i'll take this opportunity to post my first paragraph. it's still really rough--i'm not really arguing anything yet. so that's why i think anybody who has questions about it, or thinks of something they wish the paragraph would do that it isn't doing, should probably leave a comment. thanks!

“Thus our Lady is our Mother in whom we are all enclosed and of her born, in Christ: (for she that is Mother of our Saviour is Mother of all that shall be saved in our Saviour;) and our Saviour is our Very Mother in whom we be endlessly borne, and never shall come out of Him” (Revelations 139-140). These words, written by Julian of Norwich, illustrate the impossibility of separating male and female from each other within the context of Christianity, and are indicative of Julian’s struggle to find meaning for women in a religious world that was (and as we will see, still is) so man-centered. Here, Julian first refers to the Virgin Mary as “our Lady” who is “our Mother,” and then, in the same sentence, refers also to Christ as “our Very Mother” out of whom we never “shall come out,” entwining the sexes into one Godly figure of Christ; by bestowing Christ with both male and female identities, Julian not only alters the traditional all-male trinity, but also attempts to find a place for women in the Christian power structure. Julian of Norwich, in writing her Divine Revelations, began a tradition of niche-carving, a tradition that continues today in the writings of Ruether, Kristeva, Clement, and in the lives of ordinary religious women everywhere.

"from the days of Eve to the present time, the aim of man has been to crush her"

Here again, more strong women! Sarah Grimke, though not as crazy (crazy not the right word, but maybe not as well known?) as her sister Angelina, is still quite fervent in her beliefs in her letters on the equality of the sexes and the condition of woman.

what i like about this grimke sister is that she uses letters--writing, that is--to fight back against the man (in this case, literally men). man's own tool is subverted for feminist uses. grimke does, perhaps, join the symbolic order (will lacan ever leave me alone?) by learning the "language" or adopting the language of men, thereby allowing herself access to their world. once she has access she is able to release the deluge of reasons women should not be treated as the currently are. She goes through the Bible, the ultimate patriarchal text, and finds examples of women who are not only strong, but capable and, most importantly, integral agents in the spread and success of Christianity.

She even finds in Paul reasons why it's acceptable for women to preach.

"Here Paul admits the prophesying of women in public assemblies, and, of course, could have had no intention in his Epistle to Timothy to forbid that sort of teaching which stood in connection with the exercise of the gift of prophesy." (1104).

She issues her plea over and over again with different examples:

"Again we repeat that it is our most solemn conviction that the use of a gift of power delgated to the Church as a specialty of the last days has been neglected--a gift which, if properly recognized, would have hastened the latter-day glory." (1105).

What she fights for is total equality, and recognition withing the Church that women have had a place in the lines of christian soldiers, as it were. More militant than any of the other women we've read so far, and, i would argue, perhaps the most persuasive of the others we've read, as well. She doesn't put men down to bring women up (cough cough jane anger), she simply states that putting women down and then saying it's church doctrine doesn't fly, when, in fact, the Bible has all kinds of powerful women if you just look for them.