Centaurus;
You have a badly twisted view of CRM.
CRM doesn't "empower" anyone.
CRM does not challenge the authority and command responsibility of the captain. CRM is not a "manners" course for captains nor a licence to take over for F/O's. CRM does not disrespect the law which assigns responsibility for the flight solely to the captain. CRM is the requirement to speak up if one sees something unfolding that raises the risk to the flight, period.
CRM does not require that the F/O take over in immanent danger.
Such an action belongs elsewhere in training and responsibility, differing, obviously, with cultural differences. (One wonders, for example, what would have happened to the F/O on the Airblue A321 if he had taken over from the captain and successfuly cleared the hills...fired?, reprimanded? Anyone?)
The requirement to speak up and not remain silent while risk heightens is formalized so that a risk is identified, assessed, a response formulated and then actioned.
Such a process (a mini-intervention) can take hours or seconds..."Captain, should we be at this altitude?"..."Captain, the flight plan shows us burning into our alternate fuel"... , etc.
Those statements don't challenge authority, they bring information to the surface so the crew is aware of risk and can deal with it, even if it is only to dismiss the threat as it is being handled correctly.
The final decision is always the captain's. The FD is not a democracy.
In CRM, no F/O "takes over" the airplane and runs it unless the captain allows it, but that's not CRM; - like viewing statements about risk to the flight as "challenges to one's authority", permitting anyone to take over the FD is a far more serious operational and personal problem and well beyond CRM issues.
Because the "discourse" is about one's "authority" and not the "operational safety" of the flight, those that resist the notion of CRM and dismiss it as so much new-age psychobabble, are generally those who need it the most.
PJ2