From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Empowerment
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:27:48 GMT

First, thanks for the thoughtful and well-written article.  Of course,
a considerable amount of this discussion is simply which definition
one likes to pick of the word "power".  Not that picking one
definition eliminates the others -- a good analysis of this topic
probably requires discussing several different versions of "power".

What I was discussing was the concept of power that is "the ability to
prevail in a conflict with another".  As you point out, this is not
the only useful definition, but in the context of sexism (that is, the
oppression of women), it *is* a useful definition -- the average woman
has less power (in this sense) than the average man.  And this
definition captures what we really object to in this situation.
Similarly, if we suddenly doubled everyone's income (in terms of
purchasing power), the "power" of each person in terms of what they
could do would increase, but their "power" in terms of ability to
prevail would retain the present imbalances.

In article <Bz7ExJ.G2y@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( ) writes:

   I do not want to dominate man.  I do not want to be
   dominated by man.  I want to be equal to man in a world that is
   significantly different from the world in which we currently
   operate.

True, but you want to cease being dominated by men, which is a
reduction in their power (they cease being able to prevail in
conflicts with you) and an increase in your power (you being 
able to prevail in conflicts with them).

   Empowerment is the acquisition of control over one's own life, as
   it applies to the economic, social, and political realms.

But the acquisition of control over one's own life is exactly inverse
to the ability of other people to control one's life.  And to a
considerable extent, control over one's own life *is* control over
other's lives.

As Americans, we are taught that "the right to swing your fist ends at
the end of my nose".  But the length of one's nose is not
self-evident.  (Even in American law, if I generate in you a
well-founded belief that I am going to hit you, *even if I do not*, I
have committed assault against you.  The right to swing my fist can
end well beyond the end of your nose.)

Every little freedom one has is a constraint on others.  Every
constraint one is under gives others freedom from one inflicting
something on them.  I can take a shower at midnight, if I want
(control over my life), but it means that the downstairs tenant has to
put up with the noise (control over his life).  In the U.S., it's
assumed that the downstairs tenant has to put up with it.  So much so
that we don't question that it should be so.  But in Germany, the
downstairs tenant *doesn't* put up with it, so his control is
increased and mine is decreased.  In Japan, one is even more tightly
constrained by the obligation to not bother others; but also, one is
bothered much less by others.  You can walk on the streets of the
cities safely at night, but you can't own a pistol.

Every change of the rules benefits some and hurts others.  Where you
stand on a change depends on where you sit...

Dale
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex