More Effective Communicators--men or women?

[Kerry]

More Effective Communicators--men or women?

Who's responsible for infidelities, domestic violence, persistent inappropriate workplace advances, and the lack of wage parity between men and women? What must a parent do (the specific verbal/non-verbal communications) to drive their once precious child to commit suicide, or to become homeless, or to join a terrorist group?

If your knee-jerk response is that men are more powerful then you have a misunderstanding about responsibility; specifically, your definition is missing the word "cause."

Given that over the decades children have spent most of their waking hours with females (as mothers and school teachers) it's tempting to draw the conclusion that women have the greatest influence over children. Why then we ask do most women still make less money than men for similar work? Who teaches girls to sell out, to compromise their integrity? Who trains young boys to eventually treat women unfairly with such disrespect? Who teaches girls to put up with condescending abuse? Who trains women to be so naive, so unconscious as to not be able to tell when their partner is lying, cheating or withholding a significant thought? Who trains women to not be able to discern, within a few conversations, whether a man operates from integrity or if he is dragging around a lifetime of perpetrations for which he has yet to be acknowledged (caught)?

Could it be that men have the greater impact even though they spend less time with children? If this were true it would mean that a father's communications (especially non-verbal and psychic) are more effective than a mother's.* This conflicts with my 44+ years as a leadership-relationship communication-skills coach; what I've noticed is that everyone has the exact same amount of leadership-support skills, no more, no less. Some use their skills positively, to inspire, forward, and motivate, while some use their support skills negatively to thwart and take others down with them (yes, support can be either positive or negative); still others use their skills to effect and sustain mediocrity, as in null, or appearing to do nothing (such as a couch potato), which is in fact a powerful (thwarting) something).**  They vote non-verbally to keep teachers begging for satisfactory wages as an irresponsible way of communicating their dissatisfactions with their educations. I.e. If you didn't let me con you I'd be making more money.

All three support skills are equally powerful; all confirm Newton's Third Law of Motion, "For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction." With communication, inaction/silence has an effect.  For example: Couch potatoes run their communities; they are extremely effective in thwarting their council members, those they pay to keep things running smoothly and fairly.

The way to tell to what end you have been using your support skills is to look at the results those around you are producing. I.e. If your partner has turned into an overweight couch potato who seldom helps with housework then you have trained and rewarded him/her. If your partner's weight is unhealthy, then, no matter what you believe, that has been your intention. With both of these examples, we see that the partner's leadership-communication support skills don't inspire one to opt for health. Also, we see that one partner, using his/her equally powerful support skills, is unconsciously committed to thwarting the other so as to ensure their failure and the failure of his and her parents (parents measure success by whether they raised healthy, well adjusted, children with positive support-skills). Most partners have unconsciously, non-verbally, conspired to support each other in hovering around in mediocrity.***

So we ask, if men and women are equally powerful and equally responsible for the communication breakdowns that lead say, to infidelity or low wages for teachers, what then is the source of this obvious condescending inequality both at home and the workplace?

It appears that this seldom-mentioned conspiracy between men and women is an unconscious mutually agreed upon contract, a non-verbal pact. The implied agreement goes something like this:

Girls/Women, your role is to let men think they are in charge, continue to act ignorant, don't develop your mechanical repair skills, your muscles, your self-defense, fire-arms/judo/boxing/wrestling skills, don't insist upon fidelity and, pretend you don't know when your husband is cheating on you. And, as teachers, keep ensuring that your students are not clear about responsibility. Most importantly, during high school, plan on marrying an up-and-coming young man so that you don't have to study for a career (the ultimate reward for not applying oneself during high school).

Boys/Men, pay for dates, continue to support women in being financially dependent upon you even though they say they want equal wages. Most importantly, do whatever it takes to ensure no one implements Leadership Communication Training for our health-care and education majors or your rule will come to an end. I'm unaware of any university or college that offers such training (courses, workshops, seminars, study groups, yes. Leadership Training, no. --Kerry

This non-verbal contract makes much more sense; it validates that we all have been communicating consistent with our intentions (however unconscious they may have been).

Just because one isn't clear about, or is unaware of, his/her intentions don't make the results any-the-less theirs.

Kerry

* To think that women are more influential ignores the effects of non-verbally delivered unconscious intentions; that is to say, both sets of parents, and both sets of grandparents, are intending all-day-long regardless of proximity (read about, The Intention Experiment).

** Here's a thought exercise about the effects of doing "nothing:" The way to ensure that 25% of all college freshmen continue to require remedial composition and comprehension classes, that school principals hand out diplomas to students who have not learned what was supposed to have been taught K-12, is for you to continue communicating as you have been and to now choose to ignore this invitation to restore your integrity by doing The [free] Clearing Process.

*** All divorces began when both partners, on their first date, withheld a possible deal-breaking significant thought thereby unconsciously, non-verbally, simultaneously, giving each other permission to deceive, to withhold his/her thought of choice from the other. Those addicted to withholding thoughts automatically attract withholders (With 44+ years of coaching couples I have not found any exceptions to this entanglement phenomenon).

Last edited 2/25/24