The folks at Stinky Journalism have a point about the need for privacy in 12 step groups in order for them to be effective. Yes, AA and NA and all the other __A’s out there have helped countless numbers of people, but I’m not sold that just because you model yourself after AA that you’re a legit, helpful program deserving of respectful anonymity. If there was a 12 step program out there for combating non-racist thoughts would that make it okay? Or if there was a 12 step program for helping you to beat your spouse? You can read the 12 steps here, though all they did was repeat AA’s 12 steps pretty much verbatim but replaced “alcohol” with “homosexual.” A much more interesting (and nauseating) read is the FAQ.
Did you read that? Are you fucking kidding me? There’s so much bullshit on that page I’m surprised you couldn’t smell it through your monitor. Pardon the coarse language, but that was a lot to swallow. Dropping the word “philosophical” and “psychological” over and over again doesn’t cover up the fact that the purpose of your group is for people to feel bad about themselves because of how they were born. And while we’re talking about their take on psychology, I haven’t found any information on the group facilitator’s credentials. Unless he’s got a Ph.D., or LPCC after his name he has no business helping anyone with anything remotely related to mental health, ESPECIALLY not kids, as was ominously mentioned under the first question.
Getting back to the issue…were these meetings supposedly confidential? Yes, but here’s my take on that. If you spend all day preaching hate about a group of people to which you actually belong, you don’t deserve confidentiality or respect. Where’s your respect for the people you’re harming with your hateful rhetoric? I’m not going to go into the politics of self-loathing, but this is one instance where LGBT gets separated out from other minorities. Unless you’re this guy -
(That's Uncle Ruckus from the Boondocks for those unfamiliar)
-I doubt there are many African American people who would attend a 12-step program designed to help them fight their African American-ness. Which just makes the topic stickier. It says in the Stinky Journalism piece that Mr. Brock was going there “to be held accountable,” but again, I have to disagree. So you spend all day preaching hateful things about the LGBT community, of which you are a member, but then cap your week by going to a support group that says “well, you’re okay as long as you don’t act on it.” It seems to me like that’s more of a pass than an attempt at being held accountable.
Which brings up another issue I had with the Stinky Journalism piece. They point out that:
Also important to note is that Lavender didn't prove that Brock never said he was gay – just that he “fell into temptation.”
Here’s the thing. If you read the Lavender piece, Mr. Brock mentions that by “falling into temptation” he meant he was out bangin’ Slovakian dudes on a church trip. As far as I’m concerned that’s gay enough to get you an invite to the big LGBT block party. No, they didn't catch him claiming to be straight, but he's not exactly qualifying his hateful public statements with "by the way, I'm gay but I'm totally not okay with it, so it's cool."
I guess what I keep coming back to is that if you’re a public figure, who publicly puts yourself out there as a hatemonger, you don’t get to hide behind some half-assed 12 Step program’s supposed confidentiality when you get caught as a hypocrite. Do I think what Lavender did was unethical? Technically, yes. Does that make it the wrong thing to do in this instance? Not in my book. It’s a cliché, but I’m a believer in that sometimes you’ve gotta do bad to do good.
It sounds like I’ve finally made up my mind, but I’d be very interested in hearing what other people think about this, so feel free to leave your thoughts in the comment section.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment