The legitimate role of women is a very controversial subject in modern society. It seems our modern culture has significantly reduced male chauvinism, and contrary to the inane rants of neo-feminists, the patriarchy of history seems to only exist in the third world. The result of this trend is that women are increasingly seeking more authority. Women are even seeking traditionally male offices, such as that of a pastor.
To be sure, this is a problem. When Paul says "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man...", he clearly means there are certain kinds of authority women cannot hold, among which are pastor or elder. But a small portion of the Church today (not surprisingly consisting mostly of men) believes women should never hold any kind of authority over any kind of man what so ever. There are those who claim, for example, "All women exercising authority over Men are the same as Prostitutes, Lesbians, Murderers and Thieves...". That's not my attempt to summarise these people's beliefs, that is an actual quote (caps and all) from a screenshot I once received. I should note that this was his attempt to protest a female page admin warning him to obey the rules of her page.
This is an extreme and unsustainable interpretation of the Bible. It cannot be consistently applied. There are numerous places in the Bible which either describe, or even prescribe men obeying women. Let's take the famous example of Deborah, described in Judges chapters 4 and 5. "And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment." (Judges 4:4-5, emphasis mine). Judges 2:16-19 makes it clear that God himself had actually raised up these judges, which means that Deborah's authority was 100% legitimate, ordained by God Himself. Was God wrong to give her this authority, or are chauvinists wrong to deny it?
Deuteronomy 21:18 is one of many examples that say children, specifically sons in this case, must obey their mothers. The Bible nowhere permits a son to disobey his mother under normal circumstances (i.e. he is still young, unmarried, living with her, and she hasn't given an unGodly order). It seems obvious that a similar authority extends to other male children under her care, be she a nanny, babysitter, day care teacher, or even, as it seems is often the case, just a regular teacher.
Romans 13 opens with the phrase "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." It continues to address political authority until verse 7, ultimately necessitating that if your country has females in authority, be they queens, presidents, prime ministers, judges, or police officers, you must obey them, even if you're a chauvinistic man. Even a pastor, should he be pulled over by a female police officer, must give her his full cooperation unless she commands sin. 1 Timothy 2:12 would not cause that female police officer to put away her hand cuffs and let him off that speeding ticket.
You see, then, that there are legitimate authoritative roles a woman can take, even over men. This was the case in the Old Testament, it remains the case in the New Testament. The idea that women taking authority are as evil as murderers, thieves, lesbians, and prostitutes, is impossible to hold Biblically. Thus, the only logical and consistent interpretation is that 1 Timothy 2:12 applies to specific Church roles only. It does not forbid females from all church roles, it does not forbid mothers from teaching their sons, it does not forbid female teachers from teaching male classes, it does not forbid female rulers or law enforcement, and it certainly does not forbid female admins from policing their own Facebook pages. If you genuinely believe women can never have legitimate authority over a man, it would be delightfully ironic if your house was burgled, and the first to respond to your call was a female police officer.