1 Cor 11:7, 14-15: "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man....Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?"
Question: what does this mean? Is it a sin for men to have long hair?
Answer: My view of this is that the principle is gender distinction in clothing and hairstyle.
It isn't wrong to have long hair, but does tend to blur the distinction. I think the same about women with very short hair. It is that distinction which Paul grounds theologically in verse 7: while all people are made to glorify God, women were made with a different subsidiary purpose: to help the man. Man was made with direct relation to God, with no one else in between that he was to help. This doesn't mean a woman doesn't relate to God directly, though.
Question: But you still affirm that women bear God's image, yes? The passage almost seems to suggest, "Not quite."
Answer: Yes, it has to fit with Gen 1:27 somehow.
That's why I say "subsidiary" - to Gen 1:27. That doesn't mean the 1 Cor 11 emphasis is less important, though.
It obscures the image of God in a couple when they have no distinction of different roles and identities, because that isn't how the 3 Persons exist - trying to all be able to do the same things equally. That's the modern egalitarian imbalance. The patriarchal imbalance is in wife doing all things FOR the man, and she only gets to God (or the church) through him. Over emphasis of 1 Cor 11 can take you there. The balance is that they are equally in God's image, submitting to one another, but in different ways, since they have different roles. The wife serves God by helping the man fulfill his calling.