What was the context of this teaching? It is about being heirs according to the promise, not political power. In the Jewish system, in order to come into the covenant, a boy would be circumcised as a baby to continue his role in the covenant, or a proselyte could be circumcised. What about women? Women could be proselytes if their fathers, husbands or owners were circumcised. Male slaves could be preselytes if their owners were circumcised. All of these categories make sense in context.
Does that mean that Paul saw no difference at all between men and women? Is this passage support for transgenderism or gay marriage? Clearly Paul saw some distinctions because he gave husbands one set of instructions and wives another. Wives are to submit to their husbands and reverence their husbands and husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. He also told slaves to submit to their masters and for the circumcised not to seek to be uncircumcised.
Taking this as a political passage does not really fit with the argument Paul makes in context or his other writings.
I am glad we live in a society that does not have slavery (not legally at least). I do see American Christians speaking of owning slaves as a sin, which would condemn certain figures in the Bible. Philemon was a slave owner and Paul said he loved the brethren. He wrote an epistle to talk him into freeing a certain slave, but did not condemn him for owning Onesimus. It was apparently Philemon's right not to free him, but Paul pointed out Philemon's debt, in a sense, to himself. Genesis indicates God blessed Isaac with slaves. A Gentile becoming a slave to a Hebrew was actually a way to enter into covenant with God in Old Testament times, so there was actually a benefit to it. Becoming a proselyte otherwise is not spelled out in the Old Testament, but was something that developed later. Of course, the patriarchs probably did not own slaves who were slaves because of the color of their skin, who were chained for weeks in on nasty stinking ship next to dead bodies and sick people.
'Subjugation of women' is a loaded term. As far as politics go, female suffrage was decades after universal male suffrage depending on the political system we are discussing. For a long time, men had to have property to vote, and it wasn't long after they lifted the restrictions to let the common man vote that women got the vote. The idea of everyone having a vote is sort of an individualistic idea. Most of human society was probably collectivist, especially outside of cities which seem to promote collectivism. Having the head of the home vote is easier for counting votes than having everyone vote. Reading immorality into that is ethnocentric, IMO.
Also, the New Testament tells wives to submit to their husbands, to be subject to their husbands. Is a society recognizing that 'subjugation.' Subjugation sounds so negative. But if society is aligning with Biblical truths, that's a positive thing isn't it? Can you be sure that God doesn't look at our society and see things as out of whack with male and female? Things that went along with 'women's lib' as they used to call it are high divorce rates. Certain feminist ideologies are similar to Marxism and probably partly derived from it. Instead of the oppressed proletariate, 'the patriarchy' is supposedly the historical oppresser of women, who always oppresses them and whatever happens, that can never change, woman are oppressed. They are equal to men in every way, but on the other hand, always oppressed by them. Most of 'the patriarchy' were peasants for much of human history anyway, and did not have politicla power, so it is a curious reinterpretation of history. Europe has had the possibility for women to sit on thrones for about 500 years.
The male-female thing in the US and a lot of western countries has gone way out of balance. When factors like the unpleasantness of the work, danger, and hours worked are accounted for, the wage gap is miniscule, maybe a few percentage points and in some fields women earn more. Women file the majority of no-fault divorces and the courts incentivize this by giving them custody of children in the majority of cases and guaranteeing them a stream of income at the man's expense. Left-wing women tend to vote as a block in favor of issues that benefit women, but men tend not to do the same thing.
So I don't see history as all pointing towards a feminist goal, with God backing it up. If Jesus tarries, I do not necessarily expect governments to follow the feminist line of reasoning, since feminism influence on government is subject to men going along with it, basically subject to the benevolence, or misguided benevolence in some cases, of men. That's a rather shaky foundation.
Make the women wash people's feet? Tell women to be silent in church? The songs of worship from women, silenced? Is that the right thing to do? Is that what God would really want? Even Paul towards the end of his ministry recognized the importance of women in the service of the church.
Anytime a woman was threatened in the Gospels, Christ was there. A God could come to earth anyway He wished, He chose to come through a woman. Women funded His ministry, there in no indication that any male funded His ministry. He was the Messiah, which means "the anointed" only women anointed Him.... You think that does not mean anything....right?
When He needed to send someone to go to the Samaritans to give them the Good News...Gospel, He sent the woman from the well, because He knew they would not listen to the Apostles....The women were with Christ at the cross, the men hiding. Mary Magdalene was the first to see the risen Christ....the Apostles were in hiding. Did the women refuse to believe He had risen? She was chosen to deliver the message, Christ had risen......first she had to find the hiding Apostles. They did not believe. They did not believe!!! Rather than believe, when He came to them, they thought He was a ghost! Their first thoughts, not risen, a ghost! Do you see a pattern here? If you do not, then those reading might be able to understand why it took so long!!!!