The Bible is full of strong, independent, and influential women. In fact, the Bible seems to depict more women who are like that than the "paragon of womanhood" espoused by many complementarians.

In fact, a cursory reading of biblical women who are commended

for their character and actions would include a woman who drove a tent peg into the skull of an enemy leader, a woman who led Israel as a mighty judge, a queen who risked her life for the sake of her people, a priestess who helped lead a revival of covenant fidelity,

a wife who led her husband to disciple Apollos in the way of Jesus, a Moabite woman who basically proposed to a kinsman redeemer for the sake of her mother-in-law's family line, women who were present at the crucifixion of our Lord when nearly all of the disciples fled in fear,

a woman who hand delivered Paul's letter to the church in Rome, etc.

From the interpretive principle of analogia fidei, whereby you interpret more difficult passages by the clearer passages, it would seem more than reasonable to take these narratives and endorsement

of biblical women as the clearer passages that tell us what faithful womanhood looks like prior to interpreting passages about women having a "gentle and quiet spirit." "Gentle and quiet spirit" cannot mean something contradictory to these biblical examples of faithful women.

Furthermore, by taking this approach, it can be clearly seen that complementarian interpretations of "womanhood" are more shaped by cultural assumptions that come from early to mid 20th century White American society than biblical precedence. It's as if they take several

passages about womanhood, see it through the grid of 1950s White suburbia, and then reinterpret biblical narratives about faithful and strong women in order to make them fit this invented idea of womanhood. It is eisegesis par excellence.