The Motion was NOT Adopted.
The motion received 50% in favor. There were 22 votes. Yes: 11; No: 11.
As to a Town Hall discussion on the subject, 22 members voted. 9 members responded yes, and 13 responded no. There will not be a discussion on the matter.
Thank you to everyone who participated in the decision.
This motion is being put forward by Eric R
Issue: I move that our Meeting, WEB0120, register a formal complaint with the ACA World Service Organization, noting our opposition to listing meetings that describe themselves as being ‘hetero-only’ meetings. The letter is in the Background, below.
Background: On the adultchildren.org website there is a listing of a telephone meeting titled, TEL0378 Men Only Hetero. This meeting is intended to be only for people who identify as heterosexual, or ‘straight’, men. I find this offensive.
I suggest we send the following message to the Board of Trustees of the ACA World Service Organization:
Dear Members of the Board of Trustees of ACA WSO,
The ACA meeting, WEB0120, Strengthening My Recovery, would like to formally register a complaint to the Board of Trustees of the ACA World Service Organization in regards to the listing on adultchildren.org websites, meetings that identify as “Hetero,” “Straight,” or similarly. Our meeting believes that such listings violate traditions, adversely impacting our fellowship and sufficient to override meeting autonomy.
Here are the tradition violations:
- Tradition 1: Excluding anyone impacts our common welfare.
- Tradition 3: Membership is meant to be determined solely by the member.
- Tradition 4-5: Our meeting, and the whole fellowship, is inhibited in carrying out its primary purpose when another meeting promotes an image or ideology of exclusion.
- Tradition 10: Claiming a need for special treatment, while being a member of a privileged class, promotes disunity and conflict.
It is important to create welcoming environments for all members and potential members. In some cases, it may be helpful to create spaces focused on the safety of certain members who are especially vulnerable to ensure that the fellowship overall is welcoming.
When an organization or institution endorses an exclusive space for a group already privileged by society, that is, a group which suffers no particular vulnerability, it casts doubt on the organization’s commitment to diversity and the inclusion of marginalized and legally protected people. Creating and supporting a protected space for a group that for centuries has been favored by society signals a denial of the inequity that exists.
Upon raising this issue with WSO, we received a response from the Meeting Listing Maintenance Subcommittee, “The meeting host(s) agreed not to “screen” the men attending, so the meeting was allowed.” We feel this response is inadequate. Our meeting, SMR WEB0120, is delivering to the World Service Organization a formal announcement of disapproval.
For insight into the reasoning and process by which we came to this position, please visit our website, acamorning.org, at this link:
The issue is about vulnerability. One of the many problems with “claiming victimhood”, which underlies the ‘straight men meeting’ concept is the absence of an actual vulnerability. It’s an evolving issue. Ideally, in a healthy society, there would be no need for a “safe space” because there would be no “unsafe spaces”. Everyone would feel free to express their personality (within non-violent limits) because no one would discriminate against them for their personality. The word ‘personality’ here includes gender identity, social identity, sexuality, ethnic identity, geographic origin, and race. We strive hard to adhere to the traditions according to our group conscience, we should work to ensure that other meetings, or the fellowship as a whole, do not impinge our ability to fulfill our primary purpose.
Voting is open September 16, thru September 30, 2024. Please NOTE: Voting has been extended a few days since the opportunities were not regularly announced. Voting ends Friday, Oct. 4th.
I agree with everything stated in the formal disapproval. Furthermore, I believe the WSO’s allowance of this type of exclusionary behavior sets a dangerous precedent for other meetings, such as those that explicitly bar people of different nationalities or religious beliefs.
If there are going to be affinity groups of any type, we have to allow affinity groups of all types. We cannot pick and choose or define what vulnerability means for other people.
2SLGBTQI+
BIPOC
Beginners
Women
and so many others are those also excluding others?
Or is this rather a question of feeling safe within the group?
How does this motion aligns with our primary purpose? (To carry its message to the adult child who still suffers.)
It is a fine balance between group’s autonomy and ACA as a whole. Either you allow all or none to make such kind of discriminize (to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences : to recognize or identify as separate and distinct.).
A stage in healthy childhood development is the exclusion of some peers in order to form a club or inclusion of another group of peers. Perhaps tolerance and acceptance would be far more helpful than a motion to protest.
I attend a women’s only meeting where we are specifically discussing abuse perpetrated by males on females. It does not imply that all men are abusers, only that females have extra support by having that safe environment to understand and process their abuse. I imagine it is the same with BIPOC meetings, and as a white settler I do not insist on attending or feel indignant that I am excluded from these; rather, I am pleased that the group has that safe space to heal. I do not understand how a straight or hetero meeting is equivalent. I support the registration of a formal complaint by our meeting representatives. Thank you for bringing the issue to my attention.
My son is a white, heterosexual male. He’s 29 and can’t understand why he is the “bad guy” in today’s society. This has lead to a lot of social anxiety, sadness, and depression. I’m thinking that a group that allowed him to express those feelings in safety would be very healing for him. As a feminist from the 80s, yes I have some reservations about such a group. But I can hope that in an ACA group focused on solutions, the men in the group would have the vulnerability to look at their own issues, rather than it being a place to circle the wagons. I’m willing to let the group exist until such time as it presents a problem rather than a solution.
I don’t think anyone is excluded from any meeting (and if they are, they would be delisted), but it makes sense that groups might choose to focus on specific issues that a particular set of people face. I think communicating that in the listing might be helpful. Maybe the addition “everyone is welcome, but this group focuses on recovery around specific issues faced by xyz group.”