When people (including therapists) think of codependence, they often
think “woman.” But despite this stereotype, most studies find small or
no differences between men and women on codependence measures. Some
studies even find that men score higher on codependence than women.
When you think about it, perhaps it’s unsurprising there aren’t large gender
differences in dysfunctional helping and giving.
After all, anybody can
be set up for codependent relationships by absent, difficult, abusive,
or neglectful parents. And individuals of any gender can be other-centered, empathic people whose giving nature is exploited by
"takers." But I think for some of us, gender is a piece of our personal
codependence and enabling puzzle. In our quest to be good women or good
men, we go a bit overboard in enacting the parts of our gender role
that prescribe helping and giving. Among the outcomes of too strictly
conforming to those parts of our gender role: imbalanced relationships,
enabling others' poor functioning, rescuing people that would be better
served by bearing their own consequences, and exceeding our energetic
and material resources.
In regards to women, unhealthy helping and giving can arise from
behaviors and traits that are culturally approved and encouraged for
women. Females are expected to put others first and to be nice and
considerate. Traditional feminine roles such as wife, mother, daughter
(and daughter-in-law), direct women to take care of other people, make
other people’s lives easier by doing things for them, and to care for
those that are dependent (providing what is called care labor). Caring
for others, and accommodating others, in and outside of the home, is
often designated as women’s work and selfless service to others is sold
to many of us as a defining feature of the good woman. The bottom line:
The way some women understand and identify with their gender and culture
promotes unhealthy self-sacrifice and martyrdom for others. They go
overboard when it comes to enacting cultural values that emphasize
taking care of others. They have trouble telling the difference between
excessive caretaking
and normal nurturing. They aren’t emotionally or psychologically sick
for following this cultural prescription, they’re just trying to be good
women in societies where women are expected to subordinate their needs
to others.
Like women, men’s codependent behaviors and traits sometimes arise from culturally approved and encouraged gender stereotypes,
norms, and roles. When internalized by men, the heroic, chivalrous
“man-as-protector and rescuer” role (an archetype found in many stories,
toys, and media marketed to boys and men) and the “man as provider”
role, gets some men in helping and giving trouble. These masculine roles
can draw men into relationships with perpetually needy people that use
them, and make men too quick to rescue people that don't need rescuing
or whom could benefit from bearing the consequences of their own
actions.
Of course it’s not bad to take care of others or to rescue those in trouble. These are things that people do to show love
and caring and they make the world a more loving and caring place.
Heroic rescuing can reduce suffering and save lives. But sometimes it’s wise
to consider whether the gender script you follow causes you to enable
others, drives you to unnecessarily exhaust your emotional, physical, or
financial resources, or leads you into imbalanced relationships with
people that use you to escape responsibility or work. Being a good woman
or a good man should not require these kinds of sacrifice. You might
also consider whether your actions really promote others’ welfare or
enable them, whether your self-sacrifice is sustainable, and how you can
better balance taking care of yourself while taking care of others.
Psychologytoday
No comments:
Post a Comment