I think women have been short changed in the past and still in the present to some degree. This might account for how successful some were and are who had or have great gifts or potential and who were or are able to live up to their abilities.
I don't think that just because a woman is called to a ministry that it means that therefore all women should. Maybe that is part of the resistance to acknowleging what women can do. If a woman wants to see herself as subservient and obedient to her husband as lord over her and as the deciding voice that is her perogative. Some men like it that way too with their women having the final say.
I like the partnership idea.
I was reading a quote from Genesis where the bible says "And God blessed THEM (him and HER) and gave THEM (him and HER) DOMINION (not over each other but) over the earth and all that is therein". *Gen. 1:26-28 and 5:2
I know that verses could be thrown back and forth but I consider it comparable to women leaders in history some of which have been great and strong leaders for their countries regardless of their political conservative or more liberal orientations.
Catherine the Great, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher are just a few that come to mind.
Wasn't it a woman that founded Salvation Army?
Wasn't it the men that doubted when Jesus was ressurected? Weren't women often the ones that were sent to deliver some of the most important messages in the past history of the bible?
Maybe Hebrews was or wasn't written by a woman, but whole books are named after women like Esther and Ruth.
I think the point is not to say that women are better but to say that women are EQUALLY able to be ministers, priests, missionaries, and politicians. They are all equally apt to stumble but I think maybe a woman might be all the more careful once in a position of influence because it is harder for HER to get there than for HIM. Not that power is what is being sought, but because a talent and a gift seek ways of being fulfilled and gender shouldn't imo prevent this.