Ah, Jewish prayer. Let's start from the beginning.
Our G-d
The grammatical structure of the Hebrew language creates a problem with "G-d language." Hebrew has no neuter. (Even the Hebrew word for parent is a masculine noun.) So it's either G-d Himself or G-d Herself. There's no Oneself.
Intellectually, it works, but on an emotional level, my personal feeling is that, once you start calling G-d "He" one minute and "She" the next, well, it just doesn't sound as if you're talking about the same Being, which is a bit of a problem for a monotheistic religion. So "B'ruchah, Aht," the feminine form of "Baruch Atah," (Praised are You), just doesn't feel right to me.
B'ruchah Aht, Shechina, Praised are You, Hashem's Spirit (or however one translates Shechina, a feminine noun) doesn't feel right, either—unless there's something in the Kabbalistic (Jewish mystical) tradition of which I'm unaware, we Jews are not in the habit of praying to G-d's Spirit separately.
Our Ancestors
Here's a quote from page 298 of Entering Jewish Prayer, by Reuven Hammer (reviewed here):
"Suggestions have been made that there be more feminine references in the prayers through the inclusion of the mothers along with the fathers. In some cases this is not a radical change, but in others, such as the opening section of the Amida, it is. Here the objection is twofold: first, that the line is a specific quotation from the Bible. When God reveals Himself to Moses at the burning bush, He says, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Exod. 3:6). The mothers do not appear in any such quotation. The second theological objection is that God "chose" the fathers specifically, granting them a unique blessing, which was passed from father to son, but not the mothers, so that the factual basis for mentioning them is lacking. To include them in that context requires a rewriting of sacred history. The problem is not one of how we view the role of women and their place in current Jewish practice, but one of preserving the integrity of a historical tradition. This problem is not easy to solve, but it is important that we be aware of it and develop sensitivity to it."
So since Hashem, as portrayed in the Tanach/Bible, did not mention our Mothers when He introduced Himself to Moshe, and did not "choose" them, (gee thanks, G-d), we're not allowed to honor them, either? My apologies to the author, but I'm not impressed with his "sensitivity."
Ourselves
"Ashrei ish sheh-yishma l'mitzvotecha," Happy is the man who hears Your commandments." This is a quote from part of the blessing after the Sh'ma that's said shortly before the Amidah in the Shacharit (Morning) service. Since there is no footnote to that sentence in the ArtScroll siddur (prayer book), I assume that that sentence was written by the rabbis (whoever "the rabbis" are, in this case). How fascinating. Ya know, instead of the word "ish," they could have chosen the word "adam," which is as close to the word "human" or "person" as Hebrew gets, to the best of my knowledge. But no, they just had to pick one of the Hebrew words that means "man," thereby forcing those of us who don't fit that description to reinterpret. As usual. [Grumble.]
Our "clothing"
I put that word in quotes because some say that, since the hand tefilla is described as an "ot" (rhymes with "oat"), a sign, and the head tefilla is described as "totafot”—I 'm not sure anyone really knows what "totafot" means—tefillin are not garments.
A tallit (prayer shawl), on the other hand, most certainly is a garment, and is described as such in the Sh'ma.
So let me get this straight: When the rabbis of the Talmudic era were compiling the basics of the siddur, they chose, as perhaps the most important quotations in the entire prayer book, three paragraphs two of which refer to "garments" for which, even in Talmudic times, there were discussions about whether women should wear them or not. How many women do you know who bind tefillin as a sign upon their hand and use them as "totafot" between their eyes? And when the Sh'ma tells us to look at the fringe in order to remember and perform Hashem's commandments, what are we women supposed to look at? My half of the Jewish people has to take half of the Sh'ma, arguably the most important Biblical quote in the entire siddur, metaphorically.
Our "privilege"
Courtesy of an anonymous commenter to this post :
"The beracha women recite, "she-asani kirtzono" ["who has made me in accordance with His will"] is nearly a thousand years newer than the other berachot, which date to the 3rd or 4th century. "
According to my anonymous commenter, the beracha/brachah/blessing that men recite, "she-lo asani isha" ["who has not made me a woman"], is a thousand years older than the corresponding brachah for women. Exactly what brachah were women expected to recite in the intervening thousand years?
Or did it take a thousand years for it to occur to any liturgy-writing rabbi that we women might actually wish to use a prayer book?
Conclusion
For lack of an alternative, I've come to the conclusion that, much as I love the siddur and davvening (the prayer book and praying), fundamentally, the siddur was written by men for men. We women are just the folks behind the mechitza, or home taking care of the kids, literally out of sight and out of mind. To quote (to the best of my recollection) a rabbi interviewed in Tamar Ross's Expanding the Palace of Torah (reviewed here), "Women are guests in the synagogue. They are welcome guests, but they're guests." Given the structure of the siddur, we hardly need to be reminded.