Dear GiC,
It is essentially a pastoral text that makes some (very poor) theological references as support, but is most dangerous if used as a theological basis, implying either Arian or Ebionite thought.
Well, we tend to forget the dual nature of Christ, humanity and divinity. In humanity, He is equal to us, and "His Father is greater than Him" so to speak. In divinity, "He and the Father are one," and thus "equal with Him" and "greater than us."
So, this text, taken in correct Christological interpretation, cannot be poor. Christ became the mediator by taking humanity as Himself, and made the two into one. While we can't become gods in essence, He gave us the Divine Grace to become Gods, and by this, He elevates us, we who are worthless. That's why you see some sort of heirarchy, from woman to man to Christ to God. Woman is equal to man who is equal to Christ in humanity who is equal to God in divinity. Let's also not forget Christ willingly submitted Himself to the Father even though He was equal. Arius misinterpreted this and said Christ must have not been consubstantial with the Father. Ebionites must have taken this further to say Christ is above all mankind, but nowhere near like the Father. But proper Christology disproves both and makes this verse, to me, neither merely pastorial, nor weak in a theological sense. One only needs Christological clarification to understand what St. Paul meant (not to mention he still did write "neither male or female").
Which tells me nothing about why the priest must be male, as I said state that a male is 'more in the image of Christ' or 'in the image of Christ in a way that a female is not' is to deny the Image of Christ that is equally present in Male and Female, it is blasphemy against the Creative Energies of God.
And as I said, it does not deny the female the Image of God in her as much as man does. What I am saying is that this verse in Revelations makes all people, including laity, "priests and kings." Protestants misinterpret this verse, which is why they don't have the Melchizedek priesthood heirarchy of the Church. We do, and this does not deny the laity of their role as "priests and kings." It only gives the "special calling" to men.
So, when we say that men only can be the icon of Christ via priesthood, that does not exclude women from being icons of Christ in the same fashion that "special callings" excluded from the laity do not deny the laity's role as "kings and priests."
Unless, there's a new argument to the table, I'll have to say "UNCLE!"
God bless.
Mina