While the phrase comes from a TV show, that notion of species evolution helps unpack a complex reality like women in religion. Because religion has been deeply embedded in the evolution of the human species for at least the past 50,000 years, I think it ought to be viewed from the perspective of perpetually changing human experience. The millennial dimension allows us to avoid simplistic judgments about women and religion.

As expressions of social polity, both lived and hoped for, religions set markers on human behavior. It would be a mistake, however, to think that religions (I’m talking about much more than the Judeo-Christian expressions here) INVENT such markers. Nature has made men and women with gender differences, both physical and spiritual. Religions codify expectations from each and unify them as statements about humanity. Because each gender is relatively incomplete on its own, religions usually promote the notion that human sexuality fulfills a larger, spiritual need for completeness.

The words in the Hebrew Genesis say God created humanity with one part male and the other part female (Gen. 1:27) and the concept is repeated in many religions. Of course, if you are a polytheist, you can have goddesses fighting in heaven for the same feminist space on earth. But one should have compassion for the sisters facing a monotheistic system whose notion of gender equality comes from complementarity rather than from competition.

The problem with institutionalized religions is that they are shaped by a given cultural landscape. Once our species evolves into a new and different set of circumstances, the old wisdom might not be so wise any longer. Thus, for instance, Muhammad fashioned a liberalizing code of conduct for women of his time, most likely reflecting his admiration for the virtues of his first wife, Khadijah. Muslim women were assured the right to ask for divorce, to possess material goods and to be given a separate space for worship distinct from that of men. At the time of writing in the 7th century CE, these were generally liberalizing innovations. But with the march of time, societies evolve and what was liberating in the past, can become constraining in the present.

Mutatis mutandis, virtually the same thing has occurred in virtually every religion with canonical scriptures. For example, St. Bridget used the nun’s cloister to keep men and bishops out of womanly space: centuries later, the cloister is used by men to keep women out of worldly affairs.

Many religious norms governing women’s behavior simply formulate good order and do not have the same force about life and death matters as, for instance, the Ten Commandments. Wearing head coverings is really only cultural residue: making it into doctrine is as silly as placing the death penalty upon driving on the left side of the street. (If you were in Great Britain, you could be executed for driving on the right side of the street!).

Nonetheless, institutionalized religions all too frequently have blunted theological teachings so that there is no religious distinction between God’s will and trivial human cultural customs. By standing in the way of religion’s evolution, they keep religious women “frozen” in time. Of course, we shouldn’t succumb to the idea that things will never change for women within religion: that would be accepting the erroneous notions upon which male chauvinism has been founded.

But just as Ice Ages end, changes in the social climate melt away the resistance to innovations in religious organization. We have been stuck in a religious ice age partly because it was only the medical improvements of the second half of the 19th century that allowed most women to be able to live past age 40. For tens of thousands of years before that, childbirth had generally prevented our species from seeing women past menopause. (When they did live to the “glorious years,” older women were usually treated with high respect and/or bestowed with shamanistic powers).

Societies until then had reserved the roles of hunter and soldier for men because males were the more numerous and the more expendable of the species. Hence, when the middle of 19th century rolled around and women lived longer, they faced societies in which men had always inherited the leadership roles derived from military commander and commercial chief. Feminist movements have targeted the out-dated presumptions fairly effectively, and women of faith have not been absent from these crusades.

But the speed of change has accelerated geometrically. Fifty years ago, new technologies of conception altered the inevitable link between sexual exchanges and conception. Most religions are still struggling to match this kind of scientific discovery with appropriate definition of gender roles today. Nonetheless, while we should lament the slowness of religion in making changes, there may also be a blessing here. Sometimes convenient fashion leads us too quickly to abandon things that are tried and true. Filtering new ideas through religious traditions is no more of a bad idea than say, three separate branches of government held together in a system of checks and balances.