When Jesus rose from the dead, the first people who saw Him were women. This shows me that he thought women were rather important because, in that time and that place, women were not exactly taken seriously. The fact that He showed that much trust in women is a reason why I have no problem with women as priests. It's the theology of the individual women that bother me (unfortunately, most women who become priests are left-wing nutjobs). Just as there are men whose theology I find offensive and whose qualifications for the priesthood I question.
I used to be an Episcopalian, so I know what I'm talking about here.
You have no problem with female priests in principle, and you've met one who's pretty good. O.K. Now let's look more closely.
1. Jesus was not at all afraid to defy tradition. He did it every day (eating with tax collectors and prostitutes, not washing his hands before he ate, working on the Sabbath), right up to (and especially) the most sacred Jewish tradition by stating publicly that he was the Son of God. No question that he valued women highly, more highly than was usual at the time, but he valued everyone highly. That has nothing to do with who he called to be a priest (Apostle). If he had wanted to make a woman one of his Apostles, public disapproval would not have mattered one bit to him. But he did not. And there's a reason for that.
2. If you belong to a liturgical church (e.g. Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran) in which the central act of the worship service is the Eucharist, there is a scriptural, traditional, and ontological problem with a female celebrant. The priest is alter Christus, another Christ, a stand-in if you will. And Christ chose to be male. He is the husband of the Church, which is the bride of Christ. When a woman stands in that place, it's a gender-bending event.
3. As a practical matter, the trend you observe is absolute. Female priests are overwhelmingly if not exclusively liberal in their theology and in their politics. They are Democrats or Socialists, pro-abortion, pro homosexual agenda, and anti-tradition. They are iconoclasts. If you let them in, they destroy your church. Just ask the Episcopalians.
4. For 28 years, I was in the ECUSA parish that was the training parish for the diocese. Every ordained priest in the diocese was assigned to our church for a year or more right after ordination. With ONE exception, none of the female ordinands were even remotely qualified to serve. They couldn't preach, but they couldn't even run a parish because they didn't know how to lead or reach a consensus. They talked, and talked, and talked, but never got anywhere. I think it's because they didn't really WANT to be priests. Some were making a political statement; some were trying to escape their own demons; some were frankly out lesbians who sought to "change" the church. Even the one who was a decent preacher and had pretty good administrative talent (she went straight from her service in that parish to a large parish of her own, which shows how thin the talent is) was outrageously liberal in theology and politics, and voted and preached in favor of the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire.
I think you're wishing for something that will never happen as a practical matter and is theologically impossible. And what you do get is very destructive.
"When Jesus rose from the dead, the first people who saw Him were women. This shows me that he thought women were rather important because, in that time and that place, women were not exactly taken seriously. The fact that He showed that much trust in women is a reason why I have no problem with women as priests."
If you can get women priests from that, then you can get anything from the Bible.