I  appreciate the kinder tone.  

 I'll just choose a little section to address, because the entire message would mean an entire chapter for me....

You wrote, "These instructions here are general, applied to women period, in the Churches: and have been unchallenged in nearly all of Christian history, until recently...except perhaps by the text's implications, during Paul's time."

Applied to women period? Gune is translated "wife" or "woman" depending on context, is it not? And this context has "husband" (14:35). The counterpart to husband is wife. This question, and others like it, have most definitely been raised in the past, not just since Betty Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique. No matter where you fall on the answer, the fact is, the most conservative translations have, indeed, been challenged.   

 v. 34 - Winter (Roman Wives, Roman Widows) makes a case for "as the law also says" being a reference to Roman,  not Jewish, law. Compare Paul's statement about keeping Jewish law in Romans 8:3. And the entire Book of Galatians. Yes, Winter's info on Roman law is, indeed, new, but it is so because of evidence from inscriptions, archeaology, etc.

Interpreting scripture a "new" way is not always a capitulation to culture. Sometimes, indeed, discoveries from past centuries influence our current understanding. Song of Solomon was considered an allegory in much of the church's history, but the relatively recent discovery of Egyptian  wasfs inform how we read it today.

Also, one of the reasons complementarians prefer to label themselves complementarians rather than traditionalists is that the appeal to tradition, as you've summarized it here, has enormous flaws. First, these verses have, indeed, been challenged in past centuries. Second, if you read Augustine, Luther, Tertullian,  Chrysostom ("A woman is softer of mind than a man"), etc., about the WHY of the church's continual silencing of women, you will find arguments from which most Bible scholars today want to distance themselves. They include the ideas that women are more easily deceived than men; that man is made in God's image but not woman; that God made women not for dominion but only to serve; and a long list of similar such statements these scholars believe contract clear biblical teaching that woman was made for co-dominion, not just procreation, and she was indeed, created in the image of God. .