Page 12 of All the Way to the River

B efore we continue with our story, I wish to point out that I am not the only person in the world who has ever done this. Meaning, I am not the only person who ever had the big idea of trying to win love, attention, validation, and acceptance by showering LAVA upon someone else.

And I am certainly not the first person who ever communicated to somebody (either openly or silently): “I can only feel safe and important if you love me and appreciate me.”

In the parlance of attachment theory, this is called “externalizing your sense of security,” and it never ends well.

Nonetheless, it’s incredibly common—especially among women, who are more likely than men to try to earn their value through lavish acts of overgiving to others.

This is because women have always been taught that we can get love only by giving love—even if we must sacrifice our own security, health, and well-being in the process.

And when I use the word sacrifice , I do not use it lightly.

Multiple studies have shown, for instance, that heterosexual women who are married and have children do not live as long as women who are single and childless.

Why? Because women give themselves to death .

In every way that success can be measured in society (longevity, prosperity, contentment, physical and mental health), wives and mothers pay—and pay dearly.

They also earn less money than their single counterparts while doing more unpaid work than their partners do (more housework, childcare, eldercare, volunteer work in the community, emotional support of neighbors, friends, and relatives, etc.).

Married women and mothers also get less sleep and exercise than single women, and weigh more.

They are more likely to be depressed or anxious, less likely to be sexually satisfied, more likely to abuse substances, and more likely to die from stress-related diseases, accidents, suicide, or homicide.

On the other hand, it has been statistically proven that in every way success can be measured in society (once more: longevity, prosperity, contentment, physical and mental health, etc.), married men strongly outperform single men.

Why?

Because their female partners are literally pouring life into them , at a steep cost to their own existence.

Sociologists call this “the marriage benefit imbalance”—meaning that the institution of marriage benefits men far more than it benefits women.

I would like to register a formal complaint, as a woman, stating that this arrangement, quite simply, sucks.

I would also like to state that the stubborn endurance of this imbalance causes me to feel rather cross whenever I watch yet another dumb romantic movie about a woman who is desperately trying to get some dude to marry her, even as the man tries to avoid being “trapped” in her web.

If these stories told the truth from a sociological standpoint, the woman would be running for her literal life to get away from the institution of marriage, while the man would be begging her to take care of him forever so he can live long and prosper.

But it is not only within the realm of marriage and motherhood that we see this pattern of women overgiving to men.

Young girls who attend coed schools do not perform as well, academically or emotionally, as girls who attend single-sex schools—whereas boys perform better in schools where girls are present.

Why? Because girls pay attention to the boys—helping to socialize them, motivate them, and assist them with their work. Again, to their own detriment.

And corporations with women on their boards outperform corporations without female leadership (by a staggering 25 percent)—even though corporate life is brutal and punishing for women.

Even within the realm of addiction and recovery, this pattern holds: Female addicts are more likely to recover if they are placed in a single-sex rehabilitation facility, whereas male addicts are likelier to stay clean and sober if women are around to help and inspire them—once more, at the expense of the women.

Of course, not every relationship (personal or professional) is defined by a woman sacrificing more of herself than a man.

It is also not the case that every relationship consists of a man and a woman.

Our concepts and understandings of gender are transforming before our eyes—and I pray that all this transformation of culture and consciousness will eventually bring a better deal for all those who identify as women.

But the reality of life is that very few relationships are perfectly or even reasonably balanced.

So it is worth questioning, in every partnership, “Who is playing the traditional role of the woman here?”—meaning: Who is pouring more care and nourishment into this relationship (or project or institution)?

And who is the beneficiary of all that care and nourishment? And what is the cost to the overgiver?

Now, listen—I could sit here all day ranting about the patriarchy, but this isn’t a book about the patriarchy; this is a book about my trying to take full accountability for my own life.

It is essential to my emotional sobriety that I take personal responsibility for my part in any story that involves dysfunction.

Thus, I believe there is one other important question that we must address here, namely: What is the overgiver getting out of this obviously imbalanced arrangement?

Or at least, what do they think they’re getting?

Because nobody overgives for no reason—even if those reasons are deeply hidden or disguised as acts of pure altruism.

So what is the payoff, exactly?

In my case, the payoff has always been love—or at least, the desperate hope of love.

And how far am I willing to go—how much will I extend myself, exhaust myself, burn myself out, or manipulate, seduce, soothe, manage, and control others—in order to get my own hidden needs and hungers met?

Are you kidding me?

To earn love ?

I will give up everything I have.

I will overgive myself right to the edge of annihilation.

But only always.