If this thread has to creep, I would rather it creep towards the Virgin Mary! I'm not kat, but I can do this one!! Surely every religion that is going to survive has to incorporate some resonances from every part of human life, including the female. So what happens in this case. It is not that contentious (unless you are the Pope) that Christianity, from just after the very outset, did what it could to marginalise women. We have the spectacle at the beginning of Jesus being primarily supported by rich women, and consorting with them. It is obvious the women see this as a chance to break out. We have these women sticking by him when things get rough, while the guys head off in all directions. We have the Marys who are the only reliable witnesses to the resurrection (all reputable Biblical scholars recognise that the additions to Mark where Peter shows up are later). We have reports of women celebrants and deacons from the very outset. And what happens: within 200 years they are no where in the evolving hierarchy. But what to do about the basic feminine impulse? -- give them the Virgin Mary, the Vice-Presidential supplicator to God for humanity. Thus we keep them in the tent, but keep them humble (the humble handmaid of the Lord). There is a lot more in the tradition that is positive, but this part is pretty straighforward. Over to you, Kat.
yours, Peter T.