For his time Paul was following the general view in life that women were treated only slightly better than slaves and were to be treated at the whim of men. Whilst modern society can declare that Paul, like many men of the time and for several centuries after, was probably a misogynist (although being phylogynyst on the sly was also quite prevalent) I think it is rather erroneous to suggest that what society has achieved today can be swept aside by one misrepresented principle. It is only really in the last 100 years or so that we have stopped palming our daughters and sisters off to the �highest bidder� for marriage, so let�s not go backwards.
In any event, I think you are incorrect at making that great leap of faith. In the early Hellenistic Jewish-Christian church, through the baptism creed women became equal with men by dissolving their traditional relations with men as wives. Thereby they were also freed to teach and preach in local assemblies and as traveling evangelists.
Paul accepted this activity of women when he joined the church that used this baptismal creed. He continued to assume that women could speak in Christian worship assemblies, lead local churches, and travel as evangelists, as is evident from his references in his epistles to women engaging in these roles. I think his main concern was to do with the vow of celibacy, which is a completely separate issue.
Having read this post and your one on African drums, I think your opinions do seem to create a little imbroglio for yourself Oakleaf. But you have a right to those opinions of course.