Codependency is a popular concept. It’s been around for awhile now, and no one seems to take issue with it.

 I do.

 Codependency generally refers to the behaviors of someone who is in a relationship with a substance abuser, be it a spouse, parent, child or friend. What I take issue with is that the concept of codependency tends to assign equal blame for the addiction to the addict and the loved one.

Codependents try to take care of the addict, but the caretaking is said to be compulsive and self-serving. They cover for the addict, make excuses to bosses & others, clean up physical and interpersonal messes, and make repeated attempts to rescue addicts from the consequences of their destructive behaviors. They try to prevent their loved one from “hitting bottom”.

Codependents are assumed to continue these rescue attempts because they themselves get something out of it. That they enjoy the role of martyr or victim. That they get their rocks off feeling functionally and morally superior to an alcoholic or drug addict. That they enable the addictive behaviors, and that, without them, the person would probably have sobered up by now.  Codependents are accused of confusing love and pity, of relationship addiction, of an extreme need for approval, recognition, and control, of poor communication skills, and of lying.

While I’m sure there are people in relationships with alcoholics who are some or all of these things, I have never met one. Who I have met are those who are desperate to save their husband or child from job loss, accidents, or death. This is made more difficult by the fact that all substance abusers lie. Narcissism (only considering oneself) and lying go hand in hand with addictive disease.

And while a codependent is accused of poor communication, it is frequently glossed over that an alcoholic’s primary relationship is with his bottle. An addict’s primary relationship is with his drug of choice. Every person or activity in his life plays second fiddle to the substance. It is nigh impossible to have a real relationship with an addict, let alone communicate with him.

Another sticky wicket is that fact that codependents are generally assumed to be women. When you think “codependent”, do you picture a man?  Probably not. But caretaking and self-sacrifice are still encouraged and valued in women. Girls are still raised to be nurturing and to put the needs of others ahead of their own. Frequently “co-dependents” are simply living out their gender roles.

So, please, the next time you hear about a codependent relationship, or hear someone call themselves codependent, don’t just accept this on face value. Consider what the non-drinker is up against and how their options might be limited.

Recently I had the opportunity to speak with a large group of young teens. At one point we were talking about parents and kids and I asked them to say what came to mind when they thought of the phrase “Daddy’s girl”. The responses were things like cute, endearing, not as desirable as being a soccer star or prom queen, but generally positive. I then asked them what came to mind when they thought of the phrase “Mama’s boy”. The nervous giggles from the girls and the horrified faces of the boys told the tale. Yet Mama’s boy is the exact mirror relationship to Daddy’s girl. We talked about how boy’s attachment to their mothers can be stigmatized at a very young age, and how unfair this is to boys. Well-meaning parents can easily buy into the idea that Moms should detach from their sons, assuming closeness will prevent them growing up to “be men”.

In fact, research on families does not bear this out, but rather that boys who maintain a secure attachment to their mothers grow up to be stronger, less vulnerable, and more confident. For a boy or teen to feel he has lost the love and support of his mother is a significant loss, and one that can be re-enacted in his adult relationships with women. Let’s not perpetuate this outmoded and destructive idea on the boys and young men in our lives!

Thanksgiving is a lovely holiday. Its reason for being has pretty much remained intact: to be with those we care about and to metabolize not only good food but good things. Thanksgiving is wonderfully inclusive, and is not predicated on faith in a particular religion or allegiance to a particular group. Even the parade is just for fun. On the other hand, while affirming and enjoying all that Thanksgiving offers, we need to be honest, and proactive, about Thanksgiving Past and Thanksgiving Future. The First Pilgrim Thanksgiving that we commemorate would not have been possible without the help and support of Native Americans. That small British band of immigrants would not have survived without the Wampanoag Indians, and those who proudly chart their heritage back to the Mayflower would not exist.

Yet only 50 years after that First Thanksgiving, the Wampanoag people were no longer free; this being only the beginning of the systematic genocide of Native Americans by European immigrants. It would be as if modern Mexicans began the systematic genocide of White Americans. Forthright honesty is an essential prerequisite to healing, whether it is between individuals, ethnic groups, or nation states.

And, finally, in terms of future Thanksgivings, commercialism is now encroaching on one of the only major holidays that has so far been able to escape it. “Black Friday” is meant to put retailers in the black, while possibly putting shoppers in the red. Black Friday has now officially invaded the late-day hours of Thanksgiving Day itself, and will continue to metastasize unless we refuse to participate.