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.

By Bob Myers.

Just because people live in the same house doesn’t mean they live in the same world. There are numerous examples of this from listening to people describing a situation.  Two people describing how a dispute started can have entirely different stories; supporters of opposing sides describing a football match seem to have watched different games; and witnesses to a crime can’t agree whether the culprit was a small female or a large bearded male. 

People communicate from their own interests, abilities and the meanings they have for things. So, two people can interpret a scenario very differently. You are the expert on your needs, and how you would like those needs to be met. No one else knows your problems like you do, because you live those problems, and you know what you can do and what you can't do. Each person is an expert on their own needs, so we should all listen to the experts. Some of the reasons we don’t listen are:

1.            We think that ‘to listen’ means ‘to agree’ with what is being said.

2.            We already know the answer to the problem and can’t wait to reveal it.

3.            We are afraid if we listen we might come to agree and have to change.

4.            We have to win every argument because we lose face when we lose an argument.

5.            We have slipped into the habit of letting our thoughts wander to other things.

6.            We are too busy thinking up what we are going to say as soon as we get the chance.

The list could go on but these will do to illustrate the point that listening is not easy. You have to put effort into listening so you understand the other person's world. Then you can check your understanding by asking the expert; the person you were listening to. Simply say what you believe was meant by what was said. In other words, paraphrase to make sure you understood the message. ‘Now let me see if I heard you correctly. What you said was......... and you were frustrated by this. Is that right?’ The person will either say, ‘Yes, that's exactly right’ or will correct you until you get it right.

When you listen to others you can expect to be shown the same courtesy. If you are interrupted, say something like, ‘I listened to you so I could understand your view and now I want you to do the same for me’. Another advantage is that your reply is based on a sound understanding of the other person's views. You have more influence because the points you raise can include their views; what you disagree with and what you agree with. You may find that the area of dispute will shrink considerably because understanding brings out the virtue of compassion, which cannot live alongside aggression.

Being open and honest about your view generally leads to identifying the real problem. Unfortunately our competitive world teaches us to hold back and not trust each other with information that could be used against us. Putting the viewpoint in terms of safety and fairness helps get over this hurdle because it’s easier and less threatening. Being open and honest means taking a chance.

The usual image people have of conflict involves some form of violence or heated argument but conflict can be as simply as two people wanting to use the toothpaste at the same time. You may think these minor incidents are too insignificant to qualify as conflicts but they can provide a clue to problems in the relationship. It isn't the size of the incident that matters. The way it’s handled can lead to a big blow-up. The use of the toothpaste may be the trigger that ignites a powder keg of resentment about an unequal relationship in which one has 'had enough'. It could also be the focal point of a clash of egos that could end in bloodshed because each is driven to maintain dignity or self-esteem.

Regardless of whether we are talking about conflict in a family, at work or community, the same deceptively simple conflict resolution guidelines apply. People who respect each other listen until they understand the other’s views before honestly stating their own views, tend to seek solutions that meet the needs of all involved.

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.

The White Ribbon campaign to reduce or stamp out violence against women is a great initiative. However, I look forward to the time when men don’t treat women as equal to men but instead recognise that women and men are equal, and act accordingly. There are many things we can do, right now, to move towards such a reality; the first of which is to recognise the shortcomings of our present society.

The emphasis on family violence should be viewed as just a starting point leading to cultural, systemic and structural changes in society to remove things that currently feed problems such as domestic violence, road rage and street violence.

Physical violence makes headlines because of the damage it causes. However, some forms of violence cause lifelong suffering by destroying the spirit, self esteem and confidence of people. These forms of violence can be compounded if labelled as weaknesses that people should just ‘get over.’ Anger, depression and resentment from this often lies dormant until alcohol, or some perceived injustice, brings it bursting to the surface, sometimes surprising the actor. Others may see it as unprovoked violence because it is not directly caused by people but by the way our society operates.

Family violence can be a symptom of a wider problem caused by injustices known as systemic violence, structural violence and cultural violence that appears ‘normal’. Study after study links this violence to a vague sense of frustration and ‘not being good enough’ that nags at some people and affects every part of life. These injustices form the breeding ground for headline surface violence. And this may be increased by inadequate or inappropriate education.

People decide to set up these systems and structures, and the injustice they build into them is unnecessary simply because it is a decision. People should be held accountable for the effects of the choices they make regardless of whether those choices are made in a relationship or in setting up social systems. A person’s background can make their choices understandable and may remove blame from them for making those choices but it doesn’t remove the need for accountability for the effects of those actions. People learn how to act in future by being accountable now.

The ever-widening gap between rich and poor is evidence of the injustices in society’s systems and structures. Our politicians know, or should know, of the many studies linking inequality to the frustrations that lead to the anger, depression and resentment so common in our society. People find it so difficult to cope and this is compounded by a culture of alcohol abuse. Politicians will only act to address these problems if people demand such action.

The claim that all people are equal before the law becomes another level of injustice when that principle is applied regardless of a person’s ability to pay. E.g. a fine of $300 imposed on the wealthy and on a pensioner for the same offense is a gross injustice. Being equal before the law is unjust when the social system it operates in is unjust.

It’s important to provide people with the knowledge and skills to reduce the frustration that precedes the anger, depression and resentment that so often leads to violence. However, more can be achieved by also removing the cultural, systemic and structural causes of the frustration.

My book, Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness explores ways we can counter the effects of living in an unjust society.

 Bob Myers.

  

People tell us we should forgive and forget but forgiveness does not necessarily include ‘forgetting.’ To forgive is to remember an event without resentment or wanting revenge. We can forgive someone even while we are angry and hurt, or wanting our hurting to be recognized.

Some people believe that forgiving means  wrongdoers don’t have to face the consequences of their actions, or have to make amends, but neither of these has to be part of forgiveness. Forgiving is not about letting the wrongdoer off the hook, it’s about freeing yourself from the destructive torment of hate and resentment. Not forgiving can condemn yourself to a life of misery; of being battered in a stormy sea while the wrongdoer goes sailing on in calm waters, happily unaware of the hate that threatens to drag you down.  

It can be quite foolish for a woman in a domestic violence situation to ‘forget’ this man is likely to react violently in certain circumstances.  It can be foolish because the same thing is likely to happen next time he is faced with the same circumstances. It can be irresponsible because it fails to protect other people from being affected by his actions. It also fails to help the perpetrator, and that can sometimes be the most serious failing because helping the perpetrator face up and make amends helps all those he will have dealings with in the future. 

Forgive and forget’ can contribute to continued violence, to the extent that forgiveness  becomes just another part of the ‘cycle of violence.’ When that happens, forgiveness is still necessary for your own sake, but there should be conditions attached to any reconciliation. This is important in domestic violence. Many people find it difficult to understand why a woman remains in a violent  relationship being beaten by her partner, especially if she has opportunities to leave. However, the emotional and psychological forces involved can make it very difficult for her to leave, especially if the man is well aware of those forces and uses them to trap her in a power game he may actually believe is love. He is partly right in that belief but it is his love of power, rather than love for his partner. 

Women in domestic violence situations can mistake feelings of dependency as love, which can be made more complex by cultural or religious beliefs about a woman’s role in regard to sex and love. When she does muster the courage to leave, her partner may be devastated and crumble into a broken, sobbing mess pleading for forgiveness and making all sorts of promises to be good. This part of the game is an attempt to hook the woman’s compassion and her need to be wanted, which often works. So she forgives him and after a blissful few weeks he slowly returns to his old habits, and the cycle of violence continues.

Reconciliation does not have to be part of forgiveness. Before reconciliation can be successful, the cycle of violence needs to be broken by the abuser successfully completing an attitude-changing course on establishing and maintaining a relationship based on equality. Ideally, the woman should also successfully complete such a course before considering reconciliation. Forgiveness, forgetting and reconciliation are three distinct and independent concepts that may or may not be tied together.

Bob Myers.

People spend millions of dollars on what often turns out to be a fruitless search for some form of peace and happiness. The sad news is that most  waste their money because they can’t recognise peace and happiness when they find it. So they pass it by. This is partly because we think of peace as being something calm and tranquil. We don’t think of finding peace in the midst of a heated argument. And if we think of happiness as being a constant state of euphoria,, we don't think of finding happiness in a catastrophe. Constant tranquillity and constant euphoria might sound like a promise of heaven but it certainly isn’t life.

The best we seem to manage in life is experience short periods of tranquillity or feelings of euphoria that pass too quickly. Most are just fleeting moments that become wonderful memories we carry with us for the rest of our lives. However, we can do better. We can have both peace of mind and a sense of harmony as normal parts of daily life, even in the midst of turmoil and sadness, if we are realistic and aim for dynamic peace and happiness.

The word dynamic means vibrant, lively, energetic and surprising. Dynamic peace immediately becomes more appealing and exciting than constant tranquillity over the long term. Therefore, peace and happiness can vary without being lost, because it is really based on something deeper than the fluctuations and disturbances appearing on the surface. Large fluctuations can occur without destroying the overall sense of stability within human relationships when the people involved follow the guidelines that transform conflict into creative conflict. They can learn from nature and experience harmony in disputes.   

Four themes run through the material on the Road of Peace website and I will explore these in future blogs. Using these four themes as the framework was inspired by the work of Brendan McKeague, lead trainer with Pace e Bene Australia.   

1.    Exploring our relationship to other people; to the environment and to the cosmos
         (or God, by whatever name). 
                    Included under this heading are things like identity, self esteem, self confidence and
                     morals, as well as beliefs and values regarding authority (ours and theirs).
2.    The ways in which our culture affects how we relate to each other. 
                    Included under this heading are things like love, sexism, racism, social status,
                    structural and systemic inequality and discrimination.
3.    Where and how to regain spiritual and emotional strength when life gets tough. 
                    Included under this heading are the myriad of ‘self esteem service stations’ people
                    use to lift their spirits, ranging from religious practices to secular activities such as
                    shopping and sport.
4.    Exploring new and better ways to enhance problem solving and conflict resolution skills. 
                    Included under this heading are various sets of conflict resolution methods and
                    guidelines, as well as the teachings of Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, Dorothy Day,
                    and various religious figures.  

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. 
 

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.