What are my standards, hmmm...let me see if I can explain them in a few words.
I do my best to look at things as objectively as I can, taking into account culture, society, personal psychology, goals and motivations of the person or institution that preformed an act, view things in a historical context and use psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. to analyze it...and use the relevant document/information accordingly. I guess it goes back to how I was taught canon law, that the canons are temporal manifestations of eternal truths, the truth that you uncover might have very little to do with the original canon. Take the issue of menstruating women not taking communion. The problem is not that there is any uncleanness or theological issue involved, but that some of the women involved felt unclean, which was clearly a result of the culture of the day, with the point being that if anyone does not feel properly oriented towards God, whether their reasons are unjustified or not, they should avoid the eucharist until they can partake with a pure conscience and thus receive the maximum benifit. As our culture has changed, the letter of the canon is no longer applicable, but the spirit is, so if there is something troubling your mind and preventing you from focusing on God, you should not partake of communion, according to the aforementioned canon.
I apply the same methodology to the scripture verses being considered. We know that the ideal is that there is no male or female in Christ and that ALL are created in the image and likeness of God, thus how do we reconcile this fact with the teachings of St. Paul? Well, first off, when interpreting this passage, or any passage, we should take the history, culture, society, intentions of the author, etc. into account; we should ask ourselves what potential biases the person may have and keep those in mind while interpreting/applying the passage/canon/homily/etc. The first thing we should realize is that the status of women in our society is fundamentally different than the status of women in St. Paul's society, so St. Paul's approach, while perhaps relevant for his society, may not be directly applicable to our society because our society is different. It's the same concept as personalized spiritual advise that may be applicable for one person but not for another, just on a larger scale by taking sociology and culture into account.
Now, as an example, let's take the issue of women not having teaching authority over men: during St. Paul's time this would have clearly been scandalous to the society he was writing in, especially considering the Judaic presence in the church at this time in history. Furthermore, it was not a role that was generally accepted of women in the society in general, thus making it an abnormality if it did occur in the Church, possibly giving rise to criticism of the Church by society at large. So what is the real spiritual message behind this passage? That the Church should not unnecessarily cause scandal, both to the weaker elements within the community, but more importantly to society at large, we're not a cult and we shouldn't act like one, we should, as much a possible, maintain normalcy within society. Because of this, this passage could actually become an argument in support of women priests in the future, for if we maintain the spirit of St. Paul, when the lack of women priests becomes a scandal to society at large as well as to those in the Church, it would be inappropriate to maintain our current system.