. Write with care and understanding and if you are unaware of any issues that materilise, for example:= Abuse within AA and NA, then hold back on your thought process as abuse is and always will be within the culture and I might just add towards both genders.
It saddens me to say, yet I decided a few weeks ago this site is not what it was set out for and withdrew, reading all above has reinforced my thought process and belief system and I have followed my heart.
Best Wishes to you all.
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
The answer to the question of ‘can AA accept criticism or scrutiny?’ has to be yes! Some members can become very defensive of a programme they see as saving their lives but the spirit of 12 step recovery is about self examination, admitting our faults and trying to change. Helping not harming others is central to spiritual recovery.
Honesty is very important and would seriously I doubt anyone who says that abuse never happens in AA or NA. As for the appropriateness of concepts such as ‘powerlessness’ it has only stood the test of time because it is such incredibly useful recovery tool.
I wonder if this article would hold such value if it was about exploitative relationships and potential mis-information (“don’t stop drinking, try cutting down!”) while seeking the help of professional rehabs, psyche units or medical surgeries.
There’s a vast number of well documented cases of abuse by some medical physicians and medical staff who have preyed on vulnerable patients. Would such an article conclude that there are serious questions about the suitability of seeking medical or psychiatric help for women who have experienced domestic violence? What sort of response would such an article meet within the medical community?
My (direct) experience of some alcohol advice ‘professionals’ is that they sometimes feel threatened by the ability of non-professional ‘self help’ groups help clients achieve recovery where their own methods failed. I also observe resentment on behalf of some AA members for the misinformation they feel they have been given by health professionals. What tends to be said is ‘they don’t understand’. My answer to them is ‘why should they? ‘I don’t understand how they can drink sensibly’.
There also seems to be a vast array of progressive agencies using 12 step programmes and plugging their clients into AA and NA acknowledging how fantastically effective the fellowships can be in maintaining and developing long term recovery.
Much more could be achieved if the two communities communicated more.
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
I’m not going away you know.
That second post was simply a question as to why my previous post was removed.
This is really childish – can’t you take criticism?
Actually… thinking about it… it’s not childish it’s cowardly and self-defeating.
Dear all,
I have to ask about the rules for engagement with your forum.
I saw a comment from Brat yesterday, defending DDN’s editorial motives and pointing out that we carry plenty of pro-12 step articles (and search our back issues on our website and you’ll find plenty more). Brat’s comment was removed.
I saw another from the same person earlier today discussing the same issue – now it’s been removed. I know I didn’t dream seeing these comments – they came to my email inbox because I’d contributed to the thread.
The comments weren’t libellous or obscene, so were they removed just because the moderators didn’t agree with them? They were critical of another member (Peapod)’s views – but that’s not normally an issue. The forum is tolerant of criticism of me, and my judgement in publishing the article.
Your forum is not a letters page, where you might select contributions to give a balance of views. This is a discussion forum, with all its flaws and spontaneity. If you are only going to use the views that you agree with, then you need to include a mission statement so people understand that your forum takes a particular position. It’s not fair to pretend it’s ‘open discussion’ if you are not going to tolerate certain views and vaporise them to pretend they never happened.
I feel compelled to comment on your censorship because I can’t ignore it. I have had several emails from your members, that fall into two categories – those who think I should be obliged to publish another article putting the opposite view to the first, and those who are expressing their support for my publishing it, but say they are too worried about the reaction of others on the forum to post their view.
Is that what you want to achieve?
I agree completely, Claire. The moderation of Brat’s comments has been farcical and pathetic. This site is in danger of imploding if this kind of thing carries on.
I feel the need to add a footnote here as the label defamatory has been applied to what I’ve written (a lifetime first for me).
It’s really a clarification. I respect DDN. I am a regular reader. I don’t know Clare, but what you can glean from the magazine’s features, articles and editorials she is a woman with integrity and I respect that. I will continue to read DDN.
In asking questions about the prominence of this feature, I am not intending to mount a personal attack of any kind. It’s not my style, nor in keeping with my own value system. I apologise to you Claire without any reservation if it has been taken that way.
Furthermore, on reflection I can’t hold to the idea that this represents prejudice either. There is no evidence for that and I apologise. I’m reactive at times and need time to reflect.
I still have genuinely held concerns here – others do too, but there’s little point in repeating them. I also respect others’ rights to hold different points of view.
And that really is my last word on this particular blog.
Thank you Peapod, I appreciate your kind comments and I know you didn’t intend a personal attack. Please be assured that I don’t take it that way.
I had attempted to join the debate and had tried to clarify (for myself) the way the forum works, but it’s causing unintended upset so I shall get back under my stone.
Best wishes.
I think we’ve all had our say, and I don’t really think we’re going to help ourselves or anyone else by poking away at each other. And it’s really hurting the community and the people my colleagues and I set out to help. I really do NOT want that happening.
Clearly, we all felt we had to say something – it seems we were all defending ourselves, what we do, or something – and this can really end up sounding personal. If it read like that Claire, I too apologise.
I really hope we can put this aside now and move on. I’ll look for a stone as well, but I would rather find a beach to sit on with no stones. Plenty of them over here!
I too respect and read DDN, which you know, and should be evident by the promotion we give it on DD.
Cassie i just wanted to say I am thinking about you.
Big hug x
Hi Cassie:
Thanks for coming back and posting… i am really glad you did.
I wanted to say its really brave what you wrote and reading it has helped me tonight… I also cut and have done for along time…. I felt like doing it tonight and then read your message and you got me thinking… interupted my thoughts.. i have stopped cutting before but always seemed to go back to it when times were hard or things i thought about hurt too much… i just wanted my head to shut off… shut it out..
I found another way of doing that… getting my head to slow down long enough for me to make sense of what was happening… what i was feeling and also what i was going to do about it and that was by talking… reaching out when i was at my worst and asking for help… cos i didnt really want to hurt myself at these times and i usually felt bad after…. but i didnt know any other way to stop it.
I wasnt a bad person even though my head told me i was and deserved it… i wasnt and had to believe that… it was the only way i knew how to cope…
Its different now though… i havent cut for a while… and as i said have found other things to help…
If its ok… i am gong to add you as a friend… and if you would like to talk anytime… please get in touch… i dont mind… maybe we could help eachother… as you have me tonight.. Thankyou
In general we seem to get in trouble on this list when ascribe imagined unworthy motivations to other people rather than addressing what they actually said – in football, playing the player not the ball. In this case it was particularly puzzling as it is hard for me to see Claire and DDN as prejudiced about anything, and in particular 12-step movements which they have consistently promoted.
But down to what I really wanted to say, and that is that questioning of the suitability of AA for some women for precisely the sort of reasons put forward in the DDN article is by no means unusual. In fact, it spawned a whole new mutual aid movement in the USA. Here’s a relevant passage from Circles of Recovery by Keith Humphreys (and if anyone doubts his support for AA/NA because he included this in his book, well, I’ll eat my hat).
QUOTE (apologies for any errors – scanned in)
Women for Sobriety’s history begins with Jean Kirkpatrick – an outstanding sociology graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania and a successful AA affiliate (Kirkpatrick, 1977; N.B. to address a common misconception, this is not the Jeane Kirkpatrick who became US Representative to the United Nations). Upon winning a prestigious fellowship to complete her dissertation, Kirkpatrick became wracked with self-doubt about whether she really deserved the award and whether it would be taken away from her. She relapsed, and abused alcohol for the next 13 years. She returned to AA, but did not find it helpful for ameliorating her low self-esteem, self-doubts, and the stigma of being a woman alcoholic.
Kirkpatrick had continued her education, earning her Ph.D. and reading widely. Inspired in part by philosophical works of writers such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, she decided to create a new self-help program for women with a philosophy that differed from AA’s. She began her new mutual-help organization in 1973 under the rubric “New Life,” but eventually changed its name to “Women for Sobriety” (WFS). Kirkpatrick subsequently wrote a book about her recovery and her organization, which received wide media attention. WFS’s growth and public profile were enhanced by a cultural zeitgeist: its approach resonated with many themes of the then-ascendant US feminist movement. Kirkpatrick died in 2000, but WFS headquarters (located in Quakertown, Pennsylvania) continues as a non-profit organization that is overseen by a board of directors composed of recovering women.
Philosophy and approach
Kirkpatrick designed her organization in direct contrast to what she believed were male-biased aspects of AA (Humphreys & Kaskutas, 1995). She considered AA’s emphasis on minimizing grandiosity and instilling humility appropriate for arrogant, self-involved men, but damaging to women alcoholics who more commonly suffered from low self-worth and lack of confidence. Women for Sobriety is primarily concerned with building up rather than minimizing the self (Humphreys & Kaskutas, 1995), as illustrated by its 13 affirmations, e.g., “I have a drinking problem that once had me,” “ Problems bother me only to the degree I permit them to,” and “I am a competent woman and have much to give life” (Kirkpatrick, 2000).
Other intentional differences with AA are as follows. First, in order to prevent dependency, WFS does not use sponsors or encourage lifetime membership. Second, members are encouraged to take personal credit for abstinence as a way of building their self-confidence. Third, although daily meditation is encouraged, the organization’s program makes no reference to a Higher Power or God (Kirkpatrick, 2000). Fourth, WFS has no tradition of anonymity and each member has the option of going public about her recovery (Kaskutas, 1996a). Fifth, intellectual analysis is viewed as a vehicle for change, as reflected in the slogan, “We are what we think.” This contrasts with AA’s dictum, “Utilize rather than analyze:’ All that said, WFS does share some ideas and approaches with AA. It views abstinence as the only acceptable drinking goal, asserts that spiritual growth is part of the recovery process, and, of course, considers peer mutual help to be a valuable resource.
Mike Ashton
Drug and Alcohol Findings
findings.org.uk
Dear Cassie,
Thank you so much for doing this and please accept my sincere apologies for any stress caused.
And please, please do not call yourself stupid – as it is just not true. You, as everyone, have hidden talents and may just be struggling to identify them and bring them out into the open.
On hidden talents I notice that your web address is Hushmail which I believe is a US site – isn’t that where you can buy the Stealth Surfer – you know that thing that keeps you anonymous and safe on the web. Reason I am asking is that I am wondering whether to set up an account, but am not sure whether to – as I am more comfortable using the more standard accounts. After all, it’s not as if I’ve got anything to hide!
There is also all this quite complicated stuff about encryption and so forth that I must admit I don’t understand – I must be a bit stupid too!
It must have been hard sorting all this out down at the library – although I am glad that you had a friend to help you. Are they American by any chance? Reason I ask is that most people from the UK use pretty standard sites and it is unusual to see this web address used by novice bloggers such as yourself. Watch out though – it is not straightforward to log in and use – do make sure to ask your friend for help if you need it.
Anyway, thanks again.
I am new to this site and would like to say something about opinion. This is mine:
Everything in this world – everything – is a belief. We are each a voice that is here to be heard. That another has an opinion that may be different from ours is perfection. Without their opinion ours could not exist. There is always opposition and nothing to be feared by that – it is simply the yin and the yang of life. The law of opposites.
Recovery to me means returning to feeling whole, valued, sane,safe and respected.Standing on our own two feet and able to ask for support too. If we truly want to create a place for that recovery to be born we can debate it and all of us are stakeholders in that creation. My belief is that this site is to come together and create community – a sanctuary so let us do that. Let us respect each other and allow us to be how we are – individuals.
Every single person on this planet has issues – most of us share common ones. There are very few of us that are free of unconscious behaviours – I am a long way from that for sure but taking the small steps. What we focus on is what we create – I would like to share my knowledge and learn from others – creating a synergistic energy. Coming together. Community.
We cannot take responsibility for others – we learn through these experiences. Each group paves the way for the future. All of us have our weaknesses and faults and to expect any organisation or individual to be squeaky clean is unrealistic. This is control raising it’s head.
I would add that whatever is pushing your buttons in any debate is an exciting revelation for you – about yourself. As soon as you feel an emotional intensity arising notice it – this is something in you that needs to be released.
It’s cheesy I know and probably unpopular – I am going to say it anyway. We need more love rather than more science, more forgiveness and acceptance – for all of us.
Love is all you need – from that perspective anything is possible x
im 28 yrs sober .and agree with chris donnely.it also proves AAmembers dont have the monoply on lunacy.youve all heard of the horse of the year show.theres allso one asshole of the year show at least we know where they reside.steve k.
