Moggy: " seeing that the Watchtower insists on the possession of a penis as a prime requirement for being such a formulator of theology, or in other words, a feeder, not eater, of the "spiritual food". "
Watchtower is quite the purveyor of rather twisted misaligned concepts. However, the jest of their poor attempt at a parable is that a 'feeder' is a leader, whereas, an 'eater' is a dependent follower.
I think you also have to bear in mind the status of women at that time. The traditions of submission, not being allowed to speak in some cultures, the subservience, the fact that in many cultures women were considered chattel and property. For a woman to speak out, or to have her own opinion, or to find herself as an influence on others would be acts that might define her "as a male". A woman with any independent thinking or reasoning would be "as a male"; women were not supposed to think, but to only do as they were instructed.
Moggy: "Therefore the female members of the "anointed" during the first century did not "feed" the domestics, they merely ate what was "cooked up" and presumably have not done so in the "modern era either."
If this analogy is coming from WT publications, it really is a piss poor attempt at "parable" designed to conceal what outright plain truthful language could accomplish. Not only that, I do not think it is truthful nor documented with any reliability; it's well known that WT does not publish footnotes or documentation to uphold their faulty ideas. In considering the original quote from the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus said that he himself would teach Mary so that she might be a leader and powerful influence of his teachings. Of course, since these documents were not approved by the Roman political pope god when deciding which books should comprise the official book called the Bible, some religious people turn their eyes away from even considering these sources for possible information and revelations.
It is scriptural that Jesus spent time especially with Mary and Martha in teaching them the principles of his philosophies, and therefore shows that he did not hold the common view of "women not allowed" which dictated the decorum of that era. These telling cameos of his personality convince me that The Gospel of Thomas is very possibly a credible source in some respects. When the apocryphal scripts uphold actions that are shown in Bible scripture, I see this as confirmation, or a 'second witness' as it were.