The 13th Step

This is my second review of The 13th Step and it is more response to those attacking the film than actual review. My purpose is to give context to why some of these reviews say the film is dangerously inaccurate and others say it is one of the most truthful and relevant films of today. Thus, what I'm going to do is to ask readers of the reviews to think about the larger claims of those who are critical of AA in comparison to those that insist that criticizing AA is something close to blasphemy.

No religious group is without problems of exploitation of some of its members. AA for tax as well as legal purposes is a religious group, even though members will insist it is "spiritual and not religious. This is because a Higher Power is necessary and this Higher Power is supposed to receive prayers from AA members, even if atheists can substitute the group of AA for God (or any other seemingly bizarre object). I would argue that this substitution is, itself, a hallmark of cults since it puts the group of AA above absolutely everything else when AA itself becomes a Higher Power. However, the key point here is that because AA has a standard and recommended practice of prayer and subordination of personal will to either a deity or to the group of AA that it is functionally religious, regardless of whether members insist that it is merely "spiritual." Thus, the allegations of sexual and other exploitation that are growing in number against AA and other 12 Step groups need to be seen in the context of similar allegations against religions and religious cults.

For example, the religion of the Catholic Church has had problems with Priests sexually abusing young boys. Many argue that the reason the Catholic Church has had sexual abuse problems is because of its attitude towards adult sexuality. Catholic doctrine says that most forms of sex are immoral so there isn't that much of a difference between raping children and consensual sex between adults who aren't married. What made this even more of a problem was that Catholics wanted to believe that their religious beliefs didn't contribute to the abuse of boys and that the benefits of the religion outweighed the problem of sexually abusing children. Thus, there was the desire to keep the problem quiet. Of course, eventually the supposed benefits of keeping the abuse quiet were eventually outweighed by the need to protect young boys who were being abused by their own Priests. I think the abuse in AA, especially the sexual abuse, follows a similar pattern to the earlier reaction to Priests abusing young boys.

The appropriate reaction to abuse within a culture or a religion (and I would argue that AA is both) is to try and correct the abuse and help the victims. The response of the typical active AA member to allegations of abuse within AA (especially allegations of victimization) is to blame the victim and say that the victim provoked any abuse that might have occurred.

Thus, the reaction of active AA is more of a cause for concern than even the allegations. If a group/religion/ denies abuse and attacks those that point to problems, it would seem to ensure their status as a cult. This is where the Catholic Church is healthier than a cult and also healthier than AA. Eventually, the Catholic Church did address is problems of exploitation and took responsibility for trying to solve the problem, rather than saying it was an isolated incident that had nothing to do with the Catholic Church as a whole.

Now, turning the abuse found in religious cults, the initial reaction is the same as the initial reaction of the Catholic Church, but the difference is that the cult will continue its abusive practices after at least some allegations have been proved and continue to insist that those that claim abuse have no right to claim it. Thus, if one is looking for an example of sexual and emotional exploitation and abuse associated with religious cults, FLDS comes most to mind to here. Both FLDS and the Catholic Church have had allegations of sexual abuse and both have been proved to be well-founded. The Catholic Church, however, is working on addressing the problem of abuse, but FLDS sees their abusive beliefs (such as forced child marriage) as something that doesn't need to be changed.

While, of course, AA is not identical to either the Catholic Church or FLDS, it does share many traits, particularly that of allegations of abuse.

What we, as citizens of the world, have learned is that allegations of abuse against a religious or a quasi-religious group need to be taken seriously because there is a foundation for these claims and they are not born out of the air.

Thus, AA becomes a cult not just in the fact that it seems to foster abuse of a various types, including the more well-known sexual abuse that the title of the film references, but because active AA members will viciously make personal attacks against those that try to bring this abuse to the attention of the public.

Yes, all groups can have problems with abuse, but it is only a very dangerous group that blames the victim who has been abused by the group. This is why I argue that AA isn't just a religion or quasi- religion, but should be understood as one of the more dangerous cults of our time. This is also why I argue that the 13th Step is one of the most important films of today.

Bravo Monnicca Rickardson!!!! Not how you spell your name? My point exactly. Thats how it seems to be spelled in my mind based on my own ignorance. Point is you have proven that your single opinion is totally in your own mind and it is easy to get followers to back up your ignorance. Promise them money, fame, a chance to be filmed, star's of the big screen. Free speech is important so remember, it goes both ways. What I see was a few scorned people, including yourself, bashing something that you really have no idea about or how it works. It really proves that money can buy you just about anything, including ignorance. Ignorance is defined as just not knowing. Based on just not knowing you have tried to paint a picture of something that is much bigger than you or your little bias community. Number's speak for themselves. I seen a dozen people? Trying to bash something that has numbers that reach over millions. According to numbers you would have to be a fool to believe this FAKE NEWS!!!! A.A. will hold it's own. In A.A. we will continue to grow and have success stories. The unfortunate part, fortunate to our vast population, is you will never know the truth. You are not one of us. (maybe you are and just havent accepted it yet) You may never know the joys of growing and living in a community where most people want the best for each other. So go back to your scorned life and continue trying to bash things that work, and quite well, without your impute I might add.

One of the most provocative documentaries I've ever seen. I had no idea any of this stuff went on! The courts are sending violent criminals (including known sex offenders!) to AA meetings, and the people attending the meetings (many of whom are young and very vulnerable) aren't aware who they are standing next to! Women are being raped and murdered! The leadership structure of AA needs some serious reform. I have read some of the other reviews on various sites about this film, and one thing all the reviews reveal: this film and the issues it brings to light are polarizing. Any organization (even one founded with the intention to help and heal) is not going to be for everyone, but the deleterious (and in some cases, deadly) effects of miscommunication between AA participants and our courts is reprehensible.

Well done! I've not yet seen this many reviews ever, where it was either a 1 or a 10, no in between!

All (1)star reviews= AA members who were of the lucky and are protecting their tribe.

All (10)star reviews= Non AA members/X-AA members who now can see a new truth.

Monica Richardson, you did/had excellent research, groundwork, experts, pioneers, guests, examples etc and a pretty handy cameraman (lol) thank you for bringing this to the light! You knew you were broaching a subject that would have them firing back at you and you're passionate and you persevered. BRAVO!

I was first introduced to AA in 1991 and many times since, I've seen, heard, felt all the things contained herein. I've disliked AA dogma and "old" rules/brainwashing ways of doing things for decades; finally a film that concisely puts into words my very thoughts, gives incidences of abuse and the bonus is the pioneers and experts in several other fields of recovery with proven options that are more up to date and have much higher success rates than AA does these days. Granted in the "olden" days when AA was the only option, their success rate was higher, but that is changing.

**Review not meant to offend AA members, I have several very good freinds with alot of time under their belt, they are of the lucky...if you are as well, congrats; but AA needs a serious overhaul and restructure IMHO.

I am more than a little familiar with Monica Richardson and her life- long compulsion to demonize A.A.. Problem is she wishes to paint the picture that A.A. somehow has a magical monopoly on con artists and sexual criminals while the rest of the world wanders about with rainbows and unicorns in complete safety.

There were women in the film who came forward and talked about the traumatic sexual assaults they endured as a result of relationships they formed in AA. It is, of course, always upsetting to hear about the level of sickness that has run amok in the world that lurk behind unsuspecting corners. And while there is a general hope that AA will be a safe place for people much like riding the bus, going to a bar or dating online, you just don't know who you are talking to. There are no regulations about who attends AA, which is part of the reason it has worked so well for so many years.

While I am glad the film sheds light on this important issue and hopefully inspires people to be cautious, AA is all open to all who seek it as a place to find sobriety, not physical protection from the public.

There also was, at a time, several low budget interviews available on the internet in which Ms Richardson can be heard sounding anything but professional in her childish snickering about A.A. in general and the people in it. But of course, with her shiny new production out those had to be eradicated save her reputation.

Monica hates A.A., and can only garner an audience with others who do as well.

Monica relies on the fact that most people know little or nothing about the inter workings of an A.A. fellowship and uses this to fan flames were none need be. She relies on the most fundamental quick-to-judge aspects of human nature that is easy to cultivate in the ignorant.

If there is any one observation Ms Richardson even gets half right, it's her observation that many criminal courts sentence criminals to A.A. at everyone else's risk, and it's a bad idea. I agree with this. Again, the problem is she blames A.A. for this. A.A. is not any kind of law making legislative body and doesn't control this process. A.A., under the law, must comply. She might have suggested some kind of process for protesting and thus changing the court's mind, where the responsibility actually lies, but that wouldn't be any fun, would it?

Her well polished production is a non-truth and a highly slanted and even mean-spirited message for those with a taste for blood. Nothing more