Vox populi | isn’t she lovely?

Window dressing or substance?

M

ichelle Obama, wife of American presidential candidate Barack Obama, took the stage of the Democratic National Convention and delivered a powerful speech about community, empowerment and leadership.  She approaches the topics honestly as the introduction to her outlined her accomplishments as a lawyer, community activist and one who has parlayed her law degree into helping the disenfranchised and poor.  Michelle Obama is a leader in her own right, a woman who juggled career and family marvelously, and lives by her values and convictions.

With all that said, and a great speech, it left me wondering what the planning people were thinking when they punctuated her speech, and all of her accomplishments with Stevie Wonder singing, Isn’t She Lovely.  Michelle Obama: intelligent, self-assured, lawyer, mother, wife, community activist… AND she’s awfully purty too…guffaw, guffaw, guffaw.  Don’t get me wrong.  She is, but like the American Declaration of Independence, “these truths are self evident”.  Of course she’s lovely, but is that who she is?  Why did you just spend an hour telling us who she is and what she’s done only to finish it by saying she’s a great window dressing for the president.  And these are the Democrats.  It didn’t surprise me when John McCain said his wife Cindy might do well at a wet t-shirt contest or bikini fashion show with a bunch of biker dudes.  John’s a good ole’ boy, and you would expect the objectification of women at a Harley Davidson Rally…But the Democrats?  It’s 2008 after all.

Wait a minute.  We’re guilty of this.  In 2008 is it possible we still turn to the male officer in a couple when we speak of the corps officer?  In our community, people would come into the office and say they’re looking for The Salvation Army officer.  I’d invariably reply, “she’s in the other room”.  When called to greet people in public I’d say, “This is Deana, pastor of The Salvation Army and I’m her husband Rick”.  We appoint a married woman as D.C. and her husband as Divisional Secretary for Program and it’s shocking news.  Folks, it’s 2008.  Women aren’t just window dressing for their spouses, and unlike pop culture, they are not successful based on looks, but rather they stand on their laurels like everyone else.  Please, if it was based on looks, Deana would be General.  And she could be, but not because she’s good looking.  If that was the case I’d be Divisional Secretary I figure.  At the end of my speech they’d play Two out Three ain’t Bad by Meatloaf.

It’s 2008, and it’s time we all get in gear, and regardless of male or female (with much catching up in regards to women) we need to move away from the empire’s notion of success tied to image, and create a new environment where endless possibilities can thrive.

Vox populi appears every Friday on theRubicon. Find past Vox populi posts and a bio of Capt. Rick Zelinsky here.

10 Comments to Vox populi | isn’t she lovely?

1. Don’t hold your breath.
Siggi Buschhaus on September 5th, 2008

2. That’s funny — I didn’t perceive the song as trivializing at all. I thought, since I believe it’s a song Stevie Wonder wrote for his baby girl, they were trying to stress her close ties to her father. Lot’s of commentary going around about candidates’ and their families’ looks though — poor Levi Johnston, introduced to the world as “sex on skates”….
Catherine W on September 5th, 2008

3. Our people and communities are used to women being in leadership roles all around them, and over time, they will get used to the roles that are modeled on a local level. When we’re consistent, those kinds of things will change locally. So we each, as women and men in ministry together, need to project the image we want others to see (tell ‘em to turn off Stevie Wonder).

   A second thought is that women officers need to take themselves seriously. The culture can only define us if we let it.

   But organizationally, we have a larger problem. It includes a waffling on the theology of gender (a simple example - why does Trade sell Eldredge’s Captivating and not resources from CBE)?
   What of the mindset that married female translates into associate? Check the dispo, look at the appointment list - it’s all there. In the US, a long-standing policy to provide the financial compensation package to the male partner in the officer marriage, with no income to the woman - what message does that send? This is 2008.

   Why are we still insisting that there is equal opportunity when there clearly is not? Equal opportunity for ministry, yes, but not equal opportunity for role, position, leadership, etc. I dare say, we’ve got some social justice issues of our own right on our doorstep.

   I learned early on not to hold my breath, but somehow, when the topic comes up, I can’t hold my tongue either . . .
JoAnn Shade on September 5th, 2008

4. I guess part of the answer is to examine the way we speak and act. This article gives some fairly good examples of how it can be done. Unfortunately, many of our problems stem from misguided attempts to recognise the place of women in our Army.

   For example, it’s common to refer to the Divisional Commander and his wife as the ‘Divisional Commanders’ when the appointments are, in fact, ‘Divisional Commander’ and ‘Divisional Director of Women’s Organisations.’ In this case, the recognition of the woman’s role as a leader in the Division sees her position subsumed into her husband’s.

   Whilst the fact that she might be the DDWO itself belies a sexism problem in the Army (i.e. he gets a job according to his ability as a leader whilst her job is defined by her husband and her gender) it’s still important to recognise her for the job she does have.

   I have noticed these problems becoming less pronounced in our Territory. It’s becoming normal to talk of our ‘Divisional Leaders’ instead of their actual appointments. In one large Division, Mr and Mrs Major are appointed as ‘co-DCs’ and there are other officers appointed to the Women’s Ministries roles.

   Some find these sorts of semantic arguments silly. I think they bear a lot of thinking about, because they inevitably betray our true intent and belief.
Cameron Horsburgh on September 6th, 2008

5. To play devil’s advocate:

   Maybe they should appoint a man to the women’s ministries. Or maybe it’s sexist to even call them “women’s ministries”. We wouldn’t want to distinguish between obvious different needs in ministry approaches between the sexes, now would we?
   In attempting to be fair, let’s not sweep the whole system under the rug. Wouldn’t it be better to approach each couple on a case-by-case basis? And, without over-generalizing in the other direction, isn’t it safe to say - with obvious great exceptions - that certain skill sets dovetail with gender? Or is that the caveman in me speaking?
Phil on September 6th, 2008

6. What about an adult program department?

   I dare say that at age 21 or 22, Michelle and Barack Obama’s skill sets may have been similar, as is true for many officer couples.
   Outside of the specific business tasks of a DC, which can be supported by good staff, what are the specific skill sets that a male has over a female for that role? Preaching? Teaching? Vision-casting? Pastoral care? Mediating and negotiating? Getting through THQ red tape? Hmm. . .
JoAnn Shade on September 6th, 2008

7. JoAnn said…

   ‘What about an adult program department?’

   Our territory (Australia Southern) tried that a few years ago. The Women’s Ministries Department was changed into ‘Adult and Family Ministries’ and was meant to have a much broader ambit than it traditionally did/does.

   The name didn’t stick—apparently (I stand to be corrected) IHQ objected to the change. We (at the grass roots) never found out why.
Cameron Horsburgh on September 7th, 2008

8. While I still hold a special affection for an EET officer who once said he couldn’t wait for his wife to be General, so he could be President of International Women’s Ministries, maybe it’s just weird to appoint people to jobs and have to take into consideration their marriages, families, and how other people perceive marriages, gender roles, etc. I’d like to see any easy way around this but I don’t. If I were married, I wouldn’t want to be my husband’s boss any more than I’d want him to be mine. Inherently, that may be the major problem when it concerns married folks.

   It also leaves single folks in a bind when they get into certain leadership roles. If married DCs can go home and hash it out, single DCs go home isolated by the position of their leadership.

   Anyone got some empathy for the single male officers? What are their chances at certain positions of leadership?

   I was commenting to my sister (non-Salvationist) about how if you want to be in charge of stuff in the Army and you’re a man - get married, but if you’re a woman - stay single… and she said, “oh, sounds like the corporate world” - or the political world. How hard would it be for us to differ from the world on this one?
Maureen Diffley on September 8th, 2008

9. Thanks for your thoughts. Maureen, you make a good point, and it is hard to argue. In Canada we have one married woman Divisional Commander, and her husband is the Divisional Secretary for Program. Although progressive she is the only woman, possibly the second in our history to have this distinction. This from an organization who boasts a liberating history of women in leadership.

   Perhaps one of the issues is we still see these types of leadership roles as the woman being the boss over her husband rather than being a leader in her own right based on capacity and gifting. In our marriage I am the leader in relation to the community, but Deana is the leader in relation to pastoral roles. While we both have giftings in both these areas, it is undeniable we are provide leadership in our respective areas.

   That’s how it should function in the body of Christ in contrast to the functions of power in the world especially when there is no distinction of male and female in our position in Christ.
Rick on September 9th, 2008

10. The thing I find most odd about our appointment system here in Canada is how we create appointments for the married female officer once her husband becomes a high ranking DHQ/THQ officer. It is sinful enough that we only appoint the husbands to leadership positions. But to add insult to injury, we make up these appointments (e.g. Divisional ________ ________ Secretary) to give the wives something to do.

    Does anyone believe that the majority of these fabricated appointments couldn’t easily be filled by someone with a few organizational skills? I mean, most of our divisions don’t have a Men’s ministry secretary or a middle-aged folk secretary! Isn’t it an insult to these officers who have been trained and often have years of experience to say to them that they are no longer able to lead just because their husband supposedly can?

    Also, it is no secret that in our territory we are facing an officer-shortage the likes of which we have never seen. And yet we have all these potential leaders at our DHQs and THQs doing the work of administrative assistants. If some of them were moved back into the field, they could lead ministry units in the city they are in and that would free up other officers for work elsewhere. So I say lets appoint more married women to positions of higher leadership and then free up their spouses to be leaders in their own right.
Juan on September 15th, 2008

Leave a comment