Who's responsible for infidelities, domestic violence, and the lack of wage parity
between men and women in the work place? Who drives a child to
a life of deceit (jail) or to join a terrorist group?
If your answer is "both men and women" then you have a misunderstanding about
responsibility; your definition is missing the key word,
"cause." It's not your fault, dictionary definitions are confusing.
Given that over the decades children have spent most of their waking hours with females (as mothers and 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 trains young boys to eventually treat women unfairly with such disrespect? Who teaches girls to put up with condescending verbal abuse? Who trains women to be so naive, so unconscious as to not be able to tell when their husband is
cheating
or withholding some 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) or
who is withholding some significant thought?
Could it be that even though men spend less time with children they have the greater impact? 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 forty-four+ 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 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 which is in fact a powerful
(couch-potato-like) something).**
All three support-skills are equally powerful; all confirm Newton's Third Law of Motion— "For every action [or inaction] there's an equal and opposite reaction."
For example: Remain silent while watching your child walk in front of a speeding car and see how many people
your "innocent" inaction affects—for life.
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 a 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). The 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:
Women: Your role is to let men think they are in charge, continue to act ignorant, don't develop your muscles—your self-defense, boxing/wrestling skills—don't
insist upon fidelity
and, pretend you don't know when your husband is cheating or hiding
something from you. Girls: Keep
in mind that there is always some controlling enabler who will "take
care of you," one who will support you in not studying so as to have a career
to fall back on. Teachers: Keep ensuring that your students are
not clear about responsibility; continue to support women in
their "
Me too" narratives, denying responsibility (cause for)
inappropriate communications or
date-rape, and, most importantly, non-verbally support
men in warring so that they kill off other violent aggressive warriors
and, if possible, marry someone in the military so as to get health and death benefits for life.
Also, insist upon life insurance for when he dies before you.
Men: Continue to support women in lying, saying they want parity in the workplace. Most importantly, do whatever it takes to ensure no one implements a communication mastery curriculum
that includes a four-year Leadership Training Program for education
and healthcare majors or your rule will come to an end.
This contract makes much more sense because 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 doesn'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 parents,
and both sets of grandparents, are intending outcomes all-day-long regardless of proximity
or awareness (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 nationwide continue to require remedial reading and comprehension classes—to
ensure that school principals hand out diplomas to students who have not learned what was supposed to have been taught—is for
you to continue communicating as you have been.
It could be said—as you've suspected all along—we're all waiting for
you to get off your ass. It's OK. I'm not ready to do
what it would take to have the world work as we believe it could either.
***All divorces began when both partners, on their first date,
withheld a significant thought from each other, unconsciously, non-verbally, simultaneously,
which gave each other permission to deceive, to withhold his/her thought of choice from the other (there are no exceptions to this
entanglement phenomenon.
Notice how your mind tries to find the error in this statement?
Note: This article may or may not contain any truths; its purpose is to
stimulate conversations between you and yours.
Use this Comment form for comments/feedback (Free-no registration)