I believe it is more complex thn that, the presenc of females may indeed impede certain vocations, but that is not to say that some mens' vocations, or rather, the belief in such, might not well be impeded.
But this? say it, and say it again, shout it.
Beyond the vocations issue, we come to a more thorny problem.....When women claim a more central role [in charge of liturgy], we frequently see a slide into lower and more culturally idiosyncratic practices. It generally starts with campy banners and popular-style hymnody, but may end with synthesizers and scantily-clad liturgical dancers. These liturgies are not beautiful or uplifting. They’re more like a never-ending hug from a grasping, obsequious aunt.This, on t'other hand,
I have sometimes heard this sort of liturgy referred to as “feminine” or “effeminate.” I don’t especially like that, because I don’t believe that bad liturgy is really representative of what women have to offer. I’m a woman, and I hate schlocky liturgy.
Still, there’s no doubt that women are more apt to produce bad liturgy. Perhaps we could say that it is “feminine” in the same way that pornography is “masculine”: it shows us some characteristic defects of one sex in particular.Yes, there is, there is doubt.
We need to remember, women began to have even some small control over liturgical celebrations, (excepting those in communities of female monastics,) at the utter nadir of liturgical fastidiousness, of taste in popular expressions of cult culture, and of aesthetics generally