An egalitarian conundrum

I have read on a blog or two of late an argument that says that because Jesus valued women we should admit them into church leadership even though there is clear definition of leadership (headship) of the church as being for men.

To my (perhaps simplistic) understanding the argument seems to go along the lines that Jesus valued women and that in light of that and a reference to Galatians 3:28 which seems to be in clear reference to salvation and not an argument for female elders. From these premises the argument is then made that those who hold to a complimentarian line are restrictive of women, insecure in their masculinity and carrying oput the greatest abuse that the church has ever seen. The people who seem to hold this position also seem to consider Jesus to be a cultural revolutionary with His approach to women and pursue a socialist Jesus in a number of other ways as well. The idea that Jesus valued women, cared for the poor and the people on the margins (tax collectors and sinners) is quite evident form scripture. They would also say that Jesus challenged a number of social and religious norms during His ministry.

But I have one nagging question in amongst this. If, as is argued by the egalitarians, Jesus was a socio-religious revolutionary and this carried into His ministry to women then why did He not select a women to be one of His disciples?Are they saying that Jesus was cowed in some way by what people might think?

Or is it that one can value women enormously while also holding a view that the preachers, pastors and church planters of gospel ministry are designed in God's plan, inaugurated and modelled in Jesus to be men?