Here's how I see it. I understand when men resent women....

[Misunderestimator]

when their personal experience has been the opposite of most men. That being, that they have consistently been turned down for jobs or promotions in favor of women... or where they have had horrible experiences one-on-one with women in relationships at home or school or work.

What I don't understand is why someone cannot see outside their own world to the world at large and recognize that there IS a problem. That men, on average (far better than average) have advantages that are not easily gotten by women. That there IS a problem with the disparity in income, in politics, in managerial and male-dominated professions. That there IS a problem with government control of women's bodies. That there IS a problem with society's and the media's influence on our children that continue defining these roles that keep many women down.

I step out of my shoes every day to recognize the problems that African Americans and other racial minorities face through the same kind of (and worse) discrimination. I do not resent that they continue to fight for equality, even though their cause has progressed over the past 50 years. I recognize that a chasm still exists between us because of our national racism. I join them in their fight for equality. I do not ask them to include every other minority in their fight, or argue that their groups perpetuate the problem. It really isn't that difficult to see the problems they continue to face.

I am utterly amazed that the word feminism has garnered the reaction it has here over the past few days.

[Ripley]

1. I'm not amazed.

There are dozens of long-time posters at DU who have had this type of reaction in the past.

I am amazed at one thing. The way these threads are handled. Except I'm not allowed to type it here, because my post will be deleted and since there is no ATA anymore, our thoughts on what is happening are relegated to emails and probably lost in the shuffle.

That tells me a lot.

Good post. But honestly, what percentage of men at DU have consistently been turned down a job or promotion in favor for a woman? The level of hostility is completely out of proportion to the perceived threat women have "over" them.

[Misunderestimator]

2. I should clarify and say that my amazement started...

a year ago, when I first saw some men doing exactly what has been happening here for the past few days. It comes in waves here, and it amazes me every time.

What distresses me the most is that progressiveness for me must include feminism, or it becomes an oxymoron. Criticism of other progressive ideals earns a speedy tombstone, but there seems to be a whole lot more lattitude to criticize feminism.

[Zenlitened]

3. "... progressiveness for me must include feminism..."

Totally agree. Feminism is part and parcel of the definition of progressivism.

:hi:

[Ripley]

4. Really, can you just imagine if the posts claiming they do not

have to support any such thing as feminism and besides that word is inflammatory...were about minorities? Civil rights? Bah, that word is inflammatory. Now where have I heard that before?

Yet substitute discussions of equal rights for half the population of the world and somehow, we've gone off the deep end and expect the title Master in every field we are involved in.

It's very distressing.

Now, I must go off and be Master of the Art World where I demand superiority over all men.

[geniph]

9. My husband claims most of the misogynistic posters

probably have never spoken to an actual adult woman other than their own mother in their life, and they only talk to Mom when she tells them to get out of the basement and off the damned computer and take a shower.

He's got a low opinion of a lot of the Keyboard Commandos. Most are terrified of women because they don't know any, so they belittle us to make themselves feel bigger.

[all.of.me]

19. a lot of them hate their mothers

the worst men i have encountered have major mother issues. it has taken me YEARS to figure this out, but i see that they hate their mothers and take it out on us - projecting. but try and tell a man he is not mad at you but at his mother! hahahahaha he just gets madder! women with opinions and ideas push the buttons of these men.

[LisaLynne]

5. The Myth of Scarcity -- long and just MHO.

You know, I am terribly afraid that deep down, there is just this underlying selfishness in so many people, myself included. Maybe it's partly biological in that it's the remnants of our instinct towards personal survival. I don't know -- I'm making this up as I type. Anyway, there are those in power in this world who have used the idea that things are scarce, that we're lucky to have barely enough to survive, to control us. You can't ask for more when you believe there isn't any more and that you're lucky to have the little you do have.

I believe Michael Moore brought this up in Stupid White Men, although he's far from the only one. He noted that when several years ago (yeah, way Pre-Bush, of course) when the news was full of how wonderful the stock market was doing and how great the economy was and how there was all this money around, suddenly the tone was shifted. Why? Because the average American who wasn't seeing this great windfall of wealth started saying, "Oh, yeah? Well, where's mine?" Oh, then suddenly, it was all over. Nope -- no more jobs, no more people making tons of money in the market, etc. Nope, we're lucky to be able to eat people! Run! Hide!!! Be thankful you have a job at all even though they're not giving you a raise and you suddenly have to work 80 hours a week and do the work three people used to do. Be thankful!

Ok, that might all sound a little tinfoil hat, but I think maybe a milder version (because I don't expect people to join me in the place I am -- hee hee) might apply to this whole disturbing trend against women's rights. You see, if you really believe all of that - that things are really that bad (and they certainly might be thanks to Commander Cookoo Bananas), maybe this instict for self-preservation kicks in to such a degree that any talk of leveling the playing field, helping somebody else out, somebody maybe entering your arena who couldn't before becomes this absolutely primal fear. They might take away something from you when you barely are making it! EEEEK!!!!!

So, I don't know. I'm just putting it out there. I think when things feel more plentiful, people in general are much more likely to feel generous and want to help those around them than when things are tight.

Of course, this whole theory totally goes out the window when you look at some of the remarkable acts of kindness people in truly dire circumstances will preform (the tsuami, natural disasters of any kind, etc). :)

[Misunderestimator]

7. I think that that is a VERY valid angle...

that I hadn't considered in quite that way before. It does appear to be an almost fight-or-flight instinct. When times are tough, most people do become more focused on their own survival.

I pray I never do that to the extent that I belittle or hurt anyone, as I see happening here.

[Eloriel]

11. I think you're on the right track.

I've actually given quite a bit of thought to this, and I personally call the whole dynamic as I see it, "the disease of Patriarchy." In a nutshell, this is how it works IMO (yikes! I'll never be able to do this justice in a single post esp. since I haven't even thought about it in a long while):

Okay, this draws heavily from the certain psychological insights from the Recovery Movement. Addictions and substance abuse come from having been wounded as children (there might be other "causes," but if so I don't know of them). But substance abuse isn't the only "addiction" that can come out of childhood maltreatment and abuse. More about that in a minute.

And what is child abuse? I subscribe to one author's definition of child abuse as (paraphrasing) anything that isn't totally life-affirming and supportive. IOW, scornful treatment, which is typical of our culture's parenting can certainly for our purposes be defined as child abuse. And a whole lot more, as well.

For the most part, the only way we know how to parent is having been children, so our parents are our own parenting instructors and mentors, for good or ill. We therefore utilize a lot (most) of the same techniques that they employed. SOMETIMES we are quite aware that a particular practice or set of practices is not a good practice (we didn't like it and we didn't like it a LOT), so we rule it out of our own parenting, but most of the rest of it goes on unexamined. Lotta people still thinking spanking is perfectly okay (obviously, I do not).

From the moment we are born, we are being trained (acculturated). And sometime very soon after our birth, we become acutely aware that whatever else happens, we MUST please these creatures on whom our entire survival depends. We must NOT anger or alienate them to such an extent that it imperils our comfort, safety, (happiness) and survival. We are, therefore, the world's most captive audience, and as a result of the "training" we recieve, become people-pleasers to the best of our ability. (Note: that doesn't mean that we never act up thereafter, as toddlers and so forth, but that at the core of our being we are "bent" in a particular direction that makes us, at best, easily manipulable by our superiors and at worst, it makes us co-dependent, which I happne to believe -- along with a number of those who work in the field -- that we all are to some degree or another.)

The mechanism used, for want of a better word, is what John Bradshaw calls "core self-esteem." And I don't know many people who have it naturally. In fact, no one. I DO know people who have s-called "reparented" themselves or done a lot of inner healing work (Inner Child work, for one), who may qualify, but no one who grows up with their core self-esteem intact.

What is core self-esteem? I really ought to go see if I can find Bradshaw's definition, but basically it's the firm conviction that we are just fine as we are. We don't need to DO anything or BECOME anything to be of value as a human being. We don't need anyone else's approval or okay or blessing or notice or anything else to be of value, live lives of value. Bradshaw refers to the lack of Core Self-Esteem (which we ALL are afflicted with) as a "hole in the soul" which causes us to seek to fill it up. One way we seek to fill it is with Situational Self-Esteem.

Situational self-esteem is something of the opposite of Core Self-Esteem: it's self-esteem garnered from what we have done or accomplished, Not WHO we are, but what we have done or some outer characteristic like beauty. Even our talents and natural gifts fit in here to a certain extent, since they're not all that visible unless we're busy using them to DO something. Situation self-esteem typically comes from others: "Oh, what a good job you did! What a fine boy you are."

The problem is that no amount of Situational Self-Esteem can ever make up for a lack of Core Self-Esteem, no matter how hard we try. No amount of Vitamin C will ever make up for a Vitamin A deficiency. And, as the old saying goes: we are human beings, not human DOINGS. We shouldn't have to play or dance for our supper; we shouldn't have to "perform" or do ANYthing in order to be loved, appreciated, valued.

This, btw, is the nature of unconditional love. I hear people talk about it, as if it were achievable. It really isn't at this stage of our collective human experience, except by extraordinarily spiritually mature individuals. We simply aren't strong and healthy enough, most of us, to love anyone unconditionally, even our own children whom we would CHOOSE to love unconditionally if we could, and most especially ourselves.

That lack of love for OURSELVES is an important ingredient here -- that too was part of our very earliest training, that we were essentially worthless -- or at best, worth not very damn much. If we had been worthy, we wouldn't have been treated the ways we were as infants and little children. If we were of any real value, we'd NEVER have been spanked, yelled at, ignored, humiliated in ANY way, etc., etc., etc. The lack of love for ourselves, based upon our own perceived worthlessness, is one way of viewing that hole in our soul, that lack of Core Self-Esteem.

It makes some of us people-pleasers or givers or perhaps just compliant, don't rock the boaters (at least on occasion if not always), while it makes others of us users and abusers, people who take and never give, people who have no qualms about using and even ruining others or the environment, etc.

We are virtually ALL affected and involved in this social dynamic to one degree or another. I consider it the Disease of Patriarchy, because that's what's the primary, underlying foundational thing being taught from the moment we're born on.

All right, so let me put a point on this (at last, eh?). In an effort to fill or at least camouflage that Hole in our Soul, we engage in all sorts of behaviors that numb all this pain. Some people engage in one or more (usually more) of the typical addictive behaviors -- alcohol, drugs, sex, food, cigarettes, gambling, shopping/hoarding, etc. Six mos. ago I quit smoking, an activity which I'd thought was relatively benign other than health issues, but BOY! what I now recognize as my food addiction flared up to an absolutely unmanageable level after I'd gotten rid of the suppressive addiction, so I now know that there are NO benign addictions or addictive behaviors.

But there are OTHER addictive behaviors as well -- the quest for power and/or money, judgmentalism (think: fundamentalists) and of course narcissism in general is a biggie, along with its worser cousins, sociopathy, etc. So also is the need to be superior to entire groups of people (sexism, racism, homophobia) -- after all, if you're not worth much, if you have damaged or non-existent Core Self-Esteem, it's mighty handy to have millions of people whose very existence automatically props you up by providing a little Situational Self-Esteem: "No matter what else is true about me and my worthlessness, at least I'm not a female" (ahh, reminiscent of that infamous Jewish prayer, eh?)

These holes in our souls makes us vulnerable to manipulation by TPTB on a political basis, religious basis, social basis (perhaps especially, since we are social animals) and any other way you can name as well. Look at the people who fall for the manipulation when wedge issues (God, guns, gays and abortion as Howard Dean so famously put it) are employed by crafty, power-greedy politicians. Look at how we fall for consumerism, sit passively while our planet is raped and pillaged and ruined for future generations, while our water rights are being sold away to the highest bidder, while the game of democracy is being rigged, while ... fill in the blanks. Look how easily so many people are duped and deceived. People who are fully in touch with their Core Self-Esteem -- that is, people who are whole or at least more whole -- aren't nearly so easily deceived and therefore not so easily manipulated either. Their B.S. detectors are fully functional, on full alert mode at all times, and almost never misfunction.

I hope I've made some sense. I don't know to what extent people who aren't somewhat familiar with the Recovery Movement can have any essential understanding or appreciation for my theory, but I'd be glad to hear their comments.

[Finder]

12. Bradshaw--White, Texan, Christian MALE...

Is he any different than a preacher or Hubbard? Isn't he the one who was partly responsible for the "false memory syndrome" fad?

Seriously, his cult did major damage to feminism.(in the early 90s,I think)

Scary dude.

[Eloriel]

13. I think you have him confused with someone else

And I have no idea who.

THIS Bradshaw is a former priest, no cult involved, probably gay (not sure and it's not important), and a very good, sensitive (in touch with his feminine side and proud of it) guy from MY reading of several of his books in the early to mid-90s. I don't recall a thing he ever said against feminism, or anything that was anti-woman or misogynist. And this was absolutely during one of my very involved, activist, N.O.W. member and officer periods, so I'd have dropped him like a hot potato.

[Finder]

14. The Inner Child guy?

I am sure it is the same one. I will look for some info for you. He is blamed for starting "victim feminism" which caused so much grief years back.

[Eloriel]

15. Sounds like -- well, yes, please do some digging.

And then we'll talk.

[Finder]

16. Here are a few links...

http://www.stopbadtherapy.com/experts/bradshaw/homecoming.shtml

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume5/j5_4_2.htm

http://www.angryparents.net/

[Eloriel]

20. Thanks for the links

Actually, though, I did end up vaguely remembering a bit about it once I signed off the other night.

What I remembered was this: that there was some brouhaha and criticism involving the Recovery Movement at a time when it was helping me tremendously and the nature of the criticism made it real clear to me that those doing the criticism didn't have a freakin' clue what they were talking about. You know, like those who criticize feminism because we want to turn the tables and make men the subordinate sex (or insert your own favorite strawman).

I have since come to understand, quite clearly, that whenever you find people pointing accusatory fingers at you and trying to shame you out of your "victim mentality," or "cult of victimization," or "victimhood," what they're REALLY trying to do is shut you up. They do NOT want you to recognize that you have BEEN victimized, which is the FIRST step to not becing a victim any longer. This is just like the plutocrats and their sychophants who want to accuse those who complain about the gap between the poor and the weatlhy of "class warfare." Uh, no. Pointing out the inequities is merely JOINING the class war started by the plutocrats.

Etc.

I'll check out the links, but I doubt I'll have anything further to say on this. Thanks again.


Edited to add: Oh, yeah. The first link I looked at, in very large font: "How do bad psychotherapists break up good families so easily?

Answer: Through "Recovered Memory Therapy"

None of this has anything to DO with feminism, btw. AFAIC it's was all just the Patriarchy fighting back. Hard. And dirty, of course. YMMV.

[Hello_Kitty]

17. I like a lot of what you said in your post

There are some very valid things in there about abuse and the importance of developing a sense of self-worth that is not dependent on validation from the outside world.

However, I'm a bit leery of that Bradshaw guy too and I've had a really bad experience with the recovery movement, assuming it's the 12 step variety you're talking about. I was in a 12 step group for my "co-dependency" issues for a long time and it was AWFUL! I'm sorry, but I honestly think they are cults. I spent several years feeling guilty and miserable because I was incapable of grasping the "program". I eventually became the target of cruel ostracism by the group, which led to despair and suicidal thoughts.

I believe 12 step programs are absolutely horrible for women, especially those trapped in abusive relationships with addicts or alcoholics. Generally speaking, women do not need to "surrender to a Higher Power". Hell, that's usually the problem. Nor do we usually suffer from grandiosity, big egos, or "self-will run riot", since most women I know apologize to furniture when we bump into it. While it may be helpful to "look at one's part" in a bad marital or family situation, very often people need to GET OUT if they are in immediate danger, or they need to sever relationships with toxic people. Frankly, I didn't see a lot of people advised to do that. Instead, we were told we needed to take personal inventory and make amends to the very people who abused us!! And I'm not even going to DISCUSS the amount of sexual harassment and predation on newcomers by veteran sleazeballs.

I realize that may not be your experience and I seriously mean no disrespect, nor do I wish to flame but I just think this stuff may do more harm than good. Take this link with a grain of salt: The authors are very anti-12 step but they claim statistics show that AA and 12 step based treatment is no more effective than no treatment at all. http://www.morerevealed.com/books/resist/r_chap_2.htm

Sorry for the rant but that's just what I think. I've got my teflon undies on so flame away!

[Hello_Kitty]

18. Won't let me edit - Think I've got the wrong Recovery Movement

Sorry about that...

[Eloriel]

22. Didn't sound like it to me.

Can you clarify?

[Hello_Kitty]

23. I got it confused with recovered memory. n/t

[Eloriel]

24. Got it. Thanks. n/t

[Eloriel]

21. No, no flames. I'm quite sure the 12-Step groups aren't for everyone

I recently went back to one, this time OA, and found it not only not helpful but a little on the "maybe this isn't such a good idea" side of things.

But there was a time when they DID help me, and enormously. However, I went to many different meetings (not just the same one again and again), which I had the luxury of doing in a large city like Atlanta, and I also read extensively in the literature, which was the most help, no doubt.

I believe 12 step programs are absolutely horrible for women,

There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of women who would disagree with you vehemently. May I suggest that you qualify that statement when repeating it to others something to the effect that 12-Step programs may be absolutely horrible for SOME women? Or, that your experience was awful? I think if people are needing help, it would be not too wonderful to turn them off to one source that HAS been good for many, and for FREE.

Generally speaking, women do not need to "surrender to a Higher Power". Hell, that's usually the problem.

Well, the Higher Power isn't supposed to be another human being, you realize. Too, not all women -- or men, for that matter -- are anti-spirituality.

The authors are very anti-12 step but they claim statistics show that AA and 12 step based treatment is no more effective than no treatment at all.

I'm afraid it won't make a dent. Sorry. That's because I have a brother who I could've lost to alcohol. In fact, when he called me to take him in for treatment (fortunately there was a county facility available for free), they made me take him to a HOSPITAL first, so he could have immediate access to medical ER treatment if he went into convulsions coming off the alcohol during the next several hours. He was in that treatment facility for a month, and I know for a fact -- and he would say too -- that were it not for AA he would not only not have stayed sober, he wouldn't be alive. It's been 15 or more years, and he still goes periodically.

That's not to say that there aren't cases where no treatment is necessary, and AA isn't necessary or that helpful either.

As for it being a cult, I can't speak for the group you ran into, but you really have to have a charismatic leader to satisfy the criteria for a cult.

You also have to remember that people who are in those groups are SICK ("sick, not bad," as one apt saying has it), else they wouldn't have had the addiction problem to start with. Getting sober doesn't confer immediate total psychological and emotional health on them, it just gives them the opportunity to START the process of working toward "healthy." Even so, I've seen incredible wisdom from some of them.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Eloriel]

26. Well, are you saying

...telling women to place their lives in the hands of someone, or something, "above" themselves because their own intelligence and reasoning is faulty is nothing new. That's how women get into addictive behavior and co-dependent relationships in the first place and 12 step programs are often nothing but switching masters IMHO.

Is it your view that the reasoning and judgment that got them into the mess they're in was ... BETTER? Admirable? A model to be copied? Ideal and best continued? I wouldn't think so.

I don't like to talk faith and "religion" and spirituality all that much except in the Group(s) formed to accommodate my particular brand. And I usually try to be reasonably respectful of atheists and agnostics, as well as Christians and Jews and indeed others as well. But I do happen to personally believe in a Higher Power (a term I'll use for purposes of this discussion). Always have. It's okay with me that others don't; it's not okay that they demean and especially severely misrepresent the beliefs and practices of others as badly as you have. In fact, AFAIC, it borders on violating some of the rest of DU's new rules:

With regard to religion (or the lack thereof), Democratic Underground is a diverse community which includes Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, and others. All are welcome here. For this reason, we expect members to make an extra effort to be sensitive to different religious beliefs, and to show respect to members who hold different religious beliefs. Members are permitted to discuss whether they agree or disagree with particular religious beliefs, provided that they do so in a relatively sensitive and respectful manner. But members should avoid posting broad-brush bigoted statements about people who hold specific religious beliefs. Members should avoid highly provocative postings, such as comparing religion to fairy tales or mental illness, or arguing that religion (or the lack thereof) is the source of most of the world's problems.

It's obvious that you had a very bad experience with one or more 12-Step Groups, as have an unknown number of others, but many, many others have not. It's obvious your anger and other unresolved feelings are keeping that experience very much alive for you. I hope you find some resolution that works for you.

as for this: just read the "Chapter to the Wives" in the Big Book and tell me it's not condescending sexist tripe.

Uh, yeah, an awful lot of things written in the 1930s, as that was, fit that model. Women's magazines, even. The whole damn book is dated, isn't it? I've not read it all myself, but some of what I have read of it was quite useful, if dated. You have to "work with it" a little to make it fit your life in these contemporary times.

As for it being a cult, good grief, no. I'm really glad you provided a link. I saw not one single thing out of the 12 that applied even a little bit. Not one. Someone on DU pointed out some time ago that the Catholic Church could qualify as a cult (which idea I also totally reject, even tho I'm NO fan of the Church), and reading over that list, the Church comes FAR closer to satisfying the criteria of a cult than any 12-Step group. In fact, not too many weeks ago I was marvelling at the 12 Traditions and how much wisdom went into crafting them so as to prevent exactly what you're now accusing 12-Step groups of being. There IS no leader; they do NOT proseletyze, engage in PR or recruit members; every 12-Step group is financially self-supporting. Those 3 things are directly and precisely antithetical to three very key characteristics of cults. None of the rest applies either.

All of that makes me question this remark of yours as well:

My experience (and I went to meetings for many years, all over the world) became awful when I began questioning the tenets of the program and when I refused to comply with the expected behavior.

The only "expected behavior" that I know of are participating (or just sitting there is okay) in the meetings in the traditional format which has been part of AA (and other 12-Steps) for a very long time (like forever?), and a desire for abstinence -- there's not even any hard requirement that you ATTAIN it -- just that you sincerely want it.

So what "expected behavior" were you not complying with? other than:

I got tired of, among other things, pretending to believe in a Higher Power in order to be accepted by the group. You see, it's ok to be an atheist when you're a newcomer but after a while the conversion is expected. And when that doesn't happen you become persona non grata.

Well, this "being accepted by the group" is another interesting comment. There's not really any socializing as official part of 12-Steps. That's one thing I always found a little odd, and even a little off-putting at times. There's no "cross-talk" during meetings, which means you do NOT respond directly to other people. There's no social hour, tho people can and do make arrangements to go out together for coffee or come early and chit chat, and there ARE workshops and conventions if you get more involved ("service"), which obviously gets more social. But everyday meetings, no. They're NOT social events. My point is this: there is absolutely no reason you NEED to "be accepted" by anyone in any 12-Step group. You're not there to socialize or make friends. Nor is there any reason you should have to "pretend" anything. If that was the way you saw your experience, if your response was to go into your disease (trying to gain other people's acceptance, a key characteristic of codependence), it's obviously counterproductive.

Finally, back to the Higher Power thing. For as long as I've been aware of the 12-Step Groups in any personal way (early 1990s), the concept of Higher Power has been taught as something that each person gets to define for themselves. I've heard quite frequently: it can be ANYthing -- a tree. (IMO a tree is stretching it a bit, but lotta these people know way more about the program and what works than I do, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.) One of the things I did read in the Big Book was exactly that (tho I don't remember if "tree" was mentioned specifically) -- Higher Power can be anything. The point is that AA and the others are SPIRITUAL programs. I think even many atheists and agnostics believe in a "human spirit" which is transcendent, greater than many of our little lives. And many don't. But if anyone is simply NOT willing or able to get spiritual (which is different from "religious"), even that little bit, then yes, AA and the other 12-Step Groups are NOT for them. Period.

And that's all I'm going to write about any 12-Step Group. DU now has a Recovery Group and I might just head on over there for a bit.

Edited to add: MEETINGS. I mentioned "no crosstalk," it occurred to me I perhaps ought to describe what does go on. Meetings are, to me, sorta like group therapy without a therapist. Everyone just sits and takes turns (no interruptions, no crosstalk) talking about whatever they need to talk about related to their experience. You take as long as you need (and some people take too long!) It's helpful to get things off your chest. It's also helpful to hear others' stories -- you learn you're not alone, you learn what others do when they reach difficult spots on their journey, you learn some other good coping skills and ideas, you learn what NOT to do, etc. Sometimes you learn your path hasn't been nearly as bad as someone else's. Members (who come and go at will and sometimes are never seen again) end up being mentors to one another in the process. It works for many people; it obviously doesn't work for others. There are a few other things suggested: getting a sponsor, literature (the Big BOok and a number of others) journaling, contacting others in the group if you feel you are about to go off the program (get UNabstinent).

I'm not trying to sell it, I just hate seeing it misrepresented OR, perhaps more accurately, the charcterizations about the bad some have had left standing without balancing information.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Eloriel]

29. What a horrible, horrible story

I am so very sorry that you had to go through any of that. My heart goes out to you and I feel bad if you think I've given you a hard time.

I'm sorry too that the groups you were involved in were violating some of the most important principles of 12 step groups. Some of what you describe relative to the 12 Steps program is simply wrong, and not what I encountered and know about how the groups are supposed to function. So of course our individual outlook is different, VERY different. Frankly, I'm aghast and angry at what you've described.

And there are things you describe which probably indicate that the 12-Step groups are simply not for you. As I've said all along, I get that. They're not for everyone, but many people have been helped. I am one, my brother is one, and both of us have personally met many decent people of both sexes for whom that's true as well.

(Before you even start with the "See! You inherited it!" bit - I'm adopted.)

No, that wouldn't have been my response at all -- just so you know.

I was forced by the military into 12 step based treatment and compulsory meetings.

You were victimized twice (at least twice!), and I am outraged and ENraged that it happened to you in the first place and then that the military put you through all that. NO one should have to go thru that, let alone a kid. What a horrible violation that was, and continued to be:

...I was packed off to rehab. In treatment (majority of treatment centers are 12 step based) I was bombarded with recovery lingo, made to "testify" in group therapy sessions, and to go to meetings nightly. I had to admit to being an alcoholic, lest I be considered a treatment failure. I was 19 and it was maybe the 5th or 6th time I'd ever drank in my life.

Boy, I have no personal experience with treatment centers, tho I've heard some bad stories about some private ones, perhaps especially re teens who are so vulnerable to start with. What you went thru really was another rape, IMO.

I do admit to being a little curious as to what 12 step group you were involved in where there weren't meetings every day (that you are expected to attend - particularly as a newcomer - ever hear of a 90 and 90?). Must not have been AA, NA, or Al-Anon because even the smallest towns usually have meetings several times a week, if not daily.

The 90 in 90 -- that's a guideline some people encourage, but it's NOT a requirement and there's no one standing over your shoulder with a whip making you do it. It's up to you -- or not. Now, if someone is under a court-ordered mandate to participate in AA or similar with requirements about when and how, that's an entirely different matter and really an issue for complaint between the individual and the court, not an individual and the 12-Steps groups. And private treatment centers too are a separate matter if they bastardize the 12 Steps programs.

I primarily attended CODA (Codependents Anonymous), OA a couple of times, and Workaholics Anonymous a few times. The literature from WA helped me tremendously. In my own reading and study, I finally "got it" that one of my addictions was workaholism, but I didn't have a CLUE what to do differently. The free literature I picked up at their meeting was enormously helpful. All of these meetings were in the Altanta area -- voluntary meetings for adults, and not in a treatment setting. If any participants were there because of court order, I wasn't aware of it.

The "it's spiritual not religious!" argument, doesn't hold water with me. I don't make fine distinctions between terms like that.

Again, just so you know, ot's anything but a fine distinction. I don't believe in and am not a member of ANY religion -- and haven't been since 7th grade. But I am and have been interested in spiritual things all my life. You'd have a helluva time getting me to go to any church even to visit, except perhaps out of curiousity (and I just ain't that curious!), but matters of the spirit are of great importance to me. So for your own information and quite aside from the 12 steps issues, there's a huge difference. Religion doesn't necessarily have anything to do with spirituality, tho it can and sometimes does. But you can't count on it. :evilgrin:

I could go on and on. Between my shitty abusive family and 12 step sponsors (people with no therapeutic qualifications whatsoever who seriously expected me to make amends to my father who molested me and my mother who abandoned me when I was 4!) it's taken years of therapy and supportive people in my life to finally get to where I don't feel like a guilty piece of shit all the time.

Horrible, just horrible. Again I'm very, very sorry. And in your case the 12 Steps groups were part of your further victimization, which wronged you horribly. None of that should've happened.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geniph]

28. I do have to say my experience was more in line with ccbombs'

I was involved for a time in the ACOA stuff, and much of what ccbombs was objecting to in her earlier post was also applicable to my experience, which is one of the reasons I'm no longer involved in it.

[Warpy]

6. The problem with entitlement at birth

and I mean through gender, race, family position or any other thing one is endowed with through the mere process of being born into it, is that it's never seen as a prize that other people simply were never eligible for. It's hard as hell for me to see what my white skin has gotten me in life that wasn't available to a woman with brown or black skin, although I do get glimpses of it now and then when some snippy store clerk tries to wait on me ahead of women of color who have been waiting longer. Men simply don't SEE that they've been endowed with a whole list of privileges and freedoms that women will never know. They've never questioned it. It's just THERE.

However, when we start talking about feminism, they don't see it as a sharing of benefits. They start to think something will be taken away from them. Only then to they confront the reality of cock priviliege, when they start to feel that they might lose some of it.

[efhmc]

31. Being a person who, if not realistically, at least hypothetically can put

her/himself in another person's shoes goes a long way toward making all the "isms" disappear. "Cock privilege", good one.

[geniph]

8. They have to blame someone for their own lack of success

and it's easy for a certain mindset to think, you know, things used to be perfect for guys like me back before there were uppity women and minorities and gays. What they're not realizing is that life's always been a hard road for anyone who isn't wealthy, whatever their race or gender - and that the road is harder yet for those who have the additional hurdles of race and gender to surmount.

We're an easy target for the resentment of men who are oppressed by the culture of wealth. They see women in good jobs that they cannot even aspire to, and are somehow convinced that if only women weren't hogging those jobs, they could progress. Those in power spend a lot of time making sure they direct their resentments toward us or minorities or immigrants rather than to those who are really oppressing them.

[Finder]

10. Bingo

You hit the nail right on the head there.

[defendandprotect]

33. Interesting thread --- just want to add that consciousness raising seems to have disappeared ---

[defendandprotect]

32. In every day life, we see that many will attach themselves to power base ---

this happens with females, as well, who will betray conscience and reason in order to remain attached to --- often a male -- power base.

While I hope I haven't done this --
and while I hope that I sufficiently recognize the exploitation/oppression of minorities ---
I wouldn't want to be put to the test of, for instance, having to accept the lesser options
I'm fully aware they are offered every day.

For instance, would I want their options in housing to be mine --- no.
In jobs -- no.

My identity gives me better choices --- I'm aware of that.
And, realistically, unless I become them -- then my fight for their equality is going to
exist in a way which will not make me them.

I'm not going to willingly fight in a way which puts me in their position ---

Hope this makes some sense --- as unpretty a picture as it is.