Empowerment


Over the past twenty-five years empowerment has been sold as something that is good; something when one hears the word, one should get warm fuzzies inside. But what exactly is it, and what has been its impact?

In the business world, the early 90’s was the golden age for empowerment.  It was stated that the large corporate hierarchies of the time stifled innovation.  Those who understood the true business situation (and opportunities) were not allowed to make decisions; this was reserved for management.  It was thought that if only the people in the trenches could make their own decisions, then outcomes would be improved.  And if these people were allowed to decide for themselves, then the corporation would prosper along with the newly empowered employees.

But can the people in the trenches make better decisions?  They do not necessarily have better information, they have different information compared to management.  Management has experience of what has worked before, as well as (hopefully) the larger picture.  But which type is better?  It depends on many factors.  For example, is the field dynamic, with underlying assumptions changing relatively quickly?  Another is the skill of the decision makers; have they had experience in making decisions and learning from their mistakes?

So how well did empowerment in the corporate world do?  It was a mixed bag.   It worked reasonably well in dynamic industries such as computers.  In these industries, knowledge of imminent changes and their potential dominated.  Established rules were a hinderance. One needs skilled people to make empowerment work, and fortunately many people of this type were attracted to such industries.  In other cases (less dynamic industries), the corporate experience (both in the corporation and its individual managers) embodied in their managers was more effective.

Now consider the “industry” that female empowerment was applied toward.  Mostly this “industry” is about female sexuality.  The empowerment primarily consisted of breaking long established rules; ones that were created by the patriarchy.  But was there any justification for this empowerment?  Was the industry dynamic?  Perhaps one might think that the answer is yes, but it is truly no.  Human nature is the same as it ever was.  The appearance of dynamism was due the continuous changing of the rules, not because of any underlying structural changes.  Actually, there was one structural change, that of economic prosperity to underwrite the costs of these rule changes.

Back to empowerment.  Is was sold to the corporate world as something that would benefit both the individual and the corporation; and it would do so through improved decision making.  Has this happened with respect to women’s empowerment?  Not particularly.  Though they are just one example, the PPPs of New Zealand suggest what happens when women’s empowerment is taken to its logical conclusion (perhaps the PPPs are not done yet).  Their short-sighted empowerment ignores the larger picture that used to be embodied in society’s rules.  This application of empowerment effectively ruins them for life, for themselves, for potential families, and for society.

The bottom line of this management process change is definitely in the red.

Advertisements
Tagged with:
Posted in FarmBoy, Feminism
28 comments on “Empowerment
  1. Farm Boy says:

    The bottom line of this management process change is definitely in the red.

    Or perhaps in the pink

    Like

  2. Tarnished says:

    The definition of empowerment has been corrupted by modern feminism. No longer does it mean the spread of new information/rights, it now is a supposed license to do “whatever feels good”.

    Empowerment *is* a good thing, when used as it should be. For example, a woman who has a up-to-date sexual health education is empowered to make better decisions about her body and sexiality than a woman who has an abstinence only “education”. Whether she actually uses this information, however, is another topic entirely.

    Like

  3. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Farm Boy,
    The first thing that came to mind was something that happened close to the time frame that you speak of. When Madison Avenue realized that women made up to eighty five percent of the purchasing decisions. Then, they concluded that there was no reason to appeal to men and that, as a demographic group, they could be dispensed with.
    I do keep going back to the little NY grocery chain and their innovation of a “man aisle”. When seventy percent of adults were married, women did make eight four percent of the purchases. Now that it about fifty percent of adults married, women are making sixty nine percent of the purchases.
    While this isn’t it, it’s a great source.
    http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2011/in-u-s-men-are-shopping-more-than-ever-while-women-are-watching-more-tv.html

    Like

  4. Spawny Get says:

    Empowerment is now tingalipsism

    Like

  5. Farm Boy says:

    women made up to eighty five percent of the purchasing decisions. Then, they concluded that there was no reason to appeal to men and that, as a demographic group, they could be dispensed with.

    That is not true for beer and pickup trucks. Hence this is what you see on sporting events.

    But with men not marrying, one wonders how that figure could still be so high. Perhaps MGTOWs do not spend money.

    A bigger question might be “why do women make so many of the decisions”? Perhaps it might have something to do with the Feminine Imperative…

    Like

  6. Farm Boy says:

    It used to be that women made the small spending decision with respect to the family (e.g. which dish detergent to buy). Today, I am not so sure now that a majority of their spending is truly “family oriented”. Of course, the definition of “family oriented” might be difficult to define, but I think that you get my drift.

    Like

  7. Farm Boy says:

    When given a choice between two products of rough equivalence, female buyers will almost always choose the higher-priced product based on the notion that a higher cost means higher value.

    They are empowered to do this.

    My Dad did not earn that much money. But my Mom appreciated every bit of it, and she made sure that it was spent wisely.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Tarnished says:

    …they don’t look at the ingredients? A store brand medicine typically has the same exact active ingredients as a major brand. Likewise for shampoos, drinks, cereals, cleaners, etc. It’s just good frugality to choose a less expensive product that does the same thing. 😕

    Like

  9. Tarnished says:

    Why Farm Boy…are you saying NAWALT? 😉

    Like

  10. Farm Boy says:

    Why Farm Boy…are you saying NAWALT?

    Why of course. Many of my posts have NAWALT disclaimers. The ones that don’t should. I wrote a post on NAWALT.

    My NAWALT cred is high.

    Like

  11. Tarnished says:

    True.
    I’m just teasing, as so much of the manosphere specifically says AWALT, or that NAWALTs are so rare as to practically be nonexistent. Yet we seem to have a decent concentration of them related to this blog…Your mother, Molly, Liz, Bloom, most of Cill’s female relatives, Spawny’s mother (I think). If people want to be technical and include me, that’s fine too.
    Makes me wonder if this prevalence of NAWALTs means anything, or is just a reminder of why our space works/flows so well.

    Like

  12. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Tarm,
    Farm Boy is fond of demonstrating his mother as a paragon of virtue. This is good. It does show how, in one generation, things can change.
    As for his mother, I’ll bet that she had a smal personal extravagance. Good coffee or bubble bath?
    There are a lot of NAWALTs here. Could it be Spawny’s movie star good looks? That’s also why no one gives you grief for your avatar.

    Thyere is a counter to the NAWALTs. Many of the single male commenters who chime in on co-ed blogs are characterized as being grumpy, pessimistic, and mean.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Tarnished says:

    “That’s also why no one gives you grief for your avatar.”

    -Really? I thought it was because Spawny was the one who sent it to me in the first place. 😕

    “Many of the single male commenters who chime in on co-ed blogs are characterized as being grumpy, pessimistic, and mean.”
    -Never understood this. I’ve read feminist blogs where a man tries to put forth his opinion/clarify something that has been taken out of context or warped, and is shouted down as trying to make the space “all about teh menz”. The only way to have a discussion of any type while male is to either blatantly agree with everything or to be prepared for the feminist commenters to be constantly angry/suspicious of you. Now to be 100% honest I am on the receiving end of this from men sometimes, but it doesn’t happen very often. Could be that feminist blogs are louder? Or that they are backed by feminists *and* SJWs alike?

    Like

  14. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Tarn,
    I don’t even read feminist blogs, much less comment there. I do comment on a few married woman antifeminist blogs. They like bear videos.
    Do you think that linking bear videos might warm the hearts of feminiswts? 😉

    Like

  15. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Tarn,
    Here’s one for the feminists.
    Now, you’re feeling sleepy, very sleepy.
    Watch the watch. Watch the watch.

    Like

  16. Yoda says:

    Many of the single male commenters who chime in on co-ed blogs are characterized as being grumpy, pessimistic, and mean.

    Perhaps understandable this is.
    Oblivious many women are.

    Like

  17. Yoda says:

    I’ve read feminist blogs where a man tries to put forth his opinion/clarify something that has been taken out of context or warped, and is shouted down

    Very feminine this would not be.
    Marriage material they are not.
    Piss-poor arguments the women probably have.
    Shouting only recourse they can use.

    Like

  18. Yoda says:

    Wonder if Big Red hibernates she does.
    Blessing to the world this would be.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Yoda,
    Obnoxious she is.
    A bear, she is not.
    But, quiet and peaceful Big Red happy thought is.

    It seems as if every week we see another of these female teacher/male student scandals.

    Like

  20. Yoda says:

    Big Red could empower herself to hibernate could she not?

    Like

  21. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Yoda,
    I don’t know. She is SO loud, one would think it close to impossible. She would just keep waking herself up.

    Like

  22. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Yoda,
    781 reported to media last year? It has to be overwhelmingly female teacher/male student. One, there aren’t that many male teachers and, two, they’re not about to go anywhere nr female student. These girls learn how to make false allegations by third grade.

    Like

  23. Yoda says:

    From,

    http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2015/01/31/the-left-devours-itself/

    Comes,

    left-wing students at Berkeley (sort of redundant, I know) are starting to turn on Marx, not because of his potted theories of the dialectic, his crude reductionism of man to homo economicus, or even the fact that he set the foundation for turning the 20th century into an abattoir. No, Marx is bad because he’s just another dead white guy

    Glad that green I am.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Cill says:

    “No, Marx is bad because he’s just another dead white guy”
    Yup

    Like

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: