There is a sculpture titled Dark Elegy commemorating the destruction by a terrorist bomb of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The sculpture attempts to depict the agonizing grief of the 33 mothers who lost children on that flight. In many ways, the memorial also illustrates the paradox of male grievers. On one hand, they are expected to be strong; their grief is largely, as in the sculpture, silent and formless. On the other hand, they are castigated for not demonstratively showing their grief, a fact touched upon in Chapter 1.
Throughout earlier chapters, it has been argued that there are, along a continuum, two patterns of grieving—one labeled intuitive, the other instrumental. These patterns differ in the experience, expression, and adaptation to grief. In the last chapter, several factors that contribute to the reasons that different individuals exhibit these different patterns were explored. Clearly, gender role socialization is another of these factors. As Thompson (2001) notes, gender is critical to one’s sense of identity. One of the first ways that even young children differentiate themselves is by gender. Often the very first self-identification that toddlers make is to define themselves as “boys” or “girls.” Hence, the social norms that define these roles are learned early and play a significant role in a child’s emerging sense of identity and the ways that child interacts with others and views the larger world. Gender role socialization becomes a major influence in, among other aspects, the expressions of grief and adaptation to loss.
Men and women, because of their socialization into sex roles, are likely to exhibit different grieving patterns. Men are more likely to be found on the instrumental end of the continuum, whereas women are more likely to exhibit an intuitive style. Yet gender role socialization is but one factor that influences a pattern of grief. This leads to a critical affirmation that although patterns of grieving are certainly influenced by gender, they are not determined by gender. Put simply, a counselor, caregiver, or any reader would be well advised not to assume without assessment that any given male is instrumental or any female intuitive. In fact, one can find male intuitive grievers, female instrumental grievers, and dissonant grievers of any sex. However, because of the constraints placed on the male role, males who experience grief in a strongly intuitive way may be limited in their expression and adaptation to a greater extent than females. Although dissonant grievers can be either intuitive or instrumental, they are more likely to be those who, because of constraints, cannot freely express feelings.
Both clinicians and researchers have long noted that men and women exhibit differences in the ways they grieve. Stillion and McDowell (1997), for example, surveyed a random sample of counselors and educators who were certified by the major professional organization within the field— The Association for Death Education and Counseling. Their sample of both male and female counselors and educators agreed that there were significant differences between men and women grievers. Men were viewed as less likely to exhibit strong emotions and more likely to evoke distractions such as work, sex, play, or alcohol. Men were also seen as more likely to respond cognitively, or when affect was experienced, to show anger. Women, on the other hand, were seen as more expressive and willing to seek out the support of others. Their grief tended to be experienced on a deep, affective level. These counselors also expressed a belief that men needed less time to grieve.
This sample of counselors and educators noted that these reactions often correlated with social expectations based upon gender roles. Most noted were the expectations of friends and acquaintances that males would be strong and get over it quickly. Counselors also perceived that women received more social support for the expression of grief. Ironically, these counselors also noted that although women were more likely to be offered comfort, their grief made them more of a social risk. Conversely, men were seen as harder to comfort but more likely to function acceptably in social situations. In other words, counselors felt that the type of support offered men and women differed. Women could expect emotional support, but lessened opportunities for normal social activity and contact. Men, because they were seen as less likely to be “emotional,” were more likely to be invited to resume their normal social contacts. Research by Kubitz, Thornton, and Robertson (1989) suggested that those who respond in ways conforming to their gender role are more likely to receive social support.
Nevertheless, although counselors saw clear differences in men’s and women’s expressions and experiences of grief, they did not see clear differences in outcome, that is, that women or men did inherently better with their grief. Instead, they perceived that each of these grieving styles ran different risks. For men, it was believed that this failure to grieve predisposed them to the risk of more complicated grief reaction or health issues, while women were seen as more vulnerable to depression and chronic mourning (Stroebe & Stroebe, 1983). The opinions of these experts were far different from those often expressed in the self-help literature (Staudacher, 1991; Wolfelt, 1990).
Schut, Stroebe, van den Bout, and deKeijser’s (1997) research possibly suggests another opinion. These researchers randomly assigned a group of widows and widowers to two treatment approaches—one emotion focused and the other problem focused. Contrary to expectations, the men benefited more from the emotion-focused treatment while the women seemed to profit from a more problem-focused approach. Though this research may show the value of a more androgynous approach that allows the extension of a coping repertoire by offering assistance in coping with less familiar strategies, it should be noted that these subjects volunteered and their initial grieving style is unknown. It may be that these individuals may have had difficulty in coping because of a more dissonant pattern.
The perspective of these counselors and therapists, explicitly or implicitly, is grounded in much research that clearly does describe differences in the ways that men and women grieve. This research has shown that these differences exist in a wide variety of losses, including that of a spouse, parent, or child.
Much of the research has shown that the experience of grief differs for both widows and widowers. Naturally they faced distinct problems. For example, many of the widows reported financial problems and greater emotional dependence on the husband (Gilbar & Dagan, 1995). Men were more likely to talk about the loss as “dismemberment,” whereas women tended to use words such as “abandonment” (Glick, Weiss, & Parkes, 1974). This is not to imply that men did not experience grief. In a self-selected sample of men receiving hospice services, these men indicated that they were emotionally involved with their dying spouse and experienced grief (Brabant, Forsyth, & Melancon, 1992).
Widowers also tended to stress the need to be realistic about the loss and to show a narrower range of affect than widows (Campbell & Silverman, 1996; Glick et al., 1974). Whereas women tended to seek emotional support, men found solace in exercise, religion, work, poetry, or in some more destructive patterns such as alcohol (Campbell & Silverman, 1996; Silverman, 1997). Men were more reluctant to reach out to others (Brabant et al., 1992), but they were more likely to return to work, date, and remarry (Campbell & Silverman, 1996). In a study of resilient widowers, Moore and Stratton (2002) noted that these widowers used strategies that included cognitive reorganization (i.e., interpreting adversity to find benefit or make meaning of the loss); taking pride in developing new skills necessitated by the loss, and in supporting and helping others; readjusted role priorities; and increased social involvements. Their advice to new widowers reflected these strategies—stressing staying active, involved in interests, maintaining companions, and relying on faith.
The research on outcome has varied considerably. Some research has indicated that men generally fare better on measures of mortality and physical and psychological morbidity (Carey, 1979; Gilbar & Dagan, 1995; Lopata, 1973; Parkes, 1970; Parkes & Brown, 1972), while other research has suggested women fare better (Bowling & Windsor, 1995; Cumming & Henry, 1961; Sanders, 1989; Stillion, 1985; Stroebe, 1994).
Many of these same differences were found in the loss of a child. Studies have shown that mothers tended to experience a more intense level of grief or distress than fathers (Carroll & Shaefer, 1994; Conway & Feeney, 1997; deVries, Dalla Lana, & Falek, 1994; Schwab, 1990, 1996). Similar patterns were observed in perinatal loss (Boch Hughes & Page- Lieberman, 1989; Kavanaugh, 1997) though Goldbach, Dunn, Toedter, and Lasker (1991) found that these patterns tended to converge over time. In Kavanaugh’s (1997) study, mothers expressed a greater need to talk about the loss than fathers. Both Boch Hughes and Page-Lieberman (1989) and Conway and Feeney (1997) speculated on the greater level of attachment that mothers invested in the child.
Strategies for dealing with the loss also differed. Mothers were more likely to seek outside support and ventilate feelings (Conway & Feeney, 1997; Kavanaugh, 1997). Fathers were less likely to express affect (Carroll & Shaefer, 1994) and felt a need to continue to provide for and protect their families (deVries et al., 1994). Conway and Feeney (1997) found that women were inclined to use strategies that were more emotion focused and support seeking. And they noted that seeking support from others might not always be effective since the quality of support offered may vary (see also Morgan, 1989). Men tended to use more problem-focused strategies. Men also controlled affective expression and intellectualized grief (Lang & Gottlieb, 1993). Where they did show affect, it was generally in anger or aggression (Lang & Gottlieb, 1993).
Unsurprisingly, these differences were evident as well in the loss of an adult child or grandchild. Goodman, Black, and Rubinstein (1996), in their sample of older men who had lost an adult child, found that most of their sample tended to intellectualize the loss. Diversion in work and humor also served as strategies. The authors suggested that some of the attributes of men—often negatively viewed by clinicians—such as individualism and self-sufficiency seem to facilitate their grieving. Fry (1997), too, found differences in grandparents who had lost a child. Grandfathers tended to offer practical assistance, while grandmothers were more likely to focus on spiritual tasks, such as helping their adult children find meaning in their loss or lives. Grandmothers also sought more affective outlets, while grandfathers found outlets in active ways.
Naturally, these differences in the experience, expression, and adaptation to grief can affect marital relationships. For example, a number of studies have considered the effect of the death of a child on sexual relationships and marital intimacy. Although the range of sexual expression varied extensively, many bereaved parents indicated that there was a breakdown or decline in sexual relationships (Gottlieb, Lang, & Amsel, 1996; Peppers & Knapp, 1980; Rosenblatt, 1997). Some of the reasons for this breakdown included a lack of energy or interest, and depression in the aftermath of the loss. But there were other reasons as well. For many, the very act of intercourse was problematic—it meant inappropriate pleasure, evoked memories of the deceased child, or created anxiety over the prospect of a new child. In other cases, sexual intimacy was welcomed for the emotional comfort it offered, for the affirmation of life it provided, or for the creation of a new child. These meanings were not necessarily shared with the partner in the relationship. One partner may seek intimacy for support, while the other partner sees it as inappropriate. Gottlieb et al. (1996), for example, found that men sought to express intimacy through sexual intercourse with their wives, but their wives did not necessarily interpret that as a need for emotional release and support.
This illustrates the larger problem. Without effective communication and information about the ways that individuals grieve, relationships can suffer. Men may experience concern and helplessness in dealing with their wives’ grief. Women may feel a similar sense of bewilderment and helplessness as they seek to understand their husbands’ grief or lack of overt affect. More dangerously, they can interpret their mate’s response as a lack of love for the child.
Counselors and other caregivers can assist this process by helping couples explore the differences and similarities in their responses, and they can help couples understand that these differences are based on a wide variety of factors. Such differences do not denote that one loved the deceased any more or less. In this exploration, all aspects of the relationships, including sexual expression and the meanings attached to it, as well as other modes of communication, need to be considered. Counselors should also counter the destructive myths that the death of a child greatly increases the risk of divorce, almost making it inevitable. This commonly held assumption is not based upon evidence (Schwab, 1998). Although a child’s death certainly may strain a marital relationship, divorce seems more related to prior difficulties. In such cases, the death of a child may simply remove a motivation or energy for working on resolution or staying together. In fact, one of the advantages of counseling is that it can facilitate communication and understanding that actually may strengthen the relationship.
Most studies of children’s reactions to the loss of a parent do not focus upon gender; however, Worden (1996) did find that girls, regardless of age, exhibited more anxiety and somatic symptoms than boys. Girls also seemed to idealize the deceased parent more and indicated an increased sensitivity to changes in the family following a parent’s death. Boys were more likely to self-report that their conduct was worse, suggesting that some of their grief was manifested in acting out behaviors. The treatment of grievers also differed by gender of the child. Boys were more frequently admonished to be strong, while girls were more able to share feelings with other family members.
Such differences were also found in adult children who had experienced the loss of a father. Two studies (Moss, Resch, & Moss, 1997; Moss, Rubinstein, & Moss, 1997) found middle-aged sons experienced less grief and fewer somatic symptoms. Sons’ expressions of grief tended to be active, cognitive, and private.
Comparatively, little research has been done on the grieving patterns of gay men or lesbians and almost none on bisexual and transgendered individuals (deVries, 2009). Some research has noted that because of societal constraints, significant losses of gay men and lesbians are often disenfranchised, limiting social support for gay grievers (see, for example, Doka, 1987, 1989a; Kelly, 1977; Kimmel, 1978; Murphy & Perry, 1988).
Much of the research has been done in the context of AIDS-related losses. These studies are problematic in that losses tend to be multiple, stigmatized, and developmentally unexpected. In addition, surviving partners may themselves be HIV infected. These studies did find high degrees of stress, including depression, anxiety, and guilt (Cherney & Verhey, 1996; Martin, 1988; Martin & Dean, 1993a, 1993b; Viney, Henry, Walker, & Crooks, 1992). They also did find increased use of sedatives as well as alcohol and recreational drugs (Cherney & Verhey, 1996; Martin, 1988; Martin & Dean, 1993a). However, Folkman (2001), in a study of gay men who were caregivers for their partners, found that strategies built upon active problem-focused coping and positive reappraisal (reframing the caregiving experience by stressing the positive aspects of caregiving) were associated with more positive outcomes. This complements research by Nolen-Hoeksema, McBride, and Larson (1997) that found that males who engaged in more rumination following the death of a partner experienced more psychological distress at both 1 and 12 months. Spiritual coping strategies had a more mixed result, perhaps reflecting the negative connotations that many faiths place on homosexuality. In reviewing research, deVries (2009) noted that many gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered individuals had found that a lifetime of adversity had given them a sense of strength and competence in handling crises. Nonetheless, they did face difficulties. Often they were more likely to be single and childless, limiting caregiving networks, and since same-sex relationships are not recognized in many states, many were overrepresented among the medically uninsured.
Clearly, there is a need for studies of the patterns of grieving among gay and lesbian populations. While one would not necessarily expect that proportions of instrumental, intuitive, or dissonant grievers would differ among homosexual or heterosexual men and women, further research would be useful to assist homosexual grievers and to understand the varied factors that influence the assumption of a given pattern.
These results hardly should be surprising. The very nature of relationships, that is, the meaning a relationship has to a person and the complementary roles that people share within relationships, differs by gender. As the research indicated, time, energy, and meaning invested in relationships can very well be different for a mother or wife than for a father or husband. Silverman (1988), for example, found that widowhood in women created a crisis of identity, since they were more invested in the spousal relationship than men. It should be recognized, however, that Silverman’s sample was of a content that was unlikely to have an independent career. The role of wife was at the core of their identity. Both Schwab (1996) and Bohannon (1990), for example, found lower levels of grief in fathers who had experienced the death of a child as compared to their wives. Similarly, the loss of a parent seemed to have more effect on middle-aged daughters than sons, reflecting in part, the authors believed, less of an emotional attachment to the relationship (Moss, Resch, & Moss, 1997; Moss, Rubinstein, & Moss, 1997). This certainly reflects traditional gender roles that see women as more invested in familial relationships.
In addition, every society has norms that proscribe not only behavior but feelings as well. Hochschild (1979) notes that these “feeling rules” dictate what feelings ought to be expressed in each situation. Naturally, these feeling rules can differ by gender. Since a subset of the feeling rules relates to expressions of grieving, it is understandable that research has revealed some gender differences in patterns of grief. For example, a number of studies have found that, apart from anger and guilt, men had a difficult time expressing affect (Glick et al., 1974; Goldbach et al., 1991; Lang & Gottlieb, 1993; Schwab, 1990). Conventional views of the effect of gender on the experience and expression of anger have recently been challenged (Sharkin, 1993). Deffenbacher et al. (1996) concluded “men and women are angered by similar things and to similar degrees, express themselves in similar ways, and suffer similar consequences” (See page). Similarly, studies support the fact—and belief—that women’s grief is expressed more intensely and affectively (Bohannon, 1991; Carroll & Shaefer, 1994; Douglas, 1990; Versalle & McDowell, 2004).
Moreover, these feeling rules extend to the sympathy one expects (Clark, 1987). As Clark (1987) notes, sympathy is guided not only by circumstances but by other elements of one’s biography, such as gender. This serves to create Cook’s (1988) double bind. Grieving males are given little support, but they are expected to support others. These differences in experience and expression of grief are well documented in the literature that has surveyed gender differences. These differences have been found over a wide array of losses.
Researchers have also shown that men and women choose different strategies for adapting. For instance, men used self-help groups less often than women (Osterweiss, Solomon, & Green, 1984). Rando (1986) suggested one possible reason for this reluctance to attend support groups. Following the loss of a child, men saw themselves as needing to be providers, protectors, and problem solvers, making it difficult for them to accept and receive help. In addition, other studies have found men to be more private, intellectual, and introspective in the way they grieve (Cook, 1988; Hogan & Balk, 1990; Lang & Gottlieb, 1993; Moss, Resch, & Moss, 1997; Moss, Rubenstein, & Moss, 1997; Alston & Alston, 2009). And Bonanno’s (1997) work suggests that such strategies may be as effective, if not more effective, than emotional expression and ventilation.
Men also appear to choose activity as a way of adapting to unpleasant feelings. For example, Glick et al. (1974) reported that widowers in their study expressed a concern with being “realistic” (i.e., focusing on solving the immediate problems of loss). They also reported that men were more likely to experience social recovery earlier, often quickly returning to work. Returning to work may be a useful coping strategy, since it allows people to become distracted from their grief (Osterweiss et al., 1984).
There may be other differences in adaptive strategies as well. Cook (1988) noted a number of cognitive strategies used by the men in her study, such as diversion and reflection. Employing activity and cognitive strategies to adapt to loss can be very effective. Powers and Wampold (1994) emphasized the critical role that cognitive and behavioral responses have in successfully adapting to loss.
Such differences have long been recognized in folk wisdom and custom. The Russian “Old Believer’s” burial custom, in which men make the caskets and tell stories while women weep and wail, is echoed in many cultures.
Other methods of adaptations to loss may not be as effective. Studies of gay men responding to the loss of lovers and friends in the AIDS epidemic reaffirm the observations of some counselors (Staudacher, 1991) that males may be more inclined to use substances such as drugs or alcohol to mitigate the grieving process. These studies have shown that common patterns among gay men included both the use of sedatives and recreational drugs (Martin, 1988; Martin & Dean, 1993a). An investigation of men on skid row revealed that many of them had turned to alcohol following the deaths of their wives (Hughes & Fleming, 1991).
It is important to recognize that the type of loss or other variables, such as social class, may mitigate many of the gender differences cited thus far. Furthermore, there is most likely an interaction between gender differences in bereavement and age. Differences seem less apparent in older cohorts. For example, Feinson (1986) found that any gender differences in her study seemed to disappear when social and demographic variables were factored. Another study, exploring the reactions of older persons to spousal loss, found gender was unrelated to measures of adjustment and depression (Futterman, Gallagher, Thompson, Lovett, & Gilewski, 1990). In fact, the majority of studies reporting differences involved younger samples. This is not surprising, given the general agreement that both sexes, as they age, move toward androgyny (Huyck, 1990; Neugarten & Gutmann, 1968).
What accounts then for these differences in patterns of grief? As repeatedly noted, there is no one factor but certainly research has shown that what we label an instrumental pattern of grief is more typical of men than women. Most likely, these differences are due, in large part, to gender role socialization. However, prior to exploring how socialization in a gender role influences the adaptation of a grieving pattern, it is critical to acknowledge two points: gender roles are not static and there are differences within gender role socialization.
First, even within a culture, gender roles are not static. The content of a role is always dynamic, changing over time. What constitutes acceptable male or female behavior changes from one cohort or generation to another. For example, Rotundo (1993) historically reviews American definitions of the male role and notes both continuities and changes in male identity over the past 200 years. In studying the 20th-century male culture, Rotundo describes how mastery of one’s emotions and enthusiasm was seen as a key developmental issue that separated boys from men. Boys could not control their enthusiasm; men had to teach and model self-restraint. Among both men and boys, emotional mastery and stiff-lipped courage were seen as virtues.
However, early in the 19th century, men often shared intimate, caring relationships with other men. Since men were expected to invest much time in public and social affairs, relationships between men were perceived as natural and productive. This began to change later in that century for three reasons. With industrialization, the work role becomes more fundamental to one’s identity. There were limited opportunities to bond with other men outside of work. Second, the concurrent rise of individualism also isolated men from their peers. As men became older, established in their work and marriage, there was little time for sharing feelings and thoughts with other men. Congregating with other males began to be considered a mark of a boy, not a man. Finally, homophobia reared its unlovely head. Since gay men had been labeled as “unmanly,” it was difficult to acknowledge feelings for other men that would allow one to build supportive connections with one another. By the 20th century, contemporary visions of the male role had taken root, emphasizing the male as a rugged individual.
Recently, these conceptions of maleness have been challenged. Bly (1990), for example, offers a poetic vision of what the male role can be. Drawing from ancient myths, he envisions a male role that encompasses a vigorous sense of masculinity with an ability to be emotionally rooted. Ironically, Bly sees the male as first having to acknowledge that lost fathers, dreams, and morality cause significant grief. Similarly, Keen (1991) also sees men forging an identity out of a struggle with grief and guilt, burdened by the demand of work and performance. To Keen, the essence of men is that they are spiritual warriors attempting to create meaning in their lives. Their quest is to fashion a new sense of male identity that allows for both emotionality and communality in some yet undefined but distinctly male way. Should the fledgling male movement succeed in redefining masculinity, it may likely change patterns of grieving as well.
Second, as mentioned previously, there are differences within gender role socialization even within a culture at any given time. For example, many of the more androgynous perspectives on socializing children into gender roles are not universally shared among each social class or ethnic group within American society. Whereas many middleclass families may socialize both boys and girls to more diffusely defined gender roles—allowing more opportunities for individual preferences in toys, play, sports, or other activities, and respecting, even encouraging sensitivity in boys—other cultural groupings, especially in lower socioeconomic groups or among varied cultural groups, may emphasize more traditional definitions of the male and female role.
Even within the larger culture, messages about appropriate roles may be both subtle and ambiguous. For example, even in groups that emphasize more androgynous rather than rigid role definitions, it is still more acceptable for girls to emulate boys’ behaviors than visa versa. Just compare the connotations of the words tomboy and sissy.
In addition, gender role socialization is supported throughout the culture—in cartoons, advertisements, legends, stories, symbols, and, of course, throughout the media. Often these messages are subliminal—the token tomboy who plays on a team of boys. A Cathy cartoon illustrates that subtlety: Cathy, a liberated single woman is seen buying a toy for a friend’s child. She is annoyed by a saleswoman’s inquiry on gender and asks for a unisex toy. The saleswoman suggests dinosaurs, and as Cathy wryly comments that we have to go into our prehistory to find such a toy, the saleswoman returns with two dinosaurs—one with a makeup kit, the other with weapons. Folak and Abel (2004) stress the even national symbols such as Lady Liberty and Uncle Sam reflect these stereotypes. In their content analysis of political cartoons following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Lady Liberty was portrayed as crying for the victims of the attack while an Uncle Sam vowed vengeance. Davies (1992) reminds that war stories from the Epic of Gilgamesh to war memorials assert it is the duty of males to leave the comfort of home and family to fight for honor and the community in the camaraderie of other males.
While gender role socialization, then, is neither uniform nor static, it does have broad effects. Two are most evident. Gender role socialization both frames the experience of grief and plays a significant role in the shaping of emotion.
Earlier in this chapter, the fact that in any given society gender role rules influence the way each gender relates to varied social roles was explored, affecting the meaning they give to different attachments. For example, Silverman (1986), in her studies on widows, points out that for many males the role of husband is critical. Yet, Silverman reminds us that it is not tied to his identity as strongly as that of a wife is to a woman. Similarly, Thompson (1995) argues that men are socialized to live their lives in the “public sphere,” balancing work, familial, and other community roles, while many women traditionally live life in a more private sphere, centering on family. The implication of both of these ideas is that women may be more invested in and attached to family roles. Thus, when a loss occurs it has multiple impact. A woman may lose a more central role, more critical to her identity than that of a man. In addition, there may be less opportunity for diversion in other roles or for reinvesting in such roles.
Naturally, this point should not be overstressed. Individuals’ investments in roles, and the meanings that these relationships have, are affected by a number of variables, of which gender is only one. And certainly the definition of men’s and women’s roles, especially as they relate to work and family, continue to change.
In Chapter 3, the role of the family as a shaping agent was emphasized. This means that families socialize children into the need and ways to regulate emotions. Naturally, a family’s definition of gender roles can very much affect this socialization of emotion.
In the past decade, there has been increasing attention to what has been labeled the “new psychology of men” (Cochran, 2006; Englar-Carlson, 2006; Levant, 2008; Levant & Richmond, 2007; Pollack, 1998; Robertson & Shepard, 2008; Smith, Tran, & Thompson, 2008). This perspective emphasizes that boys at young ages are socialized to a code of masculinity that emphasizes strength and stoicism, adventure seeking, interpersonal dominance and status seeking, and emotional restraint. This socially constructed ideology of masculinity often creates gender role conflicts for men who cannot live up to these images. This masculine ideology can result in a variety of difficulties including neglect of mental and physical health, detached partnering and parenting, substance abuse, reluctance to seek help including counseling, alexithyma, substance abuse, homophobia, and violent and aggressive behavior (Englar-Carlson, 2006; Levant, 2008).
These psychological insights on gender role socialization and images of masculinity are important in understanding the ways that gender role socialization can influence grief and in suggesting strategies for helping male clients (discussed in later chapters). Yet, a few cautionary statements are critical. First, families vary in the ways such masculine ideologies are supported. In some families, values such as stoicism, self-reliance, solitude, and an emphasis on rationality might be modeled or even sexual stereotypes (“big boys don’t cry”) fostered. However, in other families, children are taught to disclose their innermost thoughts, seek solace in community, and value their feelings as the guide to behavior. Yet, it should be acknowledged that despite changing attitudes and standards many adults continue to have traditional and stereotyped conceptions of sex roles and behave accordingly.
Second, the dominant masculine ideology described by many adherents of this approach (Cochran, 2006; Englar-Carlson, 2006; Levant, 2008; Levant & Richmond, 2007; Nutt, 2007; Pollack, 1998; Robertson & Shepard, 2008; Smith et al., 2008) often ignores or downplays some of the positive masculine values that are part of the dominant perspective of masculinity. Boys also are taught the value of being a team player, the importance of self-sacrifice (“take one for the team”), the importance of courage, the need to stand up for one’s beliefs, and the duty to protect the vulnerable especially within the circle of friends and family. In addition, while some have seen male bonding as more superficial or “bonding without intimacy” (Englar-Carlson, 2006), others have recognized and acknowledged the “covert intimacy” that men often exhibit (Kiselica, Englar-Carlson, Horne, & Fisher, 2008). Here intimacy and caring are shared in many ways including protecting and teaching. In addition, humor and storytelling can be ways to compliment, reaffirm ties, and share the important role that another has in one’s life.
These gender roles are usually acquired during a child’s preschool years. That is, the child adopts socially defined behaviors and attitudes associated with being a male or a female. For example, even boys and girls as young as 3 years old show differences in the ways they handle everyday pain. At that young age, girls are more likely to show distress and seek out adult comfort than boys (Fearon, McGrath, & Achat, 1996). Beginning with the games of childhood, boys and girls develop different (although complementary) social skills. While girls are learning to interact one-on-one or in small groups, to work cooperatively, and to have empathy for others, boys are learning to compete with one another. They practice leading, following, and working with others on a team toward some common goal—usually defeating another team (Lever, 1976).
Experience and childrearing practices retain their eminence in shaping sex roles and emotional behaviors. In particular, the father plays a critical role in sex role development during the preschool years. The father’s degree of masculinity seems to promote traditional sex roles not only in sons, but in daughters as well (Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1978). That the father’s masculinity (and not necessarily mother’s femininity) is associated with a girl’s sex role development suggests that girls acquire sex roles through a process of reciprocal role learning (Lamb & Urberg, 1978). In other words, girls learn how to behave as females by complementing their father’s masculinity—the more traditionally masculine dad is, the more traditionally feminine his daughter will be. Interestingly, the opposite is not true for boys. That is, boys tend to identify with and imitate their fathers’ behavior, and those boys whose mothers are very feminine do not necessarily behave in a more masculine way.
As adults, males are attracted to sports that emphasize a competitive role. Their friendships usually center on shared activities. Men, as well as boys, view their relationships with others, particularly males, in terms of hierarchy (Gilligan, 1982).
Often, there is a tendency among males to de-emphasize emotionality, especially the more tender emotions (e.g., crying, nurturing). Socialization into the male role means learning to control one’s emotions. As a result, men tend to learn active and problem-focused solutions of coping with stress. In addition, they tend to value self-reliance. Solving one’s problems and facing one’s difficulties alone have long been defined as hallmarks of manhood (Gray, 1992).
Women’s experiences are somewhat different. From an early age, girls at play tend to be more cooperative and to have consideration and empathy for others (Lever, 1976). They are also taught to share confidences and draw support from one another. Emotional expressiveness is not repressed; in fact, females tend to learn more emotion-focused ways of coping (Barnett, Biener, & Baruch, 1987). Nothing in the female role eschews the support or nurturance of others. To the contrary, the ability to offer and accept such nurturance is a critical mark of the woman’s role. As a consequence, because females are socialized to be more attuned to emotions, they may learn to pay more attention to their own emotional states as well as others’ emotional states.
Yet this should not be perceived in a deterministic way. Socialization experiences differ from individual to individual. And other factors such as personality, culture, or other experiences can affect the grieving pattern that an individual adopts.
For example, in certain cultures, the expression of affect is supported strongly for both men and women, while in others affect is discouraged for both. In the former culture one would likely find more intuitive grievers between both genders, while in the latter instrumental patterns may be more evident.
Patterns of grief are shaped by all of the powerful cultural forces of socialization, with the immediate family playing a most important part. Sons of instrumental grievers will, themselves, most likely model their fathers, while their sisters, based on the principle of reciprocal role learning, adopt the more intuitive response to bereavement. In families where the father is an intuitive griever, the sons will likely follow suit, while daughters learn to grieve in instrumental fashion.
There may be other factors, too, in the socialization experience. For example, comparable socialization experiences can lead certain women to grieve in a more instrumental way. Perhaps, women who are raised with strongly competitive values or given early caregiving responsibilities such as raising younger siblings may develop a more instrumental pattern for coping with loss. And boys growing up in families where affective expression is encouraged, even modeled, especially by their fathers, can show a more intuitive pattern.
Since gender role socialization is but one factor in an array of influences that delineate a grieving pattern, any combination of factors can influence whether a male or female moves toward the intuitive or instrumental end of the continuum. Thus, certain socialization experiences, cultures, or even personality traits can lead to a woman becoming an instrumental griever or a man becoming more intuitive in pattern.
This may help explain dissonant grieving patterns as well. Given the dominant images of the male role, males who do experience grief in a more intuitive way may feel constrained to express their grief or adapt to it in such a fashion that they will not be perceived as less manly or feel they are not fulfilling their own gender role expectations to care for others. It is in dissonant grievers that such gender role expectations truly can be said to contain and to constrain the expression of grief.
It is critical, however, not to overstate the effect of gender role socialization on the grieving process. This is especially true since gender differences are often overexaggerated. Maccoby and Jacklin’s (1974) landmark review of more than 2,000 studies found only a few characteristics in which girls and boys differed significantly. Highly touted cognitive differences between the sexes—girls’ superior verbal ability, boys’ better spatial and mathematical aptitudes—do not appear until near puberty and are very small indeed. Personality differences are few also. Girls generally cooperate more with their parents and their peers, and show greater concern for and identification with others’ feelings. Yet some girls love rough play and are very competitive and impassive, while some boys hate roughhousing and are very sensitive to the feelings of others. But even by age 5, boys and girls still show an equal interest in babies and a willingness to help care for infants (Berman, 1980).
Thus, we must be careful not to overemphasize differences between the genders. Those differences that do exist are statistically small and convincing for large groups of men and women but are not as valid for individuals. For gender, even though a significant factor influencing the patterns by which men and women grieve, it is but one factor. Stated differently, gender influences patterns of grief, but gender does not determine patterns of grief.