Article by R. Glenn Kelly | January 22, 2017 | Repost July 21, 2017

What was once my curious peek down the rabbit hole has turned into a very enlightening journey. It has been, and remains, one which has not only changed my awareness of where I came from personally, but more so, how sex and gender biased grieving impacts anyone who has experienced the profound loss of a loved one. In both discoveries, I refer to the more outward tendencies, trends, and expressions of emotions, particularly as they relate to grief. These responses can be vastly different in both men and women, and in the varying degrees of masculinity and femininity.

My journey began after the death of my only child, Jonathan, albeit not right away. Immediately after the loss, I hurt badly, yet knew there was no time to simply curl up in a fetal position and beg the world to go away. There were things that had to be done. I needed to lay my son to rest, ensuring every detail was toiled over to honor the amount of love I have for him. In addition, there were out of town family and friends to host during the services, along with immediate family to support, who, at times, seemed incapacitated in grief. 

There was no question I was deeply anguished over the loss, yet remained internally driven to carry on just enough with the various tasks of life to keep the pain from shutting me down. This tendency for aversion would carry on for months after the loss, as I consistently used life’s little responsibilities to control my outward emotional responses. I would return to work, where over a thousand employees relied on my knowledge and leadership. I would immerse myself deeper into such things as home upkeep and personal hobbies, where I had control over the outcome. All the while, however, the pain from the loss of my child remained forefront in my mind. It was just held at bay, however, and meted out very neatly between the moments of concentration required for whatever task I had at hand.

Soon, there would be those around me who wondered aloud if I was properly processing my grief. When asked how I was doing, my response was typically to say I was doing well. I was okay. When trapped into talking of the loss, I might occasionally choke up and shed a tear, but never really broke into long crying jags, as did the others who were close to my child. As this went on for some time, there would be direct questions about my lack of feelings, and about my emotional health in general. I would be told I was not acting in a way it was written a bereaved parent should act, and asked repeatedly to consider seeking professional help, as I must not be aware of how repressed my feelings were inside.

Those caring, but constant queries from loved ones soon made me begin to actually question myself. Was I really not acting as I should? Could I be a heartless, emotionless monster for not responding in the ways of expected social norms? Further, their questions soon made me consider that I might not have loved my child. Since I was not in a state of constant despondency after the loss, could that mean my love for him was not as great as I believed? That was the last straw. True love is far too strong to be questioned.

I knew my love for Jonathan was unconditional, regardless of the intensity of outward expressions, and nothing could make me think otherwise. I would find strength in that conviction, yet remained confused about my emotional health. Was I repressing the grief I had for the loss? Was it just me, or are there others like me? Thankfully, one of the benefits of coming to the last straw is that it seems to drive one to find clarity in confusing times, and I would find some in the once mysterious rabbit hole of both sex and gender, and nature versus nurture.

Child Loss Divorce Myth

One of the primary passions in my grief work has been helping other bereaved parents by sharing some inherent, yet normal, differences in men and women. While doing so, it would not take long before a dangerous myth became more apparent; Child loss will likely lead to divorce. Unfortunately, there is a wide spread, but false, belief that the loss of a child, and the emotional strain that accompanies the loss, will likely result in the eventual divorce of the parents. In routine life, the natural traits and tendencies of each sex will already find a husband and wife expressing emotions in differing manners.

Then comes the traumatic event of child loss. It is not the natural order of life for a parent, and breaks new levels of emotional depth no loving couple would think to prepare for. When loss occurs, those differing traits, which normally enhance a relationship, can seem foreign and confusing to a spouse who is already grappling with his or her own unfamiliar levels of increased emotional intensity. While this can certainly lead to difficulties between the couple, and therefor slow the healing process, these differences do not automatically lead to divorce.

The unfortunate myth of parental divorce is borne from one of the earliest books on grief and loss, and written by someone outside the mental health profession. In 1977, Harriet Schiff, a reporter and grieving mother herself, published the book The Bereaved Parent. Her writing was superb, and her articulation of a parent’s grief journey was found to be groundbreaking in presentation. Because of this, it soon became a widely-accepted work, both in and out of the mental health communities.

In her book, Schiff did discuss how the loss of a child could create “difficulties” in the marriage, but never once wrote that it would lead to divorce. However, through misinterpretation, or, as an innocent means of ensuring more grieving couples sought support, it became a commonly spread myth. Even today, it remains something often whispered in the ears of the newly bereaved.

Fortunately, there have been numerous commissioned studies of married couples who had experienced child loss, and the findings are contrary to that false belief. These studies unquestionably dispel the myth by revealing the true divorce rate of bereaved parents to be consistently below the thirteen-percentile range throughout the decades of studied cases. Further, of that low percentage, it was also revealed that for the majority of those couples who did divorce, there were underlying relationship issues, which began before the loss of the child, and divorce may have occurred regardless.

Even without the fear of divorce, misunderstandings of sex and gender biased grief can still cause roadblocks for a loving couple, as correctly written by Schiff. In my own grief support work, I find that almost every couple I have met did experience some level of misperception in their spouse’s emotional expressions, or lack thereof, following child loss. I also found that it is usually, but not always, the somewhat stoic responses from the more masculine partner, the husband, which lead to confusion. Further, these misconceptions were often carried on for years, and even decades after the loss, with the offended spouse eventually relenting to tolerate what seemed awry with the other.

To give a few examples of these misconceptions, a wife may feel her husband is emotionally unstable because he is not expressing his pain more outwardly. She may believe he does not love her as much as believed, as he cannot seem to support her in ways she instinctively needs. Sadly, she may also feel he did not love the deceased child as much as he should, since he is not willing to talk about the loss more, or cry openly. Considering just these more common examples, it is obvious that healing, individually and within the marital relationship, can be delayed in large part by sex and gender biased expression of emotions.

The Gender Scale

My continuing urge to explore the unknown was only, at first, an avenue to measure and enhance my own awareness of self. It was my way of seeking peace. Not long after, though, I would begin frequently interacting with other bereaved parents in my grief work, which then led to a feverish desire to study the physiology and biology of the human mind. Thus, at least currently, I enthusiastically announce I have let myself off the guilt hook. I am not a monster. I am not a soulless being simply because I do not grieve in the same manner as do most women, or even some men. Actually, if brain mapping studies are true, then, as the average male, I experience twice the emotions than does the average female on any given day. I, however, just do not express those emotions in the same outward manner. I am, due to such influences as nature and nurture, a male who is masculine, and just pre-wired to be who I am. I am the average male.

The term average male was purposely used above to emphasize that no two men, or no two women, are the same. Yet, it is safe to say that the majority of humans do fall within the recognized and accepted scales of masculinity and femininity. Masculine and feminine does not refer to the bodily appearance of a person, where sexual organs and other physical conditions are the determining factor. Instead, the terms refer more to gender. Although the words gender and sex both refer, in a sense, to “the state of being male or female”, they are typically used in slightly different ways. Sex tends to refer to those biological differences, while gender refers to cultural or social ones.

In general, without surgical intervention, the sex of a human is stationary by definition; One is either male or female from the womb. Gender is fluid, however, and each individual can exist anywhere on the intensity scale of masculinity or femininity, including gender-neutral. To visualize a simple scale, one need only imagine the human body, with both arms stretch horizontally out to the sides. The head is the center of the scale, and considered as gender-neutral. Moving out from center along the right arm is the masculine gender, which increases in intensity farther out along the arm. While the shoulder area might be considered only slightly masculine, the elbow could be considered the average, and the finger tips thought of as the most extreme level of masculinity.

The left arm is then the scale of femininity, with the head, again, signifying gender-neutral. Then, moving out along the left arm, we find the moderate first, then the average a bit farther out, and the most extreme traits of femininity located at the fingertips. Every man and woman will lie at some point along this fluid scale, which may, or may not, remain the same throughout an individual’s life. For instance, one’s upbringing might have set them out in life with a moderate gender for their sex, yet, environmental influences may push him or her further neutral, or even out to the extremes.

At no point along the scale, however, do we find any trait to be negative for  an individual, as any measure fits within the expected norms of society. Beyond the extremes, however, there are potentially negatives traits in the hyper-masculine and the hyper-feminine, where the recognized gender tendencies are purposely exaggerated. This may be observed more often when one is attempting to capture the romantic attentions of the opposite sex, unaware that those exaggerations do not conform with society’s accepted behavior, or maybe even the comfort level of the one being sought.

Again, each individual human resides at some point along this gender scale of masculinity or femininity. At what point is a direct result of both nature and nurture influences. Nature versus Nurture has been the hottest debate within the physiological field since the mid-nineteenth century. For many years, scholars in these divided camps have argued staunchly on their chosen side, one convinced that our genetic makeup determines individual personality, and the other pushing the concept that how we were raised by parents and role models sets an individual’s measure on the scale. It has only been more recently that each camp seemed to throw up the white flag, and agree that both nature and nurture influence individual persona. Yet, even today these great bastions of cerebral intellect continue to debate the actual amount of influence derived from each.

Generalities and Gender Influence in Grief Expressions

Like snowflakes and fingerprints, no two humans are alike. Is it wise, then, to utilize generalities in gender and grief? Yes. It is a necessity, as it forms the foundational watermark of measuring masculine and feminine emotional expressions. Generalities are the typicals in human society, with extensive psychological studies showing that the greater mass of humans reside on the gender scale which is typical for their physical sex, with the females on the feminine scale, and males on the masculine. As the large majority of people fall within the average gender range of their sex, discussions based on generalities are acceptable, allowable, and necessary.

As with the majority of cases in child loss, one sex in a marriage will usually be male, who will generally reside midway across the scale of masculinity. He will, typically, process grief emotions in a more masculine manner, often a with lesser degree of outward expressions of distressing emotions. He will want to systemize, organize and take immediate actions.  The more typical feminine female will be more outwardly expressive of her emotions, feeling urged to verbalize and display her pain, spend time recalling emotional memories of the deceased, and seek support from others.

There will always be those who measure more toward the extreme of their gender, and others who seem gender neutral. Still, others might even fall across the neutral line into the opposite gender. Of interest, controlled studies have shown that those measuring at the gender-neutral point, and even across into traits of the opposite sex, will tend to lean back towards their sex-identified genders during events involving heavy, emotional stressors. In other words, an effeminate man in emotional duress will, more times than not, tend towards more masculine responses, if even just moderately. The same results were found in the more masculine females, with more feminine recognized responses during stress events.

Nature Versus Nurture in Sex and Gender

Always mindful that male and female generalities do create a beginning foundation of understanding, the gender scale can also create a great number of variables in emotional responses from an individual, as well. Unfortunately, men and women do not display their measure of gender definitively through the more obvious physical identity of sex organs, body shape, muscle mass, etc. Any outward, physical display of gender must come through more subjective indicators, including, but limited to, manner of dress, inflection in speech patterns, and the surrounding environments or peers selected by the individual.   

An individual’s sex is derived exclusively through nature. As taught in basic biology class, a child is conceived female by default, and may remain female with the chromosome combination of XX. If the chromosome combination of XY is present in the fetus, however, the fetus will soon develop testes, which produce a flood of the hormone, testosterone. Testosterone then triggers the development of other secondary physical male characteristics, including variations of the brain that differ significantly from the female. Without the Y Chromosome, testicles, and testosterone, the default fetus remains female, and the already present Estrogen hormone continues her physical development.

When considering the factors that influence sex and gender, gender is the one that can actually be impacted by both nature and nurture. No amount of nurturing, or the societal influence on a child after birth, can alter nature’s determination of sex. Gender, however, even though receiving some influence from the hormones constantly marinating the brain, will also be influenced by the collective shaping of parents, role models, and surrounding environments. Those influences can vary the degree of where one resides on the scale of masculinity or femininity beginning in childhood. In other words, nurturing helps to shape the psychological response to events and emotional stressors, such as the death of a loved one.

Nature’s Influences on the Human Brain

Regardless of nurturing influences, the physical variations in the male and female brain will have some level of impact in the differing emotional responses of the sexes. Nature, and the hormones dumped after conception, determines physiological and biological brain differences in men and women, which serve as instinctual drivers, impulses and urges in daily life. In other words, when an event takes place that requires response, certain areas of the brain, young and old, are stimulated to aid in physical and/or emotional response.

To examine some differences in male and female brains, as well as stimulus response, consider the amygdala; two almond-shaped groups of nuclei located within the brain. The amygdala is largely responsible for emotions, sex drive, and the Fight or Flight response in humans, and is significantly larger in males than in females. As written earlier, men are truly more emotional than women, yet process their emotions more internally. Men are generally, since the dawn of mankind, more sexually promiscuous than women, as well. Once a man is sexually stimulated, it becomes difficult to shut down the urge until he has been satisfied, while a woman is more capable of shutting down sexual urges at any point during a romantic encounter. Fight or Flight is far more likely to cause a man to become physical against a threat, whether through heightened aggression or escape. Yet, with a smaller amygdala, a woman is more inclined to discuss a heated or angry confrontation, and not respond in a more physical manner, as her male counterpart might do.

Although there are several more, the Hippocampus is another area of the brain which differs significantly, being much larger in women than men. It is the primary memory center, and transfers new information to long-term memory. In times of great emotions, such as the loss of a child, a woman is far more prone to replay every tender moment of life with the deceased child in her conscious mind. This seemingly uncontrollable, mental bombardment of strong, visual memories can constantly play over and over and lead to periods where a woman is unable to focus her attentions elsewhere. Men, on the other hand, can and will recall memories, as well. Yet, his smaller Hippocampus allows him to put aside painful memories for a time, and divert attention to other stimulated regions of the brain, resulting in a more systemizing, organizing and action oriented response.

Brain stimulation for both sexes comes in the form of increased blood flow, and/or a release of hormones, to a designated response region of the brain. This is done instantaneously, and faster than the conscious mind could think to control it. Once stimulated to react, great mental effort is required to override the powerful stimulus, as the human response to almost all events, especially threats to survival, have been encoded in the human DNA since the dawn of mankind.

God Versus Evolution in Sex and Gender

Much like the debate of Nature versus Nurture is God versus Evolution, albeit a more long and heated contest. Is the existence of mankind due to a divine creation by one all-powerful, supreme being? On the other hand, did humans simply crawl from the primordial ooze, with no purpose other than evolving into the ultimate survival machine?

If one believes in God, then it is agreed by those believers that God gave Adam and Eve the command to go forth and multiply, thus populating the world. Therefore, since mankind’s departure from the Garden of Eden, the primary task of every individual has been to survive, procreate, protect and nurture the young offspring, and then die, leaving the offspring to repeat the cycle for perpetuity. While procreation tops the list of duties, survival is close to it, as reproducing and protecting the offspring cannot be accomplished without survival. 

If, on the other hand, one is a believer of Evolution, then it is agreed by those believers that evolution cares for one thing, and one thing only: the next life to be born, and nothing more. With evolution, there is no purpose in life outside perpetuating the species, which requires continually self-adjusting human biology to survive the changing environments. Each life that is birthed since the initial crawl from the ooze is just the next experiment in perfecting human survival. Again, as in religious beliefs, survival and procreation is the reigning foundation of evolution.

One’s belief in either God or Evolution, however, really makes little difference when it comes to the development of the male versus female brain. Both beliefs result in the same course of development in humankind over the many centuries of existence. Further, in both beliefs, since the dawn of existence the brain has been duteously recording every individual experience. Those which substantially aid in procreation and survival were, and continue to be, cataloged within our very DNA, to be use as future best-practices. These past lessons-learned were often different for the male and female, however. Based on the procreation role served by each sex, ancient experiences have played a key role in the biological and physiological differences evident in the human brain today.

Many of those traits carried forward could have actually been developed through what has been labeled as The Negative Bias. This belief is based on the concept that negative events are more likely to be stored in long term memory than positive ones. In the distant past, dangers from invaders, poisonous fruits, and predatory animals, were more useful to the survival of mankind, and therefore more deeply ingrained within human genetics. Many scholars in this area of study point to the natural human repulsion to snakes as an example. . Most humans have a disgust for serpents, although they have never had any experience with them. Studies show this includes young children who had never been exposed to a snake, yet still displayed obvious repulsion to the reptile, even though safely behind glass walls.  

Procreation’s Impact on Sex and Gender

Regardless of belief, God or evolution, each conviction does find that life’s purpose is to create offspring, and then help that offspring grow to do the same. In order to do that, the two sexes, male and female, separately developed in ways to provide different, yet balanced and complimentary attributes to raising offspring.

Males were designed from the start to be physically and mentally different than females. Of course, men are generally bigger and stronger, requiring those traits throughout the centuries to handle the dangers of protecting offspring and providing for the family. On the other hand, the female’s primary role has been to conceive new life, give birth, and initially nurture the offspring. Carrying a baby through pregnancy for nine months left her frail and vulnerable, as did caring for the newborn for the lengthy time following the birth. The need for a larger body and greater muscle mass has not been required in the female procreation role, as she had the male to take care of provisions and protection.

The male would become the provider and protector for the family, with his mind often occupied on planning and carrying out how he would succeed. He would build structure, develop tools, and create weapons for hunting and dispatching invaders. Females would need to foster a greater sense of empathy, as she needed an enhanced ability to visually recognize the needs of infants before they could speak. Moreover, the female was frequently left behind by her male counterpart, as he went away on the hunt for food.

During her protectors absence, females would frequently gather with the other females and children to increase the safety in number defense. It was not uncommon for early man to attempt procreation with any unprotected and vulnerable female he might come across. As a result of grouping together for safety, females would develope a natural tendency for social gatherings and seeking support from others. Scanning facial expressions allowed a female to maintain a check on the emotions of others within the group, primarily looking for signs of fear or perceived danger from outside.

When it came to child rearing, each sex had their specific roles in the development of the young, as well. Since the early days, a male child would be born and spend his early, emotionally formative years under the direct care and influence of the mother. She showed, and passed on to him, compassion, caring and love. Then, when the time came, the male child joined the male father and learned that life was tough outside the bosom. He needed strength and masculine traits to survive. As he grew to be a man, he combined the compassionate nurturing of his mother with the real-life lessons of the father to eventually strike out on his own and repeat what his parents had done.

A female child also received those early years of loving nurture from the mother, but unlike the male going out to the father, she would remain, and continue learning about setting up and providing a nurturing environment, in preparation for one day providing care for a mate and their mutual offspring. Of course, fathers would also interact with daughters as they grew, but in a gentler way, understanding the primary role of development rested with the mother.

This type of gender role modeling would go on in similar manners across the globe for centuries, with minor variables based on the social environments of the region. However, in more developed regions, such as the United States, Great Briton, and other countries, society would change drastically as we rolled into the twentieth century. Fathers were no longer on the farm. Instead, they went off to work in factories and office buildings as industrialization too hold. Mothers would then take a much larger role in rearing the male children, with the help of other role models outside the home, such as school, sports, civic groups, and other. The male father, once prominent in role modeling, has been left mostly with limited influence, mostly during the evenings and weekends.

Dangers within Equality of the Sexes

One of the conclusions of sex and gender biased grief expressions may be quite controversial to some on the surface: Males and females are not equal, and were not designed by God or by evolution to be equal. On an almost subliminal level, men and women are living in frustrating times now. Over the past several decades there has been so much talk about equality between the sexes, yet in reality, it is fundamentally against our genetic coding. What results from this is the conscious mind fighting to overrule the subconscious, which can be likened, if you will, to attempting to will one’s own heart to stop beating.

The fact that males and females are are not equal does not, in any way, mean one has an inequality to the other. There is a right to have equal pay, the right to vote, or equality in every social issue. Men are certainly no better than females, or demand no higher level of respect. However, the truth is that males and females simply are not equal at a genetic level for good reason. The human race was created, and continues to survive as God’s children, or Darwin’s species, simply because males are physically, mentally, and yes, emotionally expressive in diverse manners than that of females.

As human development stands now, this overall call for equality is creating an almost silent confusion, as societal influences subconsciously conflict with the pre-wiring of our DNA. Society, as a whole, is now involved in an almost unnoticed transition period taking place within the family. Not long after the father left the farm for the factories and office jobs, the perceived value of the successful, self-sustaining family quickly turned to the value of one’s salary, house, and car. Whether it be the need for more income to support the family lifestyle, or a drive to find personal success, the adult female would also go off to work outside the home.

With the new paradigm encompassing both the adult male and female, the nurturing styles of both gender roles has changed, as if overnight, in comparison to the family or village standard that existed for centuries before. Young, developmental males and females are no longer spending formative years being modeled directly to the traits of survival and procreation. Today’s developmental goals are focused more on adult success outside the home, where higher education and occupations which do not directly support the family are the focus.

This relatively new lifestyle template is a marvelous progression in development of mankind, and is taking place regardless of where one places value on the past. With it comes the call for equality of the sexes, as well. However, many will mistakenly confuse societal equality with purposeful, and necessary, non-equality of the sexes, where males and females are different by divine or evolutionary purpose. This can lead to frustrations. It must be recognized, therefore, that these societal reforms are conscious efforts, unlike genetic encoding, which persuades reactions through the subconscious; being without the control of the discerning mind. Even when change is good and necessary, it will take a great deal of time and effort for any alterations to become natural and inherent responses of the subconscious mind.

There is also another, more recent, gender issue causing frustration in society; self-awareness. Self-awareness refers to the more modern term of spirituality, with many finding comfort in the concept that their true-self is actually a “spirit” that is temporarily existing in a human body. Much like the paradigm shift in society, confusion is created by the common belief that sprit is androgynous; being neither male or female, and gender-neutral. It is, therefore, easy for believers to rationalize that if one’s true-self was spirit, and spirit has no sex or gender, then life on earth should be lived in alignment with true-self, which is a gender-neutral spiritual being.

While daycare providers, teachers, and other extracurricular role models, fill the traditional nurturing gap of our youth, is society witnessing a transformation? Certainly, in a civilized world, there is no longer the need to defend the village, feign off predators, go off on the hunt, or perform many of the other acts imperative to survival through the ages. At least not in the same brutal fashions, that is. In this new society, men and women no longer need to live at the very extremes of gender. Will the next generations to come be able to continue a progression away from centuries of living, while still serving the primary task of procreating in a more gender-neutral mode? If so, the confusion and anxieties it will certainly induce will only be mitigated though knowledge and understanding of nature and nurture.   

Understanding Biases to Heal Together

There is so much empirical data that reveals men and women will instinctively respond to profound events in differing manners. For the purpose of this discussion, the primary event is the death of a child within a marital relationship. Just focusing on the influences of nature and nurture, males are pre-wired to respond more internally in processing emotions, while females are more external. Nature places past experiences from centuries of human development, or evolution, into the very DNA of everyone to help ensure the survival of mankind. Nurturing, or the teaching and influences of role models during developmental stages of life can strongly affect emotional expressions, as well.

On a large scale, these expressive differences are recognizable in day-to-day life, and as discussed earlier, can greatly enhance the love, relationship, and family environment. However, in the occurrence of a tragic and overwhelming event, such as the death of a mutual child, men and women will often be overwhelmed within their own emotional and painful confusions, and be unable to recognize their mate is not wired to respond in the same manner.

It is not wise to automatically expect marital difficulties in a relationship simply from the loss of a child. Nor, is it prudent to expect every man or woman to act in the typical manners of sex, nor gender. A male father may not be a hyper-masculine man, and may well express his emotions more externally than most others. A mother could actually be more gender neutral then the average female, and not express her emotions openly. An individual is just that; an individual.

Caution must be taken in griefwork to not persuade the bereaved to respond in an expressive manner not instinctive to his or her natural tendencies. This is exceptionally important early on, when the heavy confusion of dark emotion is already taxing the griever’s mind. Add to those mental burdens the false concept that one is not acting appropriately, and the beginnings of the grief healing process can be greatly delayed. Even if the bereaved were to consider his or her own emotional expressions to be unfavorable, wholesale change attempts to involuntary personality traits should be avoided until a time well beyond early grief. Loss of a child is a substantial emotional stressor and needs no other troubling assault to the griever’s psyche.

Conclusion – A Note to the Bereaved

If you are a grieving parent who has lost a child and experiencing confusion over your spouse’s grief expressions, or lack thereof, the key advice is to discuss it openly. Let your spouse know you do understand there will be differences in response, and you will not attempt to force him or her to act outside of their nature. Look inside yourself, as well. Realize that you are grieving in ways that may be unfamiliar to your spouse, even when you have been together for years, or even decades. While you might feel neglected, or misunderstood, be aware that it is not out of malice, insensitivity, or lack of love from your mate. Let him or her know of your awareness, and that could go a long way to remaining close during such a horrific time.

Most importantly, recognize that the inclination of divorce after child loss is simply not true. It is a destructive myth. The love you share with your partner, and the love you feel deeply for the one you lost, will help both you and your spouse down your healing path of peace and purpose. If, however, marital difficulties do arise which you feel are beyond understanding, please seek the guidance of appropriate support. Remember always, however, these differences between men and women have enhanced your relationship before the loss, and when understood, will continue to do so after.

For more information on engaging R. Glenn for workshops and events, please click here, or visit www.rglennkelly.com.