paul. valid or not?

^{1 Corinthians 11:7-16
7} A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. ⁸ For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; ⁹ neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. ¹⁰ It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. ¹¹ Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. ¹² For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
 ¹³ Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? ¹⁴Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, ¹⁵ but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. ¹⁶ If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
------------------------------
Now to even ask this question is heresy to many people. But hear me out. I was reading through hundreds of verses in the Bible as I write a paper on my core values and beliefs and I came across this passage. In the TNIV/NIV it is Titled "On Covering the Head in Worship." As I read this  Paul first says woman came from man and man came from God. In the first couple of verses it seems as if man is better than woman. At least how I am interpreting this from Paul. Saying that man is in the image and glory of God and then woman comes is in glory of man, not God. Then later in the same paragraph Paul then says that man is not independent of woman after all, nor woman of man. Actually both come from God. Then it later says that men should cut their hair because it does not glorify God, it is moreover a disgrace to the man, but for women it is her glory to have long hair. (I'm screwed then) I do not seem to understand then what Paul is saying, he seems to contradict himself. This isn't the only place. Most of us know the various other sections of Pauls writings where he says that people shouldn't get married(1 Cor 7), boast (1 Cor 5:6, 13:3, Eph 2:9, and numerous other verses), or greed.
(ie...Corinthians 5:9-13  ⁹ I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— ¹⁰ not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. ¹¹ But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with any who claim to be fellow believers but are sexually immoral or greedy, idolaters or slanderers, drunkards or swindlers. With such persons do not even eat.
 ¹² What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? ¹³ God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”) 
Didn't Jesus actually eat with these people? And if we reject those in the church - won't they just leave and feel rejected from the church anyways. Where does love, justice, mercy, or forgiveness come into play?
Now wait, shouldn't you tell me that I need to take these verses in context? Not everything you read in the Bible is literal Andy. You can't take what Paul wrote in 60 AD and assume it means word for word what it does today. After all the Bible has been translated numerous times to get to the English language. (at least that what most of us in the US read it in). Ok, if I am to take these verses in context - such as, who the author is, who the author is writing too, when the author wrote this, etc... then how can we claim such strong demeaning insults at people based off Paul's writings. I am thinking specifically of equality for all people, men as head of his wife, women in leadership positions or pastors in the church and homosexuality. It seems these areas get pulled out of Paul's writings and taken literally, but other areas do not. This just seems very inconsistent to me. How do we know the word homosexuality means the same thing then as it does today. I have read many times where the meaning differs then from now. How do we know that women today can't lead? Maybe women had no rights back in the day of Paul and weren't afforded the opportunity to have been instructed or taught how and what to preach/teach. Many men weren't afforded this opportunity either, but they aren't included in this text. Could this mean that those who didn't have proper instruction to teach/preach shouldn't do so? Well if women have those rights today, doesn't that then give them the authority to preach and teach today? If God calls them to this, why should she be silenced because of what Paul said some 2000 years ago, in a completely different culture/context/time than today in many parts of the world. (i understand this is still the case in some cultures that women still have no rights, but not in the state and so many other parts of the world). Could submitting to each other in marriage or even outside of marriage mean something different today? Does the submission for women in Eph 5 actually a literal statement from Paul? What about later in the section when he actually says he's not talking about marriage but Christ and the church? Or earlier in the sections that says above all we should submit ourselves to Christ.

I am not sure where I stand on Pauls' teachings. Many of the things I read from him go against the way in which Jesus lived his life. What am I to do with that? Even though many of these books were written before the Gospels, Jesus still lived before Paul and Paul attributes his works and ministry to Jesus/God. Then why do they seem so contradictory to Jesus' ministry? HELP!!!!!!!!!