'Holding bound' the feminine?

While working towards my doctorate, and during subsequent research with an inter-faith seminary in the States, lots of questions have been posed. Here is my response to one of them.

Question: How do our current institutions and customs “hold bound” the wisdom of the feminine? Can you explain this, using one particular example?

(The example I have chosen is that of people in positions of authority)

The UK population consists of 32,377,700 men (approx. 49%) and 33,270,400 women (approx. 51%). However, statistics clearly reveal the disproportionate number of men to women in positions of authority in the UK:

• There are currently (2017) 195 women Members of Parliament out of a total of 650 members (30%)
• Less than 10% CEOs in the FTSE 100 companies are women
• Statistics published in 2015 report that only 4,415 university professors, out of a total of 19,750 are women (22%) (although women in the UK are now 35% more likely than men to attend university as undergraduates)
• Women form only 12.8% of the Stem (science, technology, engineering, and maths) workforce in the UK
• In the UK, 1 woman in 10 is a stay-at-home mother, while 1 man in 100 is a stay-at-home father

The existence of this predominance of men in positions of authority and power cannot help but reinforce the subordination of women and the continuance of an essentially patriarchal society - and this is despite the long and mostly popular reign of the current Queen, and the election of two women Prime Ministers - although both less popular! 

          

There are, of course, strong contemporary female role models: activist Malala Yousafzai, former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, journalist Christiane Amanpour, sports woman Serena Williams, actress & UN ambassador Emma Watson, and paralympian Ellie Robinson. There are also now 12 women bishops in the Church of England, out of a total of 51 (diocescan and suffragan) - 23%. These women are very much pioneers, deserving of respect. Hopefully they and their successors may do much to redress the balance of male/female, and restore the sense and understanding of the feminine/female aspects of the divine, as complementary to the masculine/male aspects which have been centre-stage within Christianity for so very long.

But I have a small sense of doubt, which I hope proves false, that they will become, no doubt unconsciously, complicit in the continuing promulgation of male supremacy. This doubt arises from something apparently, and perhaps actually, trivial: their appearance. I am not familiar with all the women bishops in the Church of England, but those I have seen very often, albeit not exclusively, present themselves very closely in appearance with their male colleagues – short hair, no apparent make-up, trouser suits, clerical shirts/collars. Some of this may, of course, be practical, and, for those who use them, ceremonial robes worn during acts of worship and/or at appropriate public occasions can diminish the difference between male and female clergy - although at the same time emphasising the division of people into clerical and lay - but that's a topic for another time! But I regret that more of us who are women clergy don't feel the confidence to express our womanliness/femininity alongside and integral to our calling to serve the divine and the human: it doesn't have to be all ribbons and curls!

I would not wish to see a matriarchy established, but rather a balance, and more than that: I long for the day when our gender is the least important factor in our relationships, especially our public ones, but that we are all more concerned with each other's skills and abilities, and our qualities such as honesty and kindness.