I haven't given this in depth thought, but I don't think we can excuse the cultural and symbolic reference here at 1 Timothy as to WHY a woman would be silent in the congregation before men nor not be allowed to exercise authority over a man:
1 Tim 2: 11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression. 15 However, she will be kept safe through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and sanctification along with soundness of mind.
Verse 13 addresses a formality; Adam was created first, thus he deserves the first place, just as we respect our parents. Then verse 14 reminds of us how sin entered into the world with the help of a woman, who as thoroughly deceived. So women, out of her role is paying for that via these rules. But these rules might have deeper significance in a practical way, just because of the uneven nature of men and women.
This doesn't challenge women being saints or even a prophetess, but these are formal rules of custom just so that there is increased order.
If we extrapolate this further, God did make women the so-called "weaker vessel." And what does that mean? That she's less intelligent? Certainly not. Often women are the smarter ones. Less strong? Perhaps, but most things men can do women can also do, right? But there are some thiings that are given to men that are not given to women.
For instance, the honor of childbearing is that of a woman. But by nature she can only give birth to one or two babies at a time and that child is dependent upon her for nursing and nurturing. Thus a woman with say five husbands makes little sense. What can she do with five hustands or fifteen? She's still only going to be able to have one gestation every nine months, presumably only the child of one of her husbands. On the other hand, a man can marry 500 women and get them all pregnant. Thus to exaggerate, you only need one man who could inseminate 80 million women if necessary. But 80 million million and one woman will not provide the same result. Given 500,000 and 1 individuals, you could theoretically double the population in just one year if you had just one man and 500,000 women, but you could never double the population with 500,000 men and just one woman.
Look at the practical aspects as well. Women consider themselves equal to men in many things and they are, indeed. But what happens when she gets pregnant? She's going to have to take a leave of absence, that's what. Men don't have to. They can have 50 women at home pregnant and raising children and he can be free to get 50 more women pregnant.
So for all the equality issues vs the misogynist slant (ignoring the Eden situation even for a moment), this should send a message to women about their "role"; not respect to the universe, not respective to God, or even prophesying, but in her relationship with men. That is, the nature of things with respect to the role of procreation, requires the man to be respected, which is an absolute respect.
On the other side of the coin though, since women do take this "lesser" role, men are told to love them and respect them and appreciate this. He's not supposed to abuse her.
Finally, this apparently is only temporary, an arrangement of sexuality to enable procreation. It's a wonderful arrangement, who can replace the love of a mother? BUT, once you reach population zero growth, which we will if everyone left on the earth has everylasting life, then there will be no more need for children, or marriage, or "sexism." One passage in the Bible says that those resurrected will neither marry nor be given into marriage but will be like the angels in heaven. The angels in heaven are androgynous and are in an open marriage; they can have sex with another other angel they want. If something similar will transpire for humankind, then everyone will be unisexual, or duosexual, with sexual characteristics of both sexes, perhaps sans the reproductive parts (i.e. gonads, ovaries and uterus). The sexual organs will just be for lovemaking. But the point being, the inequality between men and women is only temporary, just to get the population produced. After that, women will be equal to everyone else. Everyone will be more angelic (gay, androgynous).
But in the meantime, just for the sake of order and respect for this arrangement, apparently women were requested not to speak out in the congregation.
Now there's another aspect of this to consider. Some women might be offended that they are not considered as good as leaders as men. Problem is, there are sort of two types of women. Clearly some women would make great leaders, but they are very similar to men when they do so. They would make great leaders. But, there's the other type of woman. The one that likes having her nails done. THAT woman. I think the two types are sort of addressed in the wonderful movie by Barbra Streisand called "Yentl", where Streisands plays the role of a woman who loves the law and study and in order to do so pretends to be a man. Sure she falls for the cute guy like any other woman, but she draws a beautiful contrast to that type of woman with the role of Hadass (played beautifully by the beautiful Amy Irving) who was in every way the other type of woman. This is also a good lesson reference because it is in the context of the woman in Jewish culture. This woman was not expected to think, have conversatiosn with men, but had the role of fussing and tampering her man. But Streisand didn't make her the so-called misogynistic "dumb blond" kind of woman, but a woman so beautiful and special in her own way, completely fulfilled in her own role. So one might question would that type of woman be an effective leader over men?
My feeling is that because you can't separate the two, that the cutomary rule assigns women to a non-leadership role when men in groups are concerned, like in the congregation.
In conclusion, it is clear women are quite capable as leaders. Lots of women in modern times have proven that, such as every great Queen of England or Prime Minister Thatcher, right? So there's no question they can do the job. But that's politics. The spiritual congregation is a little more delicate, and a little closer to the historical and spiritual history of Eden, I think, and very much part of the marriage and family, and I think that rule is there so that women would not take over the authority of men. That that they couldn't, but so that they wouldn't.
Fact is, there are some women much stronger and capable than men. But the battlefield is no place for a pregnant woman.
Women have a very, very beautiful role and deserve love and respect for that role. But the fact is, men were put in charge for good cause, and that cause needs to be respected. At least for now.
Just my two cents and I apologize if I offended anyone.
Now, before so many accuse me of being misogynistic, I'd just like to add this. I'm transgendered. I lived as a woman for three three years in my early 20's. I know what it is like to be stopped by a police officer as a man or as a woman by a male officer. There is a huge difference. Women complain about not having "power" but they have an enormous amount of power through their sexuality and how that sexuality addresses the weaknesses in men. I was on my way to Vegas once to see Diana Ross, dressed as a woman at the time, and I guess I was speeding a little. I got stopped by an officer who was the sweetest guy. He was concerned I was a woman traveling alone; asked if I needed help. Charming. No ticket. He probably would have volunteered to escort me to Vegas! Wonderful! That's a lot of power just being a young woman, perhaps an attractive woman. That's a lot of cultural influence and power. Had I been just a black man speeding in his Thunderbird, that white officer probably would have just given me a ticket.
So I think probably, what someone said about Paul being "afraid of women" has to be considered too. The tenuous and love-hate relationship between the sexes brings so much of it's own baggage that maybe it was just best not to introduce those complications into the congregation. But at the same time, that RULE acknowledges that women certainly are not inferior to men in any way with respect to the invitation into the kingdom. On that basis, they were equal with the men. So if you wanna go that route, that "men" can't really handle everything women have to dish out, then that's fine and quite valid. They probably can't. But I guess the Christian congregation was not quite up for "Eden revisited." We have to admit that women are discriminated against, many times, because of men's fears and insecurities. It's unfortunate, but...
JC