One interpretation, from a Gnostic point of view, is that Paul is using symbolism to distinguish between the gnostic ("man") and non-gnostic ("woman"). This interpretation only has value if you believe in Gnosticism, or some sort of precept of Gnosticism.
Otherwise, he means exactly as he says. He also says there is no slave or master in Christ, but also tells slaves to submit to their masters. Quite confusing, I admit!
But the letters that say these (Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy) are disputed. Colossians, at least may be from Paul but 1 Timothy and Ephesians are pseudo-Pauline; they were written at a much later date by an anonymous author who wished to honor Paul and get his own ideas articulated and heard by attributing the work as if Paul had written it. A pious forgery, if you will.
This just tells me that the Bible is inspired, filtered and understood through the eyes of humans. Some of it, to be honest, probably shouldn't be in there at all! Some of the "lost books" probably should have been included, but haven't. At this point in history, though, it is difficult to change anything (unless you're Joseph Smith and wait almost 200 years, aligning yourself with people who claim to be believers but instead follow power and money).
In relation to Jesus, I am attempting to understand the "atonement theology" through the idea of wrath presented by a theologion C.H. Dodd. Unfortunately, I have not read Dodd so I do not know if this is what he does think in relation to the wrath of God, but from my understanding the wrath of God is an impersonal an automatic system woven into the creation that acts against sin. If this is the case, then it makes the idea of atonement from the Israelites more understandable with the ritual of the scape-goat; the goat which "carried" the sins of the people for them and away from them.
Jesus, in this situation, willingly took on the role of a universal scape-goat for us. He was willing to suffer, I would believe after his death, so we don't have to. Due to the courageous and divine act, though, he does not suffer now (I think?), since he is said to be at the right hand of the father.
Another way to see this comes from a story I read a while ago about a Christian Indian who tried to explain Jesus to his family. I can not find the original story, I am sorry, but this is what I remember. His mother followed a guru for a while but he did not respond to her, and she was hurt. So how this author spoke of Jesus to his mother, Jesus (in short) was a
guru who took on the
karma of his believers and continues to after his death.
Substitute a few words, and there you have the same idea in East as well as West.
The Trinity is weird, and sometimes I think it makes sense but other times it doesn't. I have met nontrinitarian Christians within the church. You may be interested in Marcus Borg, for starters.
I also found a video that you may be interested in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUQLBWS-M5s
The video isn't from an Episcopalian, but Borg is as well as John Spong, which the video mentions (I assume; I am at work and unable to listen to the video. I am going based on the comments I can find in the video, as well as the "about" section describing it).
I don't know if that helps or not.