Dharmas are descriptive not prescriptive.
When we speak of male or female, we are generally speaking talking symbolically. No woman represents "pure" womanhood, however that archetype might be expressed culturally, and therefore no standard behavior for "woman" [or "man"] can be imposed, other than those that are a desideratum for basic civilization. And those are universal.
Dharmas are descriptive first, prescriptive after the fact.
Gender is the most important dharma or influence on conditioned consciousness, and the biases it produces are more likely to be invisible to the conditioned soul identifying as a male.
But having said that, when we speak of male or female, we are generally speaking talking symbolically. No woman represents "pure" womanhood, however that archetype might be expressed culturally, and therefore no standard behavior for "woman" [or "man"] can be _imposed_, other than those that are a desideratum for basic civilization.
Generalities can be described, typologies and classifications made, but this is meant to guide observation and self-knowledge more than anything else.
As to whether women becoming gurus would develop the same characteristics as those ascribed to men taking that role is one that remains open, as we do not have enough experience.
My own current thinking is that the modern "institutional" model for preaching is a primarily masculine approach and remains largely devoted to a culture of the heroic mood.
The feminine approach is more organic, community and relationship based.
This latter approach is truer to the spirit of the Goswamis of both the Vrindavan and Bengal variety. Preaching takes place one by one in the crucible of personal relationships. Prema can only be spread through prema. Devotees who cultivate prema in theory and practice become premi bhaktas, loving human beings, who are hopefully smart at the same time and have a welcoming community spirit.
(Facebook Dec 26 2013)
Comments