Huldah was a contemporary of Jeremiah. People didn't tell her to sit down and be quiet, because "we already have a male prophet". Her gift and calling would have been recognized BY MALES IN AUTHORITY as legitimate and God-given, and she would have proven herself IN THE CONGREGATION before she would have been allowed to be considered a prophet(ess).

Church tradition calls Mary Magdalene "the apostle to the apostles", since she was the first to witness to them of the Resurrection. In the New Testament, Mary is given the ultimate honor in giving birth to the Messiah and Anna prophesies over the Christ child and His family. Another Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus, is honored by Jesus for her choice to sit at the feet of the Rabbi (something that only males were generally allowed to do, because it meant that they themselves were in training to be rabbis/teachers) rather than to do her traditionally-ascribed duty as hostess. In Acts and in the Epistles, Priscilla instructs Apollos (and is seriously considered by some as the possible author of the book of Hebrews); Junia is called a "notable apostle" (Romans 16:7); Phoebe, as a leader (diakonos) of the church at Cenchrea, is personally entrusted to deliver Paul's letter to the Romans (16:11,27).

Why would Paul place women in positions of great responsibility and then (SEEM TO) say in 2 or 3 isolated verses that they are not even to open their mouths, much less to teach a male. Unless the Bible utterly contradicts itself, there MUST be cultural considerations or very specific situations that led Paul to make certain exclusions at different times. If he is at all consistent in his preaching and practice, these apparent contradictions CANNOT BE general prohibitions against women speaking or leading.

Maybe I ought to be silent on a women's board, but I feel that Woodie would agree with me that it's God's gift and calling -- discovered through proper study -- that ought to be our bottom line; not gender.