This topic has been done to death in a variety of other threads. Suffice it to say here that we are dealing with two widely differing methods of reading the Bible. One method takes the text at its face value and assumes an essentially "flat" Bible -- that is, that every text is of generally equal validity with every other text and that all texts come from the mind of God Himself. The other method of reading the Bible attempts to examine each text critically by thinking about who wrote it, for what purpose, to what audience, and with what cultural assumptions, not denying that the Bible reveals truth, but also thinking that some of its materials are closer to the heart of ultimate truth than others.
Figure out where you are in that spectrum and you will either think that women should have no pastoral leadership or maybe even churchly leadership at all; or you will think that some of Paul's statements about women are either obscure, culturally conditioned, too much influenced by rabbinical theology, or maybe even bizarre (and you have to determine, by the way, whether you think the Pastoral Epistles are genuinely Pauline).
Epistemology is the key to everything!
Please note that I have used "think" and "thinking" rather than "believe" or "belief" in the above note. It really ought to be a matter of critical examination rather than one of unreasoned belief.