Holly Whitaker’s views about Alcoholics Anonymous need to be challenged (‘AA’s rules are written for men’, G2, 14 January). At meetings I attend there are individuals who have lost jobs, families and have been rough sleepers. AA being for “the people who sit at the top of our society,” not for the marginalised is the opposite of my experience. Membership of AA is free, unlike the $197 (reduced rate) for Ms Whitaker’s Tempest, which would make her organisation only for the socially advantaged. AA meetings are full of people who have lapsed many times and are unfailingly welcomed back as opposed to being made to feel “kind of stupid”. Men are twice as likely to be affected by alcoholism but membership of AA is 38% female. The “ego” that AA refers to relates to obsessively thinking about oneself rather than reaching out to others for help and offering support to them. Many atheists attend AA.
Name and address supplied
• Holly Whitaker’s assertion that patriarchy is the root of the AA programme paints a picture of AA I do not recognise. I am a woman, member of AA and a feminist. AA is one of the only places I go in my daily life where everyone is equal and anyone can share their feelings without fear of judgement. There is no hierarchy. Us women are not required to hand power over to men.
Yes, AA was founded at a time when patriarchy was rife, and arguably the literature should be modernised – but the groups work as a melting pot that not only gives women space to find their voice, but also works to break down toxic masculinity and aid men in showing emotional vulnerability. Patriarchal structures are deeply embedded in our society and must be challenged. But it’s dangerous to claim an organisation that works to dismantle an alcoholic’s feelings of worthlessness – often the consequences of patriarchy – is part of the problem. It isn’t.
While all methods of getting sober are to be celebrated, and I wish Ms Whitaker well, what many AA members take issue with is Ms Whitaker’s misrepresentation of a recovery method in which she didn’t actively engage; she has admitted to attending less than 10 AA meetings and not working the suggested programme. One can only speculate then as to why her company focuses heavily on denigrating AA’s free programme when promoting their $500 sobriety course.
Name and address supplied
• As someone who has managed their alcoholism over 20 years through AA, I found Holly Whitaker’s criticisms ill informed. Perhaps her few months in AA was not long enough for her to come to terms with the confusion and anger all alcoholics feel when they attempt to quit. Her characterisation of AA as only designed for a male with a rampant ego is wrong. Most men in AA in my experience suffer from low self-esteem. Many meetings have more women than men, and both sexes relate to the message of powerlessness over alcohol. It is very wrong to say AA makes people feel stupid if they drink again. Everyone is aware of the power alcohol exerts and anyone who wants to stop is welcomed back to AA regardless of how difficult they find it.
It is a programme of abstinence, but no one in AA seeks to stop anyone “trying again”. It’s up to them. AA has supported and helped hundreds of people of both sexes, and, unlike her organisation, it is free. Recovery should not be income dependent. However, if her organisation is enjoying success and recovery, I wish it well. She is quite right to highlight the enormous commercial pressures on women to drink alcohol, and the harm this is causing.
Name and address supplied
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition
