http://www.charityministries.org/book-veiled9.a5w
She referred specifically to this part:
2. The woman's long hair takes the place of a veiling.
(See exposition on verse 15.)
In verse 15 of 1 Cor. 11, Paul is, in part, appealing to an illustration from nature (the long hair for women versus the short hair for men) to clarify the necessity of the veiling. Certainly he isn't contradicting everything he had said thus far in verses 3-13 about the importance of the veiled head. Again, the word translated "covering" in verse 15 is peribolaion, which means "something cast around", as opposed to the word translated covering, uncovered, etc. in the previous verses—katakalupto, which means "something which covers completely and hangs down". Paul obviously used an entirely different word in verse 15 so as to not confuse the natural hair covering with the veiling.
If one thinks that her hair is the only covering implied in this chapter, they need only replace the word "covering" in verses 4, 5, 6, 7, and 13 with the word "hair", and they will quickly see how absurd such a notion is.
The final blow to this argument is found in verse 6, where Paul says "If a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn". The word "also" (kai) can't but be implying an artificial covering besides the hair. To paraphrase this verse with this assumption in mind, it would read, "If her head is not covered with hair, then let her hair be cut." How can you cut something that isn't there?!
The long hair alone is not the sign of authority spoken of in verse 10 since anyone, male or female, Christian or non-Christian, could have it.
Anyone??
