Women's Role in the Church: Shave Their Heads

This post is somewhat of a continuation of what Sydney posted earlier. I have contemplated what she said quite a bit and want to keep this chain of commentary going. This subject is actually quite like the subjects of the articles we read, because I feel that one of the biggest struggles in religion is finding that line between what is God’s will and what is societal, and where and how and why and when society becomes more powerful than God in our lives. I feel that in every subject—be it marketing Jesus, or loosing principles to consumerism and capitalism, or my subject, women’s role in the church—we have to figure out the core of what God wants, and ask ourselves if it is more important that we follow a checklist or if we actually follow His will with our hearts.
Ok here is what I have been thinking for a while—just my thoughts mind you. Ever since I read Sydney’s blog on women’s role in the church today, I keep thinking that at the time of writing of the verses on women keeping silent in the church, women pretty much kept silent everywhere else too. A grandmother was generally honored less than a son, unless she was very lucky to have been blessed with a good family. A normal woman had no rights in ancient society unless she had a husband, and no rights at all if he left her or decided to beat her every day were he so inclined. As much as we may not like to admit our "barbaric" roots, this was still what was the societal norm in the time of Christ. (And may I mention did not change until only within the last couple of centuries, and still remains the same in much of the world.) With this point in mind, that women were treated as describe above and expected to accept their role in society, it seems ridiculous to me to think that Christianity could have possibly been a viable religion with women as its head leaders in ancient times. Let me use a crude example from our not so distant past—what if slaves were the heads of Christianity in America during the pre-civil war times? It simply would not have worked to further Christianity in the world as a whole.
This is my opinion: Paul forbade women to take on active vocal roles in the leadership of worship in the early church in order to "keep the peace" between Christianity and the society it was set in. Thus I believe this law is societal in nature.
If you have an issue with saying that this forbidding of women's activity in worship is societal, then let us ignore it. Lets embrace all directions of the New Testament, and try to do worship and behave exactly as the first century Christians were instructed to. We would be prophesying and speaking in tongues, not to mention selling everything that we own in order to form communes. By Paul's instructions, it would be okay to own slaves as long as we treated them well (which likely means giving them at least one meal a day and the opportunity to buy their freedom when they are too old to work anymore). We would also make our women cover their head during worship, and if they do not then we would shave all of their heads (see 1 Cor. 11:3-10). We should also require that men uncover their heads during prayer and prophesy, and have short hair, and count it to them as sin if they do not follow this direct instruction from God's ordained writer Paul. Do you know why this is likely something that you have either never heard of or heard preached on? Because long ago, in a century far far away, a group of "righteous" male leaders decided that this rule, so bluntly stated in the instpired word of God, is based on a society that they were not a part of –and thus it did not apply to Christians anymore. This whole societal-based interpretation is something that is not new—it is accepted and widespread.
All of these examples are in the Bible, believe it or not—and it seems very hypocritical to claim that we as the Church of Christ "are just trying to do church like the first century Christians did church", if we are not set on following every single guideline and example of behavior to the T—that means including absolutely everything.
Let me ask you: Is it okay to have slaves today? Paul obviously is okay with it, thus it is not sin to force another soul to do your bidding for their entire lives without the ability to choose if they want to. Is it a sin for a woman to pray with her head uncovered? In Paul's eyes, I would say that if she did that she would be going against his teaching, and thus guilty of sin—as would the man who prayed with his hat on or dreadlocks flowing—which would likely need to be repented of and confessed. Read your Bible—this is what is in it.
So I have to ask myself—since in our world today it is obviously accepted as a sin to have a slave and not a sin for a woman to have a bare-head in prayer—why is it that in this same world a woman can be president but she cannot teach or preach or lead singing or pray or serve communion or even ask questions in worship? If you can give me a straight faced, no-bull answer that is not based on the way your grandparents did church or some societal brainwashing scheme, I would love to hear it.