What is the Purpose of Paul telling the Women in the Church At Corinth to Cover their Heads?

In 1 Corinthians, Paul makes a lot of arguments throughout this book about the role of women. One must note that before Paul became a Christian, he was a man raised in Roman society and was a Roman citizen.  Not much is written about women during this time frame because women were defined by the men in their lives.  This mindset probably had an influence on Paul's feelings toward women. Women had freedom and were citizens but were not involved in politics, had basic education, and were not considered equal to men.

 1.Was the covering of the head a symbol shown of women submitting to their husbands?

In Ephesians, Paul does a teaching about women submitting to their husbands. Ephesians 5:22-24 says,

^"22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. ²³ For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. ²⁴ Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands." Yes, Paul tells us why women have to submit to their husbands, but it does not say that covering their head in any way is a symbol of submission to their husband. It mentions nothing about covering a head period.  According to scholar Russ Dundrey, submitting to your husband is a form of chastity. The virtue of chastity is a woman honoring her husband and providing him with offspring legitimacy without questioning him. A woman must have sexual intercourse with her husband and her husband only. This expectation has absolutely nothing to do with covering of any heads. Roger Barrier's seems to disagree. He says it does have something to do with wives submitting to husbands. Roger made a valid point that in Ephesians 5:23 he says, "…for the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior." The word head is highlighted because Roger believes this means the head must be covered to respect the husband and also shows headship in a marriage. The head takes care of everything under it. This may be why this scholar believes that the veil does symbolize submission. The question remains; is it a symbol or does Paul personally feel the hair should be covered?

2.Maybe Paul just didn’t want women to show their hair.

Women showing hair today is irrelevant but it was an issue in the biblical days. Benjamin Merkle argues that the comment on covering has everything to do with the hair. It's more of a gender role. He thinks the veil helps distinguish a male and female. 1 Corinthians 11:6 says, "For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head." This scripture seems to equate that a woman who does not cover her head is as shameful as a woman who is bald or cuts her hair off. The gender role was well defined and a female cannot blur the gender role.  Merkle thinks it's wrong for a woman to go against Paul's word and not wear the covering. For Merkle, Paul was speaking literally.

3.Did Paul just hate women to the point he made rules for them?

Throughout the book of Corinthians, Paul seemed to always have some form of corrections or direction for women. 1 Corinthians 14:31-35, Paul forbade women to speak in church. He also required them be submissive to their husbands. This makes it seem as if Paul had a problem with women being recognized in the church.

According to Ava Oleson, Paul commended several women for their role in Roman church. In Romans 16:1-15, she says that ten of the twenty-seven Christians called greets in this passage are women. He commended them for working hard in the Lord. If he hated women, would he commend them in such a way? I would not think so. One could wonder if there was a difference in the women he spoke of in the book of Romans from those he spoke of in the book of Corinthians. Possibly, the women in Rome were more learned or he just knew them personally. It could also be that the women in Corinth were refusing to obey the gospel that was being taught. There does not appear to be evidence that Paul hated women.
Below is a video asking the question about Paul hating women. It seems to be up to the individual perspective which makes it appear inconclusive.

 Conclusion

The covering that Paul was speaking of is inconclusive to me. The literal can be that he is speaking of the actual hair on the women's head. For at this time, the hair was considered the women's glory. A woman with an uncovered head dishonored her literal head, along with dishonoring her husband. This symbolized headship over her. Paul may have demanded the covering to force women to be submissive. This does not mean he hated women. He wanted them to remain in a certain gender defined role. So, it appears that the covering has a double meaning: the actual covering of the head and the man as a head over the women.