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.

  There are few subjects more controversial than how we should respond to wrongdoing, and the family is the ideal setting to use as the base for a discussion on the complexities of discipline. Some of the thoughts and ideas expressed in chapter six of Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness may appear strange and ‘way out’ to some people and yet they have been around for thousands of years. They only seem strange because our main cultural response to wrongdoing is what Walter Wink referred to as ‘redemptive violence.’ But the nonviolence compass can lead us to many more effective methods to use.

In regard to parenting, the word ‘discipline’ means: To teach, assist and guide a child’s development towards self-control.

  Everyone has an opinion on how children should be disciplined, and can generally be divided into two main camps; those who believe parents should have the right to smack their children and those who are opposed to the use of physical punishment. I want to make my position on this very clear. I believe that parents who neglect to firmly discipline a child put the emotional and moral development of the child at risk, and make it more difficult for that child to form healthy relationships as an adult. Firm discipline is a necessary part of responsible parenting and the failure to meet that responsibility should be classed as a form of child abuse. However, I also want to make it very clear that although punishment remains an option, the negative effects of using it has led me to not only be against physical punishment, but against the use of punishment as a means of discipline.

  To many people that may seem an extraordinary contradiction. How can strict discipline be maintained without punishment? Does that mean children should be allowed to do anything and not be corrected at all? Obviously my strong belief in the need for strict discipline rules out such permissiveness and is backed up by the research indicating that each child should go through a stage in life when rules are obeyed simply because they are the rules, and authority figures be respected simply because they are in positions of authority. That doesn’t happen by letting kids do whatever they want to do.

  Some of the many tools available to help parents discipline children are:

• Grounded love.
• Manners.
• Example.
• Centring.
• Fairness and safety rule-making guidelines.
• Guidelines of creative conflict.
• Consensus.
• Truth-seeking debates rather than adversarial debates.
• Knowing the difference between punishment and consequences.
• The restorative action process.
• Voluntary punishment.
• Restorative consequences.
• Social contracts (cooperation\noncooperation.
• The Reality questions.

  The most effective way for people, including children, to become responsible, interdependent individuals is by the example of others and being held accountable for their actions. Anyone can use these tools to establish peace and harmony in the home and workplace. An additional tool for large groups of people is called Open Space Technology.

Composite of ideas from Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness by Bob Myers. 
 

Many people argue that violence is a natural reaction to threats. This means we are born with that protective reaction and therefore we are naturally violent. Since I partly agree with this, I am willing to concede that point but add that we are also born illiterate.
Professor Colman McCarthy of Maryland USA asked his students to write a paper along those lines and he described the response from one student as “a masterpiece of brevity and breadth.” It consisted of just 13 words:

“Why are we violent but not illiterate? Because we are taught to read.”

Does this mean our society is becoming more violent because we teach our kids to be violent? No. The student was pointing out that just as each child is born with the potential to learn to read and write, and gain all the benefits of literacy, each child is born with the potential to learn the ways of nonviolence, and gain all the benefits attached. Violent behaviour comes from not teaching our kids to be nonviolent. That may seem to be a double negative but it isn’t. Most people teach kids to be ‘not violent,’ which is very different to teaching kids to be nonviolent. Teaching kids to be ‘not violent’ may achieve some level of ‘peace’ but it actually perpetuates violence.

The main way most of us teach children to be ‘not violent’ is through the use of punishment or the threat of punishment , which means the natural violent reaction is suppressed by the fear of punishment. Take the fear of punishment away by lowering the chance of being caught or raising the potential reward to be gained and a child is more likely to use violence.

Nonviolence is difficult to define because it is not just the absence of violence. It is the opposite of violence; the antidote of violence. It is an attitude towards other people and to ‘rules of behaviour.’ Nonviolence defies violence and deprives it of any victory. Nonviolence disarms an aggressor without using violence. Nonviolent discipline can be aggressively confrontational, and even take a zero tolerance stand in holding people accountable for their violent behaviour, without resorting to any kind of punishment. Imposing a punishment often sets up a cycle of revenge that prevents any worthwhile lesson being learned. The real consequence of behaviour is the most effective way people learn what acceptable and responsible behaviour is.  

One of the great advantages of nonviolent discipline in the home, school or workplace is the distinction it makes between punishment and consequences, allowing ‘restorative action’ to be taken instead of imposing punishment. This is not just spin because ‘taking restorative action’ and ‘imposing a punishment’ are mutually exclusive opposites. All of us are capable of thinking in both ways, and we do sometimes take restorative action depending on the circumstances of a situation, but we cannot think in both ways at the same time. 

The above could explain why school discipline programs based on restorative practices, such as the Responsible Thinking Classes, are not as effective as they could be. Maybe some of those running the programs are caught up by our cultural addiction to punishment. That could also be the reason why restorative programs in the criminal justice system don’t always produce excellent results. A punishment-minded person cannot effectively operate a program designed to be run by a restorative-minded person.

Parents can introduce kids to the ways of nonviolence in the very first year of a child’s life. School children can be taught the art of nonviolence from day one. And it's never too late to start. It won’t always work in every situation because few parents or teachers have the nonviolence training to recognise how their own attitudes are effected by the institutional, structural and social violence built into the culture we live in. Once we become aware of our own attitude we can help children to live nonviolently in a violent world, and change it.