In our world, money, or profit, is referred to as ‘the bottom line’.

A few years ago I decided to convene a meeting of four people I considered to be great role models and teachers. I invited a Hindu named Gandhi, a Muslim named Mohammad, an atheist named Einstein and a Jew named Yoshu, better known today as Jesus. Since they are all long dead, getting them together was no easy task and required a lot of imagination and careful research.

The purpose of the meeting was for these very learned men to share their ideas and opinions to determine what the real bottom line is in regard to life in general, so we have something clear to use for making laws that govern human behaviour.

 As the convenor of the meeting, I made the rather empty threat that there would be no food or drinks until they found a common thread in their teachings and agreed on a statement that was easy for people to understand. Research indicated they could do this because all four men had a deep respect for each other’s views and a genuine concern for people in general.

They got along very well and found that, apart from some very different terminology, they agreed on most things. The main sticking point was whether intelligence pre-existed matter or evolved. Anyhow, the statement they came up with was:     

“The fundamental principle to live by, in general, is a complete and utter commitment to seeking the truth to guide your every word and action and, by doing that, all laws would be based on the social truth of all people being equal.”  

However, they added a warning that although most people would agree about all people being equal, they might kill you for saying it should be the bottom line.
Bob Myers.

People going on a journey usually know where they’re going before starting off, simply so they know which way to go. If we don’t know where we are going, how can we know when we arrive? To avoid running around aimlessly towards the equality of men and women, we first of all need to know what we mean by ‘equality.’ Otherwise, it would be like deciding to go to a city without knowing where it is.

Equality’ has many different meanings. One being that two objects are the same in every way. Obviously men and women are not the same and never will be, so if the question means, ‘Will men and women ever be the same?,’ the answer would be ‘No.’ 

Unfortunately, in the present system, many women try to be equal to men in a system designed by men to suit the interests and abilities of men. The parliamentary system and legal system reflect male thinking in that both use adversarial methods to settle disputes and make decisions and plans. A woman entering those systems has to prove herself to be at least as tough as the men in a male-oriented game. The system doesn’t change to reflect female thinking; so a woman must play like a man. In the Pygmalion stage play, Henry Higgins asks a question that sounds more like a prayer, ‘Why can’t a woman be more like a man?’ It seems that the present desire of women to be equal to men is only granting Henry’s prayer.

The best we can expect from the present system is that the decisions made will be influenced to some degree by input from women. That isn’t real equality and makes little progress towards equality. Real progress towards equality will be made when our social systems and structures change to also reflect  female thinking. I don’t know what decision making method would emerge if women were freed from submitting to the male dominated system but the adversarial system is not the only possibility. For example, Gandhi gave us the truth-seeking method that takes competition for personal power out of debating. The sole aim of truth-seeking debates is to find the most workable solution to whatever the problem is. The point I make here is that it’s just possible men and women, together, can come up with a better way than the current adversarial method.

Will men and women ever be equal? I’ve heard it said that there are no wrong questions; there are only wrong answers. This question proves this saying is false. It’s a nonsense question because men and women are already equal. The question should be, ‘Will men ever accept that men and women are equal?’ The equality of men and women is a natural truth, just like ‘Water seeks it’s own level,’ is a natural truth. Men have dominated women for centuries and came to believe male domination is natural. However, it only seems natural because the system men set up is suited to men. That is the real reason for the illusion of male superiority. 

Men can certainly do some things better than women, and it does appear to be all the important things, but again that is only because the whole system we live in is suited to what men do best. If our social, legal and parliamentary systems were set up to suit what women do best, it would appear that women are superior to men. What may answer the intent of the question is, ‘Men and women will be seen as equal when the overall system we live in, and the rules we live by, emanate from the equality of men and women.’ That is what my book, Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness explores.

By Bob Myers. 

Most parent/child relationship problems stem from some form of resistance to authority. Power struggles can develop and become commonplace in many families. The following are my thoughts expressed in cold, point form.

• For the family setting to be based 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 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 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-keeping associated with 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.
• 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 of the family.
• Every member of the family is entitled to equal respect and consideration, regardless of their level of responsibilities.

Bob Myers.

Everything written on this website, including these tips, is based on the principle: There is no happiness without peace; no peace without justice; and no justice without equality, even in the home.  

• Reward your child just for ‘being,’ not just when they are achieving. Children deserve love and affection simply for existing. This can be shown often through hugs, affectionate play or verbal expressions of love and concern.
• Every child has a unique identity. Some are shy, others are confident, and you cannot force a child to change her basic nature. Every child should be accepted and appreciated as they are, if only because they had no say in what attributes and disposition they inherited. Nor do they have a say in what they have learned since birth.
• Trying to force a child to do something he is not ready to do can lead to trouble. When he is ready he may need guidance and encouragement but will not need to be forced.
• To encourage a positive attitude towards work, make a list of routine tasks and think about the fairness and safety reasons for those tasks, as well as the short and long term consequences (effects) when those tasks are not carried out, so you can explain it to the kids when they ask that annoying question, ‘Why?’
• To encourage a positive attitude towards rules, do the same as you did with the tasks. Then you can explain the fairness and safety reasons for the rules.
• If you normally make the rules, ask the kids to suggest how the rules could be improved. If they suggest something that is fairer or safer, adjust or replace the rule. This helps them to develop ownership of the rules.
• Try not to criticize a child’s behaviour in front of others. You want the child’s behaviour to change; you don’t want to damage their self- esteem.
• If you think of the child as being separate from her behaviour, you can strongly condemn the behaviour without condemning the child. You can be angry at the behaviour without being angry with her. The behaviour is unloved; the child is loved. The behaviour is rejected but the child is simply taught a more acceptable way of acting.
• Give children age-appropriate choices so they get practice at making decisions. This will increase their sense of self and of their importance in the family.
• When going shopping remember to ask your child what he likes and dislikes. This is a way of helping children develop the confidence that accompanies a sense of equality with others.
• Parents and children have different responsibilities and different problems but the child’s problems are just as important to the child as the parent’s problems are to the parent. This sometimes causes a conflict that could get out of hand if it turns into a power struggle. If possible, solve the child’s problem first, so peace is restored, and then tackle your problem.
• Every problem is an opportunity to spend healthy time bonding with the child and passing on knowledge and skills as you encourage the child’s efforts.
• Teaching kids habits, rituals and routines is essential for helping them develop a sense of security, especially if you explain the safety and fairness reasons for each action. For example ‘look right, look left, look right again before crossing a road’ is obviously based on safety, and knowing the reason can help them to think about consequences.

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 young people must experience at a stage of life so crucial to them in their search for identity and their efforts to make sense of society.  The fact is that 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 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 our identity too. It is often said that Australia forged its identity through the violence at Gallipoli but the difference there is the bravery involved.  

I believe the main cause of random violence is that living in an adversarial society means that a big part of our identity, or sense of who we are comes from comparing our attributes and achievements  against those of other people, in two ways.  One  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 find it much easier to gain that sense of superiority or status through domination, which usually involves the use of some form 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 one thing may sometimes be tempted to use the ‘put down’ method.  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.’ We are then free from the competition-domination, status-seeking  game and  a whole new way of relating to other people opens before us.

Bob Myers.

Most people rate honesty very highly, especially in regard to money and telling the truth, so it seems logical that our social systems would reflect that attitude. Do they?

A person who is convicted in a court of law for stealing money or telling lies is branded as a thief and a liar for life and may find it difficult to find employment. However, a person who appeals and has the evidence against him dismissed on a technicality has a clean slate, even though the inadmissible evidence proved his guilt beyond doubt.

The point is that, in the legal system, the law and its interpretation is more important than the truth. Our legal system is an adversarial system which means the lawyers involved are competing against each other to convince a judge or jury to accept their version of what is legally right, not what is the truth. In any adversarial situation, winning becomes more important than the truth.

Our parliamentary system is based on what is called the Westminster adversarial system and anyone who has watched politicians in action quickly become aware that winning an argument is far more important than giving a straight answer. There is probably no better example of the adversarial debating process than parliament. Every politician is by definition trying to increase their power and influence in the parliament and most work to become cabinet ministers or maybe even prime minister.

In the general community, most committees adopt a version of the Westminster adversarial system for making decisions, and even sporting tribunals adopt a legalistic system. Religious institutions are often described as both adversarial and legalistic in dealing with complaints and disputes. So it is little wonder that in everyday life we also adopt an adversarial attitude to settling differences with other people, even loved ones.  

The effect of this influence on the way we relate to others can damage relationships because the main aim of the adversarial approach is to win and we feel somehow inferior if we lose. That means the whole thing is more self-serving than advancing our knowledge of the truth or finding a solution that everyone can live with.

• The example from parliament and the legal system is that the winning argument somehow becomes the truth, rather like deciding who is right by having a fist fight, or who can drink the most alcohol. That means there is no real requirement for the content of a person’s argument to be actual truth.
• In order to win, it is an acceptable tactic to discredit the opposition’s intelligence to weaken their argument, even though you may secretly agree with it. Winning may therefore promote something neither side actually believes is right.
• This method of debating is being taught to our children in the schools as a legitimate way of advancing our knowledge and skills

All the above throws some light on why children can be confused when we suddenly get upset over them being a little untruthful  and refusing to admit to doing something.

I suggest that we would have more credibility with our children if our social systems, including churches and schools, were to adopt and teach the Gandhian truth-seeking method of debating. Gandhi taught about the importance of hanging onto what we believe to be the truth because our beliefs and values help us make sense of the world as we make decisions about what to do.

Truth-seeking debates.
Some of our beliefs are deeply held, especially religious beliefs, and we feel very threatened and defensive when they are attacked. However, other people hold strong opposing views which they claim as being the truth. Obviously, opposing views cannot both be the absolute truth.

Gandhi maintained that everyone knows part of the truth and part of the untruth. He taught that it is only through listening to understand the other’s views that we can take little bits that make sense to us and add these to our truth, so our truth grows. And if we listen to enough people and gain a little from each of them, our truth gets bigger and bigger. This was a deep belief for him because he believed Truth was God, so his search for truth was a search for God.

Our beliefs and values are important to hang onto but, if we believe our truth is the truth and are not prepared to modify it under any circumstances, those beliefs and values become more like prison walls restricting our knowledge.

A genuine search for the truth sets us free from the prison of false beliefs but it’s also important to hold fast to what we believe to be true as we assess what others are saying.

The rules of the truth-seeking debate method are:

• Be open and honest in expressing your views.
• Listen  to, and respect, the views of others.
• Be prepared to vary your views if you are convinced by what you hear.
• Then be open and honest in sharing your new level of awareness.
  

I wonder what kind of social structures and systems we would have now had our ancestors adopted a cooperative, truth-seeking debating method rather than the adversarial method. 

Bob Myers. 

 AUTHORITY AND EQUALITY.
    

• In a workplace based 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 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 through the use of the power to 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 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.
• Dominant authority is attempting to have power over others. Legitimate authority is having power with others.
• 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.

Bob Myers.

Many studies have shown that a strong link exists between inequality and all kinds of social diseases. My latest book, Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness, contains information from some of those studies, including the following:

Based on thirty years of research by leading organisations, various universities and independent social scientists, (The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always do Better) argues that inequality is the root cause of many of society’s ills.

 The authors claim that if an affluent society suffers from one social disease – for example high levels of stress – we 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 will be 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.

They 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 the society.

Most people think of equality in terms of income but reality makes it very unlikely that 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 indicate that money is very important for health and happiness only up to a point, but past that point it makes little difference to health or happiness. What then becomes important is the perceived social equality, which is so delicate and at the mercy of 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. Instead, the emphasis should be on participation, or on the comradeship of team sport, or on the social side of individual sport. The harm caused by the attitude of ‘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 are revealing is that socioeconomic inequality is a form of violence built into our normal social systems producing the violence that we call ‘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 that the social ills are increasing because the gap is increasing. They are also the ones who 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, we are the ones who could put pressure on our politicians to base their bid for power on their ability to come up with policies centred on reducing the present socioeconomic gap. And the good news is that it appears we would all benefit from reversing the trend of the past twenty years (according to the Salvation Army reports).

An added bonus is that it would provide the means by which we can hold our politicians accountable. If the gap between the haves and have nots is decreasing under whatever party is in power, we would know their policies are working. If the gap is increasing, we would know their policies are not working and we probably should give the opposition a chance.

Bob Myers.

Equality, nonviolence and love equals spirituality-without-religion when nonviolence expresses love that is  grounded in equality.

Oneness and equality is fundamental to religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Ba-hai but when that fundamental is not reflected in the rituals, ceremonies and general culture of those religions, a distinction can be made between spirituality and religion. I identify spirituality as the individual awareness of the oneness and equality of all people and I view religion as a structure of beliefs, values, rituals, ceremonies and customs that the individual adheres to because of the accident of birth or by choice.

Separating the two gives us the freedom to commit to the fundamental of oneness and equality and the freedom of experimenting with new ways of expressing that commitment, guided by the principle of nonviolence. A commitment to basing our actions on the fundamental of oneness and equality leads naturally to nonviolence and therefore to both internal and external peace.

I believe this is what John Lennon meant in his song Imagine, when he referred to people living without religion. He wanted people to be free to express their belief in, and commitment to, the oneness and equality of all people in whatever way seems right to them in their relationships with others. Sadly, religious beliefs sometimes become a prison preventing people from expressing the connection they feel towards others; and this is especially sad when those others are members of a religion that shares the same fundamental.

Bob Myers.

I don’t know the meaning of life but I do know what gives life meaning.
Life has meaning when you have a reason for getting out of bed in the morning. Having a purpose or goal to achieve makes sense of what we do, even if it’s just going to the trouble of getting out of bed. It doesn’t matter what the purpose is; it might be to weed the garden or wash the car. It could be to do something to make someone happy.

Many millions of people, all over the world, struggle to make sense of life and only find the strength to face each day’s problems through their faith in God. For many people, the goal is to earn a place in heaven through good deeds done each day. However, close relationships with other people probably give most people a purpose in life and generates many short term goals to make each day interesting.
It’s also true that without a purpose or goal to achieve, nothing makes sense. We have nothing to guide our actions and no motivation to do anything. We need four things to be motivated to do anything:

• We need the opportunity to do it.
• We need the knowledge and skills to do it.
• We need to believe we can do it (encouragement);
• But most of all, we must want to do it, for whatever reason.

In his book The Six Stages of Faith, James Fowler referred to the important part bumper stickers play in giving life meaning. Bumper stickers are  a public display of the beliefs and values that guide our behaviour and help us to make sense of the world. ‘Jesus loves me’ is a reassuring bumper sticker giving strength and a sense of security to many lonely people. ‘Ban the bomb’ can symbolize a dedication to peacemaking and a focus for activists. The ‘Walk the talk’ bumper sticker is a constant, challenging reminder to act the way we expect other people to act and to do what we say we are going to do. It’s also a reminder that as adults we are role models for every child who witnesses what we do. So having that sort of bumper sticker can provide an important purpose for life in general.

But simply following a belief and having a purpose doesn’t guarantee we will have a long, trouble-free life, or that we will not be a problem for other people. A negative purpose can give life the same level of meaning as a positive purpose. Terrorists and suicide bombers have a purpose that gives life meaning and they can be very happy as they fulfill their mission to destroy the lives of other people.
When I was about 19 my boss at the time gave me two bits of advice. One was to always have a goal you really want to achieve and you will be amazed how many opportunities life presents for moving closer to it. And you will even create opportunities when there appears to be none. His second bit of advice was that ‘you can only freewheel downhill.’ By that he meant that people who want to achieve something have to be prepared to put a lot of effort into it.

I am fortunate in having many bumper stickers and positive relationships to give my life meaning but my fundamental, encompassing belief is that equality is the true nature of relationships. That challenges me every day to counter the effects of the culture of inequality that prevails in our society by aiming to walk in the spirit of equality and practice nonviolence. Every day becomes a learning experience and if I were to design a bumper sticker it would be something like, ‘Dissolve violence by aiming for equality.’

Bob Myers.