Similar to Elizabeth Stanton and the feminists of the 1890ies, I found Genesis 2 & 3 problematic, because it is in such stark contrast to the New Testament's teaching of equality as essence of Christianity.
I found the commentary of Lillie Blake, one of the Revising Committee members, about Genesis 2: 23-24 most refreshing. She points out that "Adam proclaims the eternal oneness of the happy pair, 'This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh;' no hint of her subordination. How could men, admitting these words to be divine revelation, ever have preached the subjection of woman!" About Eve's naming, Lillie Blake points out that the notion" She shall be called Woman", in the ancient form of the word means Womb-man—meaning that Adam regarded her more than himself, because of her maternity. About the alleged subordination of women in marriage, Lillie Blake points out the opposite, namely "assertion of the supremacy of the woman in the marriage relation is contained in v. 24: 'Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife.' Nothing is said of the headship of man, but he is commanded to make her the head of the household, the home, a rule followed for centuries under the Matriarchate" (emphasis deliberately added).
It is worth reading Stanton and Blake (1898) commentary of Genesis 3: 1-24 about "the 'fall of man', not the fall of woman"; but the literal translation of verse 20, as Blake points out, is significant: "And Adam called his wife's name Life for she was the mother of all living". Blake further remarks "It is a pity that all versions of the Bible do not give this word instead of the Hebrew Eve. She was Life, the eternal mother, the first representative of the more valuable and important half of the human race" [rather human species].