I'm a year behind in this conversation started in 2011, but I found many of the  posts so  compelling I couldn't resist joining even with the risk of being too late to be relevant.  

It's curious to me, Melody, you support the feminine voice yet exhort Marlene not to use her "angry voice" because when you use yours it usually isn't heard. You support this strategy evoking the example of Jesus who rarely got angry. This baffles me. While I agree angry voices seem to shut down many conversations, especially when used by women within a patriarchal system, I might imagine Jesus communicating on this topic with an intensity offensive to polite society. I'm wondering how often we, including myself, collude with the oppressors of the feminine voice by using voices devoid of anger? We prefer women in the Christian culture to remain silent, even when we use our words. Dressing our anger with politically correct restraint may give us an audience, but is there a time when we need to use our angry voices because it is the right thing to do? Just because we have earned an audience by our discipline to soften our anger in our speech, have we lost our voice for the sake of being heard?