Question
2:
Would
the Fellowship discuss, share experience and make recommendations
whether, throughout AA's service structure, members of special
interest groups are sufficiently represented?
[See
also: The Traditions, Preamble and Concepts]
Extracts:
“......-
you have a penchant for quoting very liberally from literature, both
relevant (Traditions, A.A. Comes Of Age, etc.), and sometimes less
so. Just because an article has been published in The Grapevine does
not make it gospel. Quite frankly, it is a long time since I have
read such tosh. It was nonsense in 1946, and is outdated nonsense in
2013.
We have had three women's groups start up in our area during the last couple of years. In order to comply with our local requirements (for inclusion in our local meetings list) two of them have defined themselves as "non-restrictive". The third is held in a women's refuge into which men are not admitted. Considerable heartsearching took place at the relevant intergroup to decide whether or not this group should be included and the final decision to include it was based essentially on the fact that the group would continue to meet regardless of the approval or otherwise of intergroup, and that, on balance, it was better "in the fold" than out. One of the three has subsequently died through lack of women.”
We have had three women's groups start up in our area during the last couple of years. In order to comply with our local requirements (for inclusion in our local meetings list) two of them have defined themselves as "non-restrictive". The third is held in a women's refuge into which men are not admitted. Considerable heartsearching took place at the relevant intergroup to decide whether or not this group should be included and the final decision to include it was based essentially on the fact that the group would continue to meet regardless of the approval or otherwise of intergroup, and that, on balance, it was better "in the fold" than out. One of the three has subsequently died through lack of women.”
Comment:
Yet another rationalisation (see previous conference question extract) exemplifying the unprincipled indeed
hypocritical stance of these 'special interest' groups exacerbated
thereafter by an entirely supine response from the local intergroup.
A dramatic display of handwringing followed by capitulation on the
grounds that they “would continue to meet regardless of the
approval or otherwise of intergroup” hardly constitutes
'leadership' in any degree but rather a complete abdication of
responsibility (so much for Tradition Four). And these are the
guardians of AA tradition? We think not! Such groups should rather
be encouraged to function outside the ambit of AA, and discouraged
from referring to themselves as AA groups (according to our
traditions). There can no objection whatsoever to all manner of
recovery groups setting themselves up according to any format they
like so long as they don't appropriate the AA name to gain further
credibility for their activities. This is simply a form of
parasitism.
Cheerio
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
See
also AA Minority Report 2013
