Gen 3 vs. Gen 1 is a theme that seems to confuse the metaphor-challenged atheist and it seems that these two versions of the Creation are challenging you, too.
Gen 1:27,28 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Mat 19:4-9 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”
He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
Every human is created in the image of God. Am I not God’s temple and doesn’t He dwell in me as He does in my husband? I know Whom I trust for my reconciliation to the Lord, I know Who circumcised me, Who covers me, in Whom I have life rather than death, Whose Spirit dwells next to mine, Who is the “Head of all rule and authority” to me long before I became my husband’s wife.
And we know that Corinthians 11 is unique because it opens by speaking of traditions:
1Co 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
1Co 11:2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.
1Co 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
We understand that we don’t really understand what Paul meant when he said that a woman should have power over her own head for the sake of the angels. We should understand that Jesus prayed in the Temple, that he most likely used a prayer shawl, and it was not a shame for Him.
However, those of us who have looked into the original as best as we can, understand the depth of the meanings of the words kephale, “head” and doxa, “glory.” We should go out in front, and reflect the image of God in worship and submission to one another. We certainly believe that the whole is of God.
Because we also know Christ’s teaching about submission: loving and willing submission doesn’t make anyone “subordinate,” that we should submit one to another, and try to make ourselves the least, not the greatest. Christ showed He was one with the Father in submitting to His will. We are one in the One, different members in the body “holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.”
BTW, you haven’t explained whether women with alopecia from disease or chemotherapy are shamed by being bald, and can’t pray.
Nothing challenging about it. There are two versions of Gensis, and one goes into greater detail how God created man and a woman. St. Paul simply says that man was created to the glory of God and then the woman was made to the glory of man. Thus man is "senior" to the woman in order of creation. And we know very well how seniority figured throughout history when it came to inheritance and blame. After all, we blame Adam, not Eve for the fall, because he was "older" or senior even though the sin is really Eve's first and foremost.
But it seems to me you are having an issue with St. Paul and are turning it into an issue with me. I don't really care one way or another. The Bible is clear that a woman should be covered, and I am willing to allow that long hair on a woman constitutes 'covering,' as Paul says, and by the same token the men are considered 'uncovered' because of their short hair. But, then short-haired women should be covered as their hair would be considered uncovered as is the case with men.
The rest of your post speaks of spiritual equality in love. There is no disagreement there. The disagreement is how we present ourselves in church and Apostle Paul (presumably speaking under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) says without any confusion that women should be covered in church. He then proceeds to explain that long hair constitutes covering, but short hair or baldness does not. This leaves no doubt that short-haired and bald women ought to be covered.
You are asking me about women who have lost their hair due to medical conditions. The same applies. Covering is not a punishment. It is a biblical commandment. I don't know which part of this you don't understand. Just as God decided to make one of us male and one female (He could have made us bisexual so we can fertilize ourselves like the plants do), and that one of us will bear children. Is being a woman then a "punishment" by God because outwardly and inwardly we are different by God's making? God makes a distinction in tghe way we look and in the way awe are to present ourselves in church. Feminists and men-wannabes seem to have a problem with God.
Address it with Him. In the meantime, if you choose not to follow what the Bible states in no uncertain terms, then just say so. This has nothing to do with how God loves us. We love our male and female children, our older and younger children all the same, but we don't pretend that males are females and females are males for the sake of 'fairness.'