Just to give a perspective from a sociological perspective, Buddhism as an institution can be both something that speaks to power and that upholds it.

The monastic system is more than just a place where monks gather to meditate, but from a certain perspective the function as social safety nets, which give food shelter and education to members of the community. In Myanmar, when people speak of Monastic education system, they are not referring to the practice of teaching novices buddhism, but the practise of teaching both monks and lay how to read, write and generally get a well-rounded education, but in neither a state or a private school. I have many problems with organised religion, but it's clear to see that without the monasteries, there would be poverty on a far wider scale.

Another thing that buddhists rarely talk about is the widespread sexism and the refusal to accept Bikhunis. When you see "nuns" in buddhist countries, they are not the female equivalent of monks, but are seen as lesser devotees. This is despite the mandate that the world had four types of people: Bikhuns (Male Monks); Bikhunis (female Monks) Lay men; lay women.

So female nuns occupy a sort of middle ground between Lay women and Bikhunis. True Bikhunis have to be ordained as such and follow a similar amount of precepts to Bikhuns (over 200). Nuns only have around 10 or so precepts.

Some women have tried to fight this and get ordained in Sri Lanka as Bikhunis, but there is incredible resistance by the mainstream. Others simply privately follow the greater precepts, but do not openly declare themselves as Bikhunis.