Some say feminism is about the fair distribution of power. Others say feminism is about the nonviolent use of power and nonviolent resistance to the abuse of power. Some say feminism is about empowering women.

There are many versions of feminism and that makes it difficult to say precisely what it is all about. However, it seems that most feminists agree that it promotes gender equality and, therefore, seeks to strengthen the status of women. That, unfortunately, doesn’t mean feminists believe all people are equal. A feminist can believe in gender equality in a very unequal social system, as long as male and female have equal opportunities, and experience equal consequences for their efforts.  

Feminism is about changing the present patriarchal system , with its emphasis on power being ‘power-over’. However, that type of feminism seems to be too narrow in its focus. Many feminists reject the patriarchal aspect of society but readily accept the structural and systemic inequality of a status system. This leaves the way open for a matriarchal system to develop, which would just change the roles of the players in the game called ‘Domination’, without solving the problem of gender inequality. Nor would it solve problems such as domestic violence, or any of the other social diseases so many studies have linked to inequality.

To be effective in achieving gender equality, feminism should seek to change the underlying assumption that power is about having power over others and the environment. Gender equality is a noble and worthwhile aim but many great feminists, male and female, have advocated that all people are equal and this obviously includes gender equality. This brand of feminism is committed to convincing people to think of power in terms of having power with other people and the environment rather than having power over other people and the environment. It seeks to apply this in the family, workplace, business, and community.

‘Power’ refers to the ability to produce an outcome.

‘Power over people’ refers to the use of power to control the actions of other people, by allowing or withholding what they need.

‘Power with people’ refers to people sharing their powers to meet the needs of all those involved.

‘Power from within’ refers to the sense of having the knowledge and skills to meet one’s own needs. This is why education is so important for achieving gender equality. Not just academic education but the whole range of life skills necessary for people, especially women, to feel confident in their ability to solve life’s problems and achieve their ambitions. In countries where men resist gender equality, the education of women is quite often banned.

‘Power from within’ also includes the power flowing from the sense of belonging; being part of - or connected to - other people, nature, the universe or God. People fortunate enough to feel the power flowing into them from strong connections to nature and the cosmos have strong self-esteem and self-confidence. They can share this inner strength with others endlessly because it is limitless and is often expressed in the ‘people power’ movements that counteract the ‘power over’ tactics others use in attempting to dominate. 


By Bob Myers.

Conflict is inevitable, even in ‘love relationships’. Resolving conflict can be difficult, even for people centred on improving the quality of a relationship. It’s difficult because the urge to win or to get even for past wrongs is so much a part of our culture. We need to acknowledge that we are under the influence of these urges whenever we are faced with conflict but also be aware we can counteract that influence. 

It’s much easier to resolve a conflict or solve a relationship problem when we start from the cosmic viewpoint that all humans are equal and think about how that should affect what we say and do. When a relationship is grounded in equality, the people involved will centre on the problem, or conflict, at hand, including the emotional effects and any material loss or damage that needs to be put right. In a relationship of equals, there is no competition; no desire to dominate or thought of retribution. However, as soon as one views the other as ‘the enemy’ and begins focusing on winning or seeking revenge, the chances of peacefully resolving the problem takes a nose dive.

Conflicts are more likely to be resolved peacefully when those involved share the same worldview and have common goals. Religious people should have the advantage in this, since they aspire to share the same worldview, but even religions are notoriously competitive on all levels of interaction. This applies from the level of ‘which is the one true religion’ upwards. And resentment over past injustices has lingered between religions for centuries. Even though organised religion has failed to lead the way in conflict resolution, it is possible for anyone to start the ball rolling in their own life.

Even if the other person in a dispute is intent on winning and therefore not interested in equality, any person who is grounded in equality, and centred on the principles of nonviolence, is in a strong position to gain a fair outcome, and turn an ‘enemy’ into a friend. Therefore, when faced with a conflict, the first thing to do is remember that equality is the true ground for human relationships, and then centre on obtaining an outcome consistent with that base.

Once you are grounded and centred, there are four guidelines to peaceful conflict resolution. It’s ironic that if these guidelines were used to guide communication between people in everyday life, there would be few negative conflicts to resolve. The guidelines for conflict resolution (or for avoiding negative conflicts) are:

·         Respect the other person.

·         Listen until the other person’s views are understood.

·         Be open and honest in sharing your own views.

·         Make agreements for the common good. (Seek win/win solutions)


Bob Myers, author of Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness.

The global problems we face in this century can only be solved through global cooperation. For those societies that claim to believe in equality, that simply means putting equality into practice. I want to share with you the ten statements that I write about, and try to practice.

Enduring peace and happiness comes from constantly exploring ways to get the balance right between personal needs, other people’s needs, and the needs of the situation. The situation could be the home; the workplace; a community; a country; nature; or the cosmos. 

From a cosmic viewpoint, equality is the true nature of human relationships. We can use that constant to guide us in building and maintaining relationships and setting up social systems, such as law, education and health.

We use the word ‘violence’ to describe actions or events that cause harm. Therefore, anything that harms the true nature of relationships – by causing inequality – could be deemed to be ‘violence’.

People who are guided by the spirit of equality respond to violence by taking nonviolent restorative action.

Being equal does not mean being the same. Differences make us individuals. Most differences, regardless of extent, do not cause harm in human relationships. Our judgement of differences can lead to harm or to enhancement of relationships.

Inequality exists when individual differences are used to judge one person as superior in some way. In an adversarial society, such as ours, superiority is gained by competition or domination, or both.     

Human equality can be established and maintained by exploring the complementary nature of individual differences to get the right balance for meeting the needs of all those involved.  

The human need to achieve and the need for stability can be met by people striving for excellence and sharing the skills and knowledge gained with anyone who wants them. In that way, the whole group can develop together to whatever level any group member can achieve.

Studies consistently show a correlation between inequality and all social ills, so the success or otherwise of the policies and actions of those in positions of responsibility can be judged by whether they reduce or increase inequality.

People in positions of responsibility who are guided by the spirit of equality seek to have power with people and things rather than seeking power over people and things.


Bob Myers.

We fight because our culture taught us to fight.  We had no say in what we were taught as children so it’s not our fault that we fight.  However, each of us can do something about the way we handle disagreements now, simply because we have a choice.

Human behaviour is always complicated so let’s simplify it a little by comparing two couples born and raised in the same culture who are faced with the same conflicts in their relationships. Both couples live in a culture that measures success by wealth and power. Both couples are high achievers who want to do well in a society that idolises winners.

Competition and Domination are known as couple number one. These two are lovers who usually walk hand in hand and are seldom apart. Even when they are apart, they continue to flirt with each other. This flirtation can be a lot of fun but sometimes turns nasty, especially when Domination tries to control Competition by imposing revenge or punishment.

Couple number two is comprised of Cooperation and Equality. These two are also lovers who usually walk hand in hand but sometimes they enjoy spending a little time apart or walking separately, confident in the enduring strength and quality of the relationship.

Both of these couples face the same conflicts in their relationships and both are well aware of the guidelines for resolving conflict. The main difference is in the way each couple interprets those guidelines.  People living in a culture that glorifies winning are encouraged to centre on their own needs as they follow the guidelines and use them to gain an advantage over their opponent. Therefore, Competition and Domination have no problem keeping to the guidelines, even though they know their interpretation of the guidelines will result in one of them losing in some way. The four guidelines for conflict resolution are very simple:

1. Respect your opponent.
2. Listen until you understand your opponent’s point of view.
3. Openly and honestly express your point of view.
4. Seek solutions you and your opponent can live with.

 
Cooperation and Equality, on the other hand, try to centre on the relationship itself as they struggle to ignore the competitive influence of the culture they live in. Their aim is to find a solution to the conflict that will improve the quality of their relationship and strengthen it. They sometimes find it difficult to centre on the relationship itself but know they must guard against the training they received in early childhood to be competitive. They know that if they start fighting as they negotiate a solution, it’s because some kind of competition or domination has crept in and caused them to centre as individuals rather than remaining centred on the relationship itself.

People in competitive mode argue to determine who is right and who is wrong. There has to be a winner and a loser, so the aim is to win. Parliament works that way and so does the legal system. People in countless meetings across the country try to convince other members to vote for their ideas as they debate topics and sometimes an argument can become nasty. Over a lifetime, we witness countless movies and hear countless stories about people settling disagreements with the power of words and sometimes with weapons. It is all around us every day of our life so it’s no wonder we fall so easily into the adversarial way of settling a dispute. And it’s no wonder winning has, so far, been so important to us.

Instead of seeing conflict as a competition, we could change what we centre on so we see it as an opportunity to find a cooperative outcome that strengthens the relationship. 

The dynamics of this apply to conflict in any situation and at any level. That is why I use family situations in my book, Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness, to promote cooperation and equality.  


Bob Myers.

Most parent/child relationship problems stem from some form of resistance to authority. In many families, power struggles commonly develop from this resistance. The following are some thoughts expressed in cold, point form but are much warmer when put into practice.

• To base the family on equality, it is important to understand what authority is. The word ‘authority’ has several meanings, and is often confused with the word ‘power’ because we use both when talking about trying to control someone or something. Power and authority are also associated with having the right to impose conditions or make rules; and the right to dish out punishments for disobedience or non-cooperation. (Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness, Ch 2)
• Anyone who has responsibilities needs enough authority to carry out those responsibilities. Parents have many responsibilities and few privileges.
• There are two kinds of authority. I call one ‘dominant authority’ and the other ‘legitimate authority.’ Dominant authority maintains order through the use of punishment. Legitimate authority maintains order through the power of persuasion and negotiation; this is the authority of peace-keepers seeking cooperation and collaboration.
• Dominant authority is imposed and ultimately relies on fear to gain obedience. Legitimate authority is freely given out of trust and respect for the person and/or respect for the need for rules.
• Dominant authority is attempting to have power over others. Legitimate authority is having power with others to get a job done.
• Every member of a family has responsibilities and often needs the cooperation of others to meet those responsibilities.
• Although people have different levels of responsibilities, meeting their responsibilities may be equally important to each person’s sense of well-being, as well as to the overall harmony within the family.
• Every member of the family is entitled to equal respect and consideration, regardless of what level of responsibilities they have.

The popular perception is that street violence is on the rise and media reports reflect the public’s rejection of random acts of violence.  To me, the wording of some reports  add to the confusion of young people at a stage of life so crucial in their search for identity and their efforts to make sense of society.  Some violence is not only acceptable but is encouraged by society. Violence is a major factor in our entertainment and many of our heroes gained their hero status through violence. Sometimes it seems that the good guys only win because they are more violent than the bad guys, so the message is that violence is Ok as long as we approve of who is the target.

What could cause kids to use violence so easily? To many adolescents, their peer group is the ‘we’ approving of the target, and that makes certain violent acts not just acceptable but necessary if it forms part of their identity. Members of the group may say things like, ‘This is what we do.’  Any statement about ‘who we are’ makes it an identity thing. But that isn’t unusual because violence plays a major part in adult identity too. It is often said that Australia forged its identity through the violence at Gallipoli, even though the difference there is the bravery involved.  

I believe the main cause of random violence is that living in an adversarial society such as we do means a big part of our identity, our sense of who we are, comes from two ways in which we compare our attributes and achievements  against those of other people.  One way is by competing with others to gain knowledge, power, expertise or wealth, so we feel somehow superior to, or more important than, others. But that often requires  incredibly hard work and dedication. Some people prefer the second way of gaining a sense of superiority or status. Domination is an easier form of competition, which usually involves the use of force or violence to ‘put others down.’

People judging themselves by using either competition or domination find that they are better than some and not as good as others. So, even those who are the best at something may be tempted to use the ‘put down’ method in other situations.  All in all, the adversarial base for an identity divides people and is a breeding ground for violence.

Fortunately, there is an alternative to the adversarial base. We also gain part of our identity by how we use our individual differences to help each other achieve and progress, rather similar to what happens in nature. Instead of comparing ourselves against each other, we share our knowledge, skills and wealth. People with this outlook gain their sense of importance to each other rather than against each other. This cooperative base  tends to unite people and, therefore, reduces the level of violence.

We may never be free of our adversarial ways but, if we are really serious about reducing violence, we need to put more effort into changing the messages we pass on to our children in our entertainment and the heroes we create for them. As individuals, we could start by deciding to adopt the attitude that, ‘there is no one in the world more important than me and no one in the world less important than me.’ That frees us from the competition-domination, status-seeking  game and  a whole new way of relating to other people opens for us to explore. This is explored in Travelling The Road of Peace and Happiness.

Bob Myers.

EIGHT POINTS ABOUT AUTHORITY BASED ON EQUALITY.
     
As strange as it may seem, it is possible for authority and equality to co-exist, as long as all those involved understand, and agree with, eight basic points.  

• In a workplace based on equality, it is important to agree on what authority is. The word ‘authority’ has several meanings, and is often confused with the word ‘power’ because we use both in reference to attempts to control someone or something. Power and authority are also associated with having the right to impose conditions or make rules; and the right to dish out punishments for disobedience or non-cooperation. (Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness, Ch 2)
• Anyone in a position with responsibilities needs the authority necessary to carry out those responsibilities.
• There are two kinds of authority. One I call ‘dominant authority’ and the other ‘legitimate authority.’ Dominant authority maintains order by using the power to do harm and the willingness to impose sanctions. Legitimate authority maintains order through the power of persuasion and negotiation; it is the authority of peace-keeping associated with cooperation and collaboration.
• Dominant authority is attempting to have power over others. Legitimate authority is having power with others.
• Dominant authority is therefore imposed and ultimately relies on fear to gain compliance. Legitimate authority is freely given out of trust and respect for the authority figure and/or for the rule of law.
• Every member of a workplace has responsibilities and needs the cooperation of others to meet those responsibilities.
• Although people have different levels of responsibilities, meeting their responsibilities may be equally important to each person’s sense of job satisfaction, as well as to the overall success of the workplace.
• Every person in the workplace is entitled to equal respect and consideration, regardless of the position held.

Many studies show a strong link between inequality and all kinds of social diseases. My latest book, Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness  draws from the information revealed in the book The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Nearly Always Do Better. 

Based on thirty years of research by leading organisations, various universities and independent social scientists, the authors argue that inequality is the root cause of many of society’s ills.

 They claim that if an affluent society suffers from one social disease – for example high levels of stress – you can be reasonably sure it will also have high rates of obesity, drug use, mental illness, imprisonment, violent crime, distrust, depression, and illiteracy. And the more unequal the society is, the higher the rate of those diseases. Although most of the evidence is centred on income inequality, they make a strong link between perceived social inequality (judging ourselves in relation to other people) and all the stress-related social diseases.

The authors emphasise that inequality doesn’t just affect the poor of society; the affluent are also adversely affected. To put that in a more positive way, reducing inequality also benefits the affluent members of society.

Most people think of equality in terms of income but it's very unlikely there will ever be a society in which everyone has the same income. At the beginning of board games like Monopoly every player has an equal amount of money but it isn’t long before that equality is upset. Some social analysts use equal opportunity to rate a society’s level of equality, which is certainly more practical than rating it by income.

 The studies mentioned above show that, up to a point, money is very important for health and happiness but past that point it makes little difference to health or happiness. What then becomes important is perceived social equality, which is so delicate in a society obsessed with domination and competition in almost every area of daily life. The obsession with domination is seen in our parliamentary system and legal system, both of which set and reflect the adversarial nature of our culture in regard to conflict resolution and differences of opinions.

The obsession with competition is seen in sport, which has become unhealthy because of the high emphasis placed on winning. An alternative is for the emphasis to be on participation, or on the comradeship of team sport, or on the social side of individual sport. The harm caused by the attitude that ‘winning is everything’ comes out when elite athletes reveal their battles with depression or their thoughts of suicide to escape the pressure to be constantly winning.

Violence begets violence and what these studies reveal is that socio-economic inequality is actually a form of violence built into our social systems and this produces the violence we refer to as ‘social diseases.’ None of us are to blame for the system we were born into but each of us can do something to change the system. Our politicians are well aware of the studies linking inequality to all the social ills and they are also aware that social ills increase as inequality increases. Politicians can have the most influence on changing the system, simply by adopting policies and making laws that reduce the gap between the advantaged and the disadvantaged.  However, voters can put pressure on politicians to base their bid for power on their ability to come up with policies centred on reducing inequality. And the good news is that it appears we would all benefit from reversing the trend of ever increasing inequality.

An added bonus is that politicians can be held accountable and voters can more easily decide which party to vote for. If the socio-economic gap is decreasing under whatever party is in power, voters would know the government policies are working. If the gap is increasing, voters would know the policies are not working.