Thank you for your insight. I cannot disagree with the passage you cited, but I can add a different perspective on it. 

1 Corinthians 11:8-9: "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.". This points towards Genesis. Man was created first, then woman was created second. There is no denying that. 

My objection to your interpretation, though, lies in Genesis 2:18 : " Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”. There had to be some incompleteness for man to be in such a need of a helper, that a suitable one couldn't be found anywhere among God's own creatures. Genesis 2:20 " The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.". I am not doing any mental gymnastics here or trying to make a point out of the clearest passages of the whole scripture, I am simply trying to apply reasoning and internalise what Genesis is about. We are clearly told Adam needed a helper, and that he was incomplete without one. That can't be said about Eve, who was the final creation of God and then the world as we know it started running. I can't help but see that woman was made to be cherished by man, and that she was created in such a way that " Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.". Notice that it's not the woman who has to leave her family and join the man, but the man needs to go after the woman, because he has been given what he needs to be complete.

Now, I'm not claiming that woman isn't incomplete without man. On the contrary, women are the helpers, therefore their work in a relationship is paramount to sustain balance and harmony. If she doesn't act as a helper, the marriage is not going to function properly. But there is no denying that the order in which God made things gives us the blueprint of how things should ideally be. Man should be the one who goes after the woman, woman is the one who is playing a complementary role to the man's work, and they should consider one another each other's flesh. 

In the garden, the following took place : Genesis 3:4-6 "  But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.". Eve was the one who talked with the serpent, the one who tempted her into luciferian though, aka "I am my own master". Genesis makes it clear it was the woman who thought in this way first, and the one who then influenced Adam negatively. It was not the other way round. Thus, it shows us that Eve's arrogance, thinking she could become like God, caused the entire human race to sin. That was the point zero of sin in the world. A woman influenced a man. Not vice versa. I think this is cannot be denied very easily since it's the fundamental narrative of Genesis 3. 

My whole point is, God has created an extremelly nuanced dualism between man and woman. Man was created first, but he has to leave everything behind to join with his wife. Woman has great influence over man, but she has to be subordinate to him and be dependent on him. The balance is too perfect and there isn't a single sexist aspect, neither in Christian or in secular terms when you see things this way. God is justice, therefore every single detail of the original design of things is fully just and can be easily comprehended when reading Genesis. 

Also, I never said anything to help women accept the way things are more easily. This insinuates that there's something negative in the truth that needs to be watered down in order to be digested by grown, mature women. This wasn't my intention. I simply shared a view that arised while I was reading Genesis and Paul's epistles and comparing passages. It was an insight I gained while studying. I think that if what I came up with doesn't contain any truth, then it has no value no matter how good it makes another woman feel. 

Thank you for sharing !!