One of the best things about the androsphere and the internet in general is that it has allowed men to communicate to each other with greater ease than they formerly had the ability to do. The spread of ideas and truths is fundamental if any individual or group is to develop and grow, communication is vital for this. This applies to men, and to the androsphere as well.
We all know instinctively that women verbally communicate more than men. It's something you know intuitively from your day-to-day experience of life. There are also modern scientific studies that have determined that women are more verbose than men, about 40% more verbose according to one study (link). Now, obviously if you allow one particular source to dominate a given field then you will end up with a monopoly, much like any other thing (material or immaterial), be it rail travel, news media or your domestic water supply. Females presently monopolise the realm of verbal communication, and this is not a good thing for men.
Monopolies are on the whole contrary to man's nature as an individual and self-determining being. This because men tend toward individualism (resulting in lots of small businesses and self-employed people in an economy) which allows them to be self-determined and self-sufficient, while women tend toward a herd mentality (which means large businesses and salaried workers) which allows them to be cared for and secure. This male-female tendency is evident in the number of new small businesses that start up each year: they are dominated by men; and the number of women employed in salaried government jobs (e.g. Hull Employment Services).
When a monopoly dominates a given field it can have a negative effect on the rest of the economy:
1. A lack of competition amongst companies breeds complacency which results in low quality goods being produced (link);
2. The monopoly is hostile to other medium-large companies who threaten it's market dominance (think of the Microsoft-Apple hostility);
3. The monopoly is hostile to smaller companies and denies them the opportunity to grow into a potential threat (aggressive takeovers 'Rail Road Barons');
4. The dominance of the monopoly discourages new businesses and thus new products from entering the market (e.g. Communist North Korea (population ~25 mil) registered only 1 patent in 2010, democratic Luxembourg (population ~40 thou) registered 44 patents in 2010; link).
Each of these negative effects of a monopoly on an economy has parallels in the world of gender based communication:
1. A lack of competition amongst communicators breeds complacency which results in low quality words being produced.
Modern words are likely to be amalgamations of existing words (e.g. staycation) or imports of foreign words (e.g. tsunami, to replace tidal wave). There is little creation of new words, which is an indicator that there is little identification of, or creation of, new things (be they material or immaterial).
2. The monopoly is hostile to other medium-large companies who threaten it's dominance.
A woman who is in a dominant role is likely to be hostile to other women who threaten her position as 'Queen Bee'.
3. The monopoly is hostile to smaller companies and denies them the opportunity to grow into a potential threat.
Think of the stereotype of the 'domineering mother' or wife; they both try to deny either the husband or the son their own space and ability to grow/progress.
4. The dominance of the monopoly discourages new businesses and thus new products from entering the market
Men are on the whole more innovative and creative than women. More patents are registered by men, and men are more explorative and inquisitive than men. Women usually grumble about new technologies by belittling them as 'boys toys'. Women also prefer nostalgia or retrograde past-times and pursuits rather than the latest technology. Just look at the geek image: a man. Or the industrial revolutionist: a man. If you allow a woman to dominate a single conversation or communication as a whole, then new words, phrases etc will be less likely to be introduced.
If men want to continue communicating with one another as they have formerly done (e.g. in social clubs and playing sport) are presently doing (e.g. on the internet and playing sport/martial arts), then they need to prevent women forming a monopoly on communication (either on a personal level in your house or social group or a societal level). Women are well known to bear hostility towards gangs of men and try to deconstruct them: sports teams now must permit women, Men's Clubs must permit women (but women are allowed their own clubs), constant prattling on about 'the patriarchal conspiracy', even the Boy Scouts must open up (but no the Girl Guides). All of these infractions against men deny men the ability to communicate to each other openly, freely.
If men let women dominate communications then it will be to men's detriment, and eventually women's: men will become isolated (have their lines of communication with their friends cut) and then be dominated by their women folk (all the mans potential friends will be 'screened' by the woman so she can root-out the undesirables).
Thus, whenever you can communicate to men, men at work, men at home, men in the family, male friends, men in your neighbourhood. A simple gesture, a nod, a few words, a conversation, whatever is best for the time; all of it will be pleasant, and all of it will help to foster an environment of free and friendly intra-gender communication for the present and for the future.
Here's an interesting link a part of the narcissistic side in women, and how their narcissism may explain why they dominate conversations:
'Women[..]actually get a buzz out of hearing their own voices'.