Amms

My RAH has asked me to read the Chapter 8 - To Wives ( the Big Book). I have started to read and realise this book was published in 1939 and republished ever since. I find the way it talks to wives as quite condescending, like something from a 1940s housewife or etiquette book for women.
That is when women knew their place and were good housewives and pandered to their men.
Most women now esp those with AH have to work outside the home in full time jobs and often stressful jobs, manage the kids, the bills, the household, yet are expected by this book to be patient "you should never be angry" 'patience and good temper are most necessary'. 'we know women who are unafraid even happy under these conditions' !!!!

What misogyny is this? Women are not human beings? It actually puts the responsibility back on the partner to make him see the error of his ways, how can that in anyway be consistent with detachment and letting him deal with his own addiction and consequences?


In relation to conflicts, the wife 'must carry the burden of avoiding them or keeping them under control." Isn't this the very same thing that codependency is made of? I am so confused by this and angry too that somehow now it is my responsibility to aid him to get better. How dare he ask me to read this crap.
Basically it is telling me that while I am being abused emotionally, mentally and psychologically I should sweetly smile grin and bear it. WTF!:headb ange

I am really angry now, this is a load of BS!

Jaguar55

I haven't read anything from the Big Book, but that sounds ridiculously outdated!

Berrybean

The way I'm reading it, it says that the wife had been taking responsibility beofee but should NOT take responsibility for him (the alcoholic ).

It does say ahout, remembering he is very ill when he angers you. But avoiding being angry isn't for the alcoholics sake. When we're angry, WE are the ones who suffer. It's to get some peace for yourself. I know the language can seem outdated, and that's because it's very old. Plus it does acknowledge that it could easily be written To Husbands instead of To Wives in the footnotes Much of the information and advice could still be useful to many though. I think a lot of it is directed to people whose partners are still active in their drinking as well, when they're talking about the different types of drinkers. Nowadays people talk more openly about alcoholism and addiction, but I can easily imagjne the shame that my grandmother would have felt if my grandfather had been alcoholic, and to read about situations like hers existing elsewhere would no doubt have been a relief, as she couldn't just Google or join an online forum.

Why do you think he asked you to read it? (To suggest that you become a 40s housewife? Or to give you some insight into his failings, and the 'distorted and exaggerated' place his mind is coming from ?) I suppose you could ask him what parts he thought might be useful to you. And if yiu think ut pertinent, could also point out the bit on page 108 where it says '...we realise that some (alcoholics) are thoroughly bad-intentioned, that no amount of patience will make any difference. An alcoholic of this temperament may be quick to use this chapter as a club over your head. Don't let (them) get away with it. If you are positive (they are) one of this type you may feel you had better leave. Is it right to let (them)ruin your life...? Especially when (they) have before (them) a way to stop (their) drinking and abuse if (they) really want to pay the price...' (I replaced the he and his as best I could).

Wishing you all the best at this difficult time.

NoelleR

Let's just remember that that chapter was written by Bill W., and NOT his wife, Lois.

(o:

Amms

Thanks Beccy and Noelle, I see that there is some wisdom in it but wouldn't it be worthwhile to modernise it?

My RAH motives, that is a very good question which I will ask him. If it is to understand where is coming from, fine but if it is for me to grin and bear it and be pleasant, good natured and smiling all the time, well that is not gonna happen, period.

redatlanta

yeah its antiquated in writing , but so is the Bible.

So I take it and modernize it myself. I think its saying that becoming angry over the alcoholic and their antics doesn't solve anything. In fact, we can become so enmeshed in anger that we are dragged down as the alcoholism is not something we can control. To me it is speaking of detaching from the alcoholic behaviors, and not allowing someone the power to anger you.

It actually puts the responsibility back on the partner to make him see the error of his ways, how can that in anyway be consistent with detachment and letting him deal with his own addiction and consequences? Interpretation: Talking about codependency and enabling here. Setting boundaries, and sticking to them. Not cleaning up the alcoholics mess for them which does limit them "seeing the error of their ways".

Now to modernize more 'patience and good temper are most necessary'. 'we know women who are unafraid even happy under these conditions' !!! I have seen members become prideful (happy??not sure) when they have worked on their detachment and codependency. Are able to move beyond snooping, or perhaps arguing with the A. Figure out a path to leave, or find the strength to do so. I'd use the word content and assured rather than happy. In 1939 divorce was a rarity. For a female I imagine impossible in many situations financially especially if there were children. Things are way different now as we all know. This to me is about making chicken salad out of chicken sh!t. Today, we have other options.

LexieCat

People in AA are very emotionally attached to this book, and the first 164 pages (describing the "program" of AA) will likely NEVER be changed. OTOH, AA has updated the "personal stories" at the end to be more diverse and inclusive.

For the first 164 pages, just keep in mind the social times in which it was written. It WILL be dated in terms of that, but the basic truths about the principles remain the same. People are still people. If you read it with the right mind-set (part of the reason sponsorship is important), there is a ton of wisdom in there.

dandylion

Amms......lol....I can just "see" the smoke coming from your ears!

In a shockingly retro way....I, like, redatlanta, surmise that it is talking about the idea of detachment within the cultural norms for that period of time.

To women of today, the social realities for women of my mother's age or my grandmother's age could make you cry...if you really knew. I have talked to my mother and grandmother about these things, at length.....sigh.....
(they are no longer living)....
For them, the only options were to literally live o n the streets and become the poorest of the poor....especially, if there were children.....unless, they had inherited money from their own family or had some benevolent person to support them.....

so,,,,detachment and "making the best" of the situation .....making it as tolerable (again, detachment) as possible for themselves as they possibly could...

To me...detachment is a tool that can "buy" a person some mental space....
Not to mend a whole relationship....or as a way to tolerate abuse.....

Maybe, wring any value that you can out of that chapter (if you can)....and dismiss the rest....lol.....

dandylion

Ananda

Hi Amms,

I am going to give you my honest response. Keep in mind that I am both an "alanon" and an "alchoholic" and more importantly a daughter of an alanon. Sometimes I think that can be the hardest.

My mother is 87 (not sure where you are at in the generations). She always told me things like "you made your bed, now you lie in it" and "men can't control their urges, so don't cause them to occur".

With Dad, as one alanon told me once ... "He was an alchoholic ... what was wrong with mom!".

I guess what I'm trying to say is it isn't just the "big book". It's the attitude that even our fellow women tend to follow. IMO it's a hugely wrong way to approach things (especially, it is something that most of us have to deal with who were born prior to the supposed feminist movement), and NOT the way to heal.

I do believe (and I know that may offend) that getting to a place where we can resolve with forgiveness the truly horrid things an alcoholic has done to us, It can be harder to forgive what the non-alcoholic set us up for with the BS exeptions like the "to the wives" section of the big book talk about.

If your partner who is alcoholic harmed you (I'm sure that happened) then you have to work through that. If others around you, whether it be family members, cultural instruction, or a chapter in the big book, are displaying a certain path that doesn't make since, start looking for your own answer.

In the end, people often really do us bad and that is bad on them (forgivness not required but helpful), But you and I and my son and many others must work through it because the people who harmed us cannot go back and fix it even if they want to .... at some point we have to pause and listen to others, and then look at our heart and feelings and find a way to heal cause no one else can heal me/you.

Nands

DesertEyes

If you take the time to read about the origins of Al-Anon you will see that those attitudes from last century, and that chapter, were among the incentives that launched Al-Anon as a separate program.

Out here on the left coast the court system will require alcoholics to attend a number of AA meetings and get a "court card" proving attendance. The various courts have gotten so sick and tired of that particular chapter in the AA book that they are "sentencing" alcoholics to attend a number of open _AlAnon_ meetings in the hopes of countering those ancient attitudes.

Mike
Moderator, SR

MIRecovery

The times were different. I would imagine if there was a rewrite 80 years from now it would be just as dated.

I would suggest ignoring the societal differences and concentrate of the universal truths.

Bekindalways

Mike, thanks for this point. Also is there a written response to this chapter somewhere?

Hey Amms, it has been years since I read the big book and I don't remember this chapter. It does sound consistent with the thinking of the time. It would make me angry too. However, it does show how far we have come.

Hmmm . . . it would be nice to rewrite this chapter with our current understanding of women, men and relationships. Any volunteers?

Instead of saying "you should never be angry", I would say "You should never engage with drunken discussion. Use your anger to power actions to take care of yourself."

I'm fascinated by how perceptions change and don't change over time and read quite a bit of older literature. Most people haven't even heard of the Bronte novel, Tenant of Wildfell Hall. It was the best seller when written. It postulated the (at the time obscene ) idea that a woman could not save a man. The author herself agreed to suppress it as it was considered almost evil.

Hmmm . . . I seem to have highjacked this thread into Victorian Literature my favorite topic.

Txjeepguy

I'm laughing because it's written to the wives... I guess back then they thought women couldn't be alcoholics

LexieCat

It wasn't that they didn't think women COULD be alcoholics (one or two women were among the first 100 to recover), but given the tenor of the times, a woman's alcoholism was more likely to be put down to a "nervous disposition" or something. I think it simply wasn't perceived as the same kind of problem, and was thought of as an anomaly.

We know a lot more now about addiction in general, and society has changed a lot. The stuff about the way the alcoholic thinks, and the way others around him/her respond, though, is pretty universal, even if it's expressed in archaic terms.

Bekindalways

Good point Txjeepguy. How does that chapter read to you if you change the gender? Hmmm . . . I'm going to try it myself.

Although it does seem like there are more women on this forum than men. I don't think it indicates that more men are alcoholic but I do find it interesting. Any thoughts on this?

LexieCat

I think women in general are still more invested in the "caretaker" role than men are. IN GENERAL--there are tons of exceptions and ranges of caretaking. It's easier (though not necessarily easy) to walk away when you aren't a committed caretaker.

ETA: I think women are ALSO generally more willing to reach out for help and support than to suffer in silence or struggle on their own.

Bekindalways

I agree Lexie, although I wonder about the input of nature vs. nurture on this.

I REALLY appreciate the gentlemen who post. I can feel some of my sexism shrink when I read situations from the male perspective.

LexieCat

Oh, I'm not saying it's "nature"--to a large extent (at the very least) we are socialized that way (even today).

Bekindalways

I kind of think it is both nature and nurture.

Hmmm . . . makes me want to socialize my nephews to be a bit catering.

I'm trying to read chapter 8 of the BB substituting wife/her/she.

tomsteve

the one chapter i have disagreements with is this chapter. imo, i read some things that bill is suggesting are enabling and babying the alcoholic hubby.