Maybe I should have left that part out because it is missing the real point here. The point is God made man to be the head of the women, something popular cultural and PC utterly despises.
It is part of the mistaken idea that mankind has to establish itself apart from God, or at best through making use of a relationship with God when it is convenient.
The honor that women get in this scenario is not a lesser honor, it is a different kind of honor. Men are not appointed to gestate babies or (usually) be the more nurturing influence in a family. Many of the attributes of God as expressed in biblical Hebrew appear in the feminine gender. I asked a rabbi once (though I am Christian now) why we never called God, “she” — and he was wise enough to remember this fact. When referring to the Creator, though when push comes to shove we call the Creator “He” — we see something that transcends the human idea of gender. Gender was needed because one sex was too limited a thing to be able to express the character of God. Imagine trying to do a piano and violin duet into which the composer poured his heart and soul, with only the piano, or only the violin.
“The point is God made man to be the head of the woman...”
As you mentioned, the rebellion against this truth is 6000 years old. I love Proverbs, and rebellious, sexually immoral women are well represented there as a threat and a vexation.
None of this innocence nonsense that is granted to women today.
The head of the women implies that he should be the example for her to look up to.
If the example doesn’t live up to the call, and the call is from God, it’s not the callers problem.
If the woman doesn’t follow the example - it’s her choice. But if the example is very compelling - daily and in real life. Why would not the earth orbit around the sun? It’s the path of least resistance.