foolsgold66

I didn't see a whole lot that looked factually inaccurate, unless you mixed some sentences together in your head. Also, it's the Opinion page.

EndGameNYC

"This approach isn’t for severely dependent drinkers, for whom abstinence might be best. But it’s been empirically shown to work for those on the more moderate end of the spectrum who outnumber dependent drinkers by about four to one — including the majority of women who drink too much."

These statements are not factually inaccurate but, in the context of this piece, may be construed as misleading.

Rather than attempting to break new ground, the author is appealing to the millions of "problem drinkers" who believe they are not what's considered to be alcoholic in our culture; are frightened about being stigmatized by acknowledging their problem openly; don't want to be involved in any treatment that involves contact with other people struggling to achieve sobriety; people who are "in denial" about their alcoholism; or people who could otherwise moderate or cease their intake, but need some structure in order to do it. Not to mention the millions of alcoholics who'd be happy to go along for the rid

I'd say she did a pretty good job in both advertising and marketing her product, given the considerable size of the population to which she was addressing her remarks, and the medium in which she did it.

Taking5

I agree and I'll bet she doesn't even know the meaning of cold turkey. AA doesn't dictate this, and Doctors damn sure as hell don't. That's why whenever a newcomer gets here on day 1 or 2 we are always preaching to them to get medical help and not do cold turkey.

Ptcapote

Thanks everyone for the responses. I tend to agree most with the perspective that this was not a great idea on the part of the Times without perhaps simultaneously inviting someone to publish another side to it. Which they do with other controversial subjects so I am not sure why not with this one.

I think it is good that her book "exposes" that there is a growing (or at least more readily acknowledged) population of female drinkers. I still think there's a lot of stigma around women with alcohol problems. I know I have felt it.

However. I do not think the answer is simultaneously advocating that women should try to moderate. An alcoholic is an alcoholic and cannot moderate. I'm sorry, I just don't think it's possible. And as a few of you pointed out, I totally would have loved to have seen this a year ago when I was drinking. More justification. More rationalizing.

I also found it interesting that she was sort of saying that Europeans are so much more advanced because they treat with drugs that allow people to moderate. While I agree fully that the US has a pretty barbarian health care system at times, I think Europeans get in just as much hell with alcoholism as anyone else. Maybe their options are greater and certainly more available but to imply that if we Americans just had that system, we'd have a lot less alcoholism is kind of bizarre...at least to me.

Or am I misreading that?

foolsgold66

Yep. Authors like it when their books sell. I think it's pretty important to remember that our point of reference is at the far end of the bell curve. Not everyone that drinks too much IS physically and\or mentally addicted. This is a valid point, and she isn't giving alcohol to tots, she's simply written a book.

jaynie04

Here is a WSJ article she wrote in June, again a plug for her book but also a bit more into her concept of alcoholism:Why She Drinks: Women and Alcohol Abuse - WSJ.com

She again examines AA and in this article manages to slip in the fact that sex felons attend meetings….I think her stance is pretty clear here. And again she shifts towards a rather simplistic global view of alcohol treatment and once again seems to wrap up with the concept of moderation.

Unless I missed it there is no discussion about the progression of this affliction, no real information about the fact that there are neurological shifts that occur at some point, at least that is what I feel happened to me. I believe progression and a neurological change are central issues to any discussion about treatment of addiction. The idea of "silent evidence" kept coming to mind for me.

She emphasizes the fact that women's roles in society have changed and that they are more stressed, or that book clubs across the US are known to be boozefests…I know how I would have responded to this article when I was still drinking. I would have likely used it as evidence that I was in step with many of my peers, that my drinking habits were a logical result of a larger societal framework. My grandmother was an alcoholic…she didn't need book clubs, a stressful job or the glamour of a wine cellar to get there.

It is a bit tricky in my estimation. To some degree I feel that any discussion in the mainstream about recovery is at least putting it out there. But articles like this feed the behavioral aspect of the alcoholic mind, one of the central aspects of exactly what keeps us perpetuating drinking in spite of negative consequences. And I wonder if it also feeds a broader societal view that we got where we are because we are a subset that hasn't learned self control. I guess I bristle at the fact that when the idea of moderation is bandied about so flagrantly it almost perpetuates the idea that we didn't do moderation well….so we must be "really really bad booze hounds"…..Honey, lock up the mouthwash…Jaynie's coming over.

I didn't come across her qualifications, perhaps I missed them. I have realized what a vulnerable population we are, at least before we find treatment. There are huge undertones of financial opportunity. Perhaps her op/ed piece needs a rebuttal in the NYT…..anyone?

karate

Hell ,if we could moderate we would have never got into problems in the first place !!!!!!!


People that have a problem CANT moderate ,so there is the problem

I tried that moderate foolishness on my own many times ,last time I just caught it in time .

Ptcapote

Jaynie, yes, exactly! And yes, I thought the same thing while reading this...is she saying that maybe if women learned some more self-control then it wouldn't be such a problem? Seems rather ironic, this viewpoint, given that she is advocating against approaches to alcoholism rooted in the past, like 1935 or whatever. Which is about where the mentality would be that women, as a subset, just need to "learn" to control themselves better now that we've been let out of the gates, so to speak, and have discovered the bottle.

Thanks for your post, it totally resonates with how I felt about the article too.

Coldfusion

I did not read the whole article; it was too frustrating. For example, the author says that studies involving Alcoholics Anonymous are not conducted because members are anonymous, then the author goes on to cite studies about Alcoholics Anonymous. It is not possible to do a controlled study of anonymous subjects--you might get people in both the control and test groups, and they wouldn't admit it!

I know that moderation is not possible for me. I am learning by reading desperate real-life experiences here at SoberRecovery that most alcoholics who try moderation fail tragically.

readerbaby71

I don't know......take Sober for Good by Anne M. Fletcher..... There are stories of people who got sober and later moderated, successfully. I found that book to be very informative and inspiring, and in no way did it have an anti-AA agenda.

I also think that saying anyone who can moderate "never had a problem" is kind of offensive. Who is anyone else to judge what constitutes another person's drinking problem? We are all individuals with all kinds of issues and varying degrees of addiction.

I take issue with the idea that this op-ed piece will "make" alcoholics think they can moderate. People have their own minds and the ability to use them and make decisions for themselves. This piece was one person's opinion. It's fine if you disagree and think she's wrong, but the idea that she has a responsibility to promote abstinence and is negligent for mentioning moderation as an option smacks of a victimhood mentality to me.

Cathryn2001

I actually read the author's book at the same time I decided to sober (like the exact same time--first 3 days). I appreciated it at that time--saw it as sort of a wake-up call for female drinkers (like me) who justify their drinking behaviors because that's "just what stressed out moms/wives do."

In the book, she brings a lot of attention to the increasing number of women who are problem drinkers, and she cites a lot of evidence that indicates that historically, not much attention was paid to women alcoholics. Studies about drinking (and treatment options) were primarily completed using male subjects.

I recall an anti-AA vibe in the book, but then again, maybe I'm only remembering the bad stuff? I also remember feeling a bit optimistic about the possibility of moderation, but, like many in this thread have mentioned, I realized (even while reading) that moderation could never be an appropriate solution for me (sure, I could have limited/rationed my drinks, but mentally, I would have become unhinged while doing it).

I like a book that responsibly explores various options. I LOVED "Sober for Good" by Anne Fletcher (as Readerbaby71 mentioned). Lots of ways to get sober/very inspiring.

Deckard

1. Alcohol is a highly addictive drug. I suggest we read this op-ed substituting "methamphetamine" for every mention of alcohol and see how it sounds.

2. The NYT should run an op-ed on the existence of soberrecovery.com. Imagine how many people that would genuinely help.

jaynie04

I think that is a valid thought. However, I think the shear paucity of discussion in the mainstream about treatment allows for the fact that any opinion is going to carry more weight and that is what stirs me. What percentage of op ed pieces grapple with social issues that stem from the results of addiction? We get saturated on the back end; homelessness, broken families, unwanted pregnancies, truancy, welfare….the list is endless.

I sat home NYE and watched episode after episode of Raw: Lockup, inmate after inmate could trace their sentence back to addiction directly or indirectly. We are inundated with acceptance that drugs and alcohol are part of our culture ; songs, movies,fashion , mainstream personalities talking about being high or Mollys. Yet recovery still has stigma attached…while we overtly accept the fallout, prisons, broken homes, joblessness…finding information on treatment is still difficult. I had no problem being prescribed benzos…trying to find a doctor to help me get clean, a bit more of a challenge. If you look at movies alone, movie after movie drugs and alcohol play an important role. Yet films about recovery are few and far between…and how much mainstream discussion is there really about the process of getting clean and sober.

I guess my hope is that social media will continue to bring information about recovery to more people who need it…irrespective of the paths they take. If we are to agree that 10% of the the population suffers from addiction to some substance, then allocating funding to educate young kids about this likelihood as well as treatment options seems important. We are reactive, we take care of people in ER's and prisons who are suffering the results, but not proactive acknowledging treatment as something that most people will likely be touched by. What if kids had these discussions before the problem manifests? It's not something I have studied a lot about but I wonder if we treated addiction like we did sex ed if we could start having these discussions with people before we were at DefCon 4. This is just a thought that has been really knawing at me in the last week I sometimes grapple with the fact that I am here anonymously like maintaining recovery is something to be ashamed of, not appropriate to this thread. If so sorry PT, but thanks for opening up a great discussion.

karate

What if a person did not drink a drop ,No harm there /

Ok ,now what if they attempted moderation and failed ,-there is a lot to lose there .

Our plan of totally abstaining will work for EVERYONE !

endlesspatience

I think one should be very careful about approaching the paper demanding a withdrawal or a rebuttal. As we can see, it's drawn out some very lively and useful debate here and, most importantly, on the paper's very public website.

As someone else commented here "AA has no opinion on outside issues" including this article. It would be a problematic if an author presented themselves as the "voice" of AA in a rebuttal piece - there is no such voice, just a chorus of voices in the rooms which must - like all of us here - remain anonymous.

Dee74

I'm not sure how it works in the States but here opinion pieces are often controversial...its one of the main ways newspapers can still get readership.

The more outraged/titilated/ interested readers are, the more units papers can shift.

I learned long ago that articles like this are never written for drinkers like me....

and books touting moderation for drinkers will always sell because 'becoming normal again' is the great dream of every problematic drinker....

D

suki44883

Yeah, Op-Ed pieces are kind of like blogs. They don't have to cite their sources or back up their claims. They are basically just the writer's opinions.

KatieA

I have attempted to moderate for the last 8-10 years, it's just not going to happen.
But I guess it's possible in some mild cases. No more than 3 drinks in one day did work for a while, then I got new (HUGE) wine glasses. ;-)

readerbaby71

Great points, jaynie! You always have such insight.

KeyHeart

Thanks for sharing that link. What a horrifying op-ed. I'd read her WSJ article right as I had submitted to my HP and joined AA. She threw me for a loop, that woman, but now I see in retrospect that the doubts and fears she raised in me eventually wound up giving me a MUCH stronger program.