Talk:Empowerment

Note on changes

The orgininal flab was pretty good, but it seemed to focus too much on one version or description of empowerment. Not every case of the use of empowerment is applied to discriminated groups, in many cases (particulalry economic ones) it is used on multicultural and multiracial areas that have simply been underdeveloped for geographic or social reasons. I think the article is much improved now. Empowerment is also often used in the Federal program called the "Empowerment zone" program. Which uses tax and other business incentives to improve local communities. Arminius 00:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This entry definitely needs to be expanded. Mookey 23:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Added worker empowerment

Empowerment is now commonly used or perhaps misused as a managerial term to describe some forms of employee involvement.

I have added a note to cover this usage

MARKOC

Addition of marginalization section

This section seems out of place. Perhaps it belongs elsewhere?

It could also use a content edit.

Winky42 23:21, 04 December 2006 (UTC)

This section is obviously out of place and needs to be removed from here to elsewhere Rajankila 17.22 24 January 2008

NPOV

Parts of this article are written in a POV style: for example, "Those doing the empowering should help the group in any way possible..." -- The Anome 07:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

this needs tidying up

I have begun tidying this page. As noted above, it has a lot of NPOV, lack of citations, and an unusual imbalance of relevant sections. Any thoughts or suggestions on a relevant structure of sections, anybody? WotherspoonSmith 10:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

why is the yoga part in the personal para? sounds like a sudden switch to a quite specific wordview, and stands out of the rest of the article's more general approach. It doesnt seem to be citing an example, rather a blatant advertising of a particular religious view.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.188.237.190 (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Management paragraph

I think this article is overall quite good, but would like to see a bit more about the mis-use of the word "empowerment" or "empowered" as a management or consultant buzzword. This is alluded to in the article in various paragraphs, but not stated on its own. Maybe a paragraph title "Criticism" would be useful.....Empowerment and Empowered were buzzwords of the late 1980s to 90s corporate culture that got so watered down as to be almost meaningless (in my experience) and were really used to attempt to shift attitudes (as one para alludes to) rather than change how a Co operates. Or should this be addressed under the Wiki articles "Management Consulting" or "Jargon" ?
Its a legitimate concept, but like many others it may not work so well in practice. Engr105th 18:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Traktung Rinpoche

-- 88.75.87.154 (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Gender Empowerment

While the page touches on various aspects of empowerment, it fails to go in depth on any certain topic and neglects to mention the notion of gender empowerment. The empowerment of women can have indisputable effects on women around the world, particularly in the developing world. With many published works on the empowerment of women and a global/UN focus on the subject matter, I have attempted to add a section on the empowerment of women. Though its importance can be disputed, the fact that many reputable people and organizations place such a heavy importance on it is grounds for its explanation and addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abolivar3 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to add gender empowerment as a sub-section of empowerment, yet also believe this topic should be its own page on Wikipedia. Though the article mentions the process of empowerment, the process of gender empowerment in particular must be added to the section as general empowerment and gender empowerment by no means follow the same process. In addition, a working definition of gender empowerment as defined by scholars must be added to the section. Furthermore, it must be noted that much debate surrounds the definition and process of gender empowerment, and I believe this debate deserves attention in order to make the gender empowerment section well-founded. You section jumps into ways of empowering women without addressing the issue of what gender empowerment means. Surely women's empowerment means more that a high score on the GDI. FrancescaSchley (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)