A vital rule of Biblical hermeneutics is that scripture interprets scripture. In other words, to get a full picture of what the Bible intends to convey to the reader, all verses on a given subject must be taken into account. None can be omitted, and taking a single verse on its own is a very good way to ensure you have a poor understanding of scripture.
A good example of this is the concept of hair and head coverings. In 1 Corinthians 11:13-15, Paul authoritatively declares "Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering."
From this verse, it seems rather clear that a woman must always have some form of head covering when she prays, and a man must never have long hair. Many churches even insist on very specific codes on how one's head should be covered.
But while Paul appeals to nature itself, we actually see that men, at least, can sometimes have long hair. A direct command from God in Numbers 5 says that a man taking a Nazarite vow may not cut his hair for the duration of His vow. Clearly, in this case, a man having long hair is not a dishonour to him. Quite the opposite, shortening his hair was a sin.
Nowhere is this seen better than the example of Samson. Because he never cut his hair, God blessed him with the strength to kill 1,000 men with a donkey's jawbone. But God removed this blessing the moment his hair was cut. One could hardly say that Samson's long hair was a disgrace to him. Thus, taking Paul's words alone, we end up coming to the wrong conclusion, but with the rest of scripture, we see that Paul's words come with caveats.
There is the danger of taking this too far in the other direction. "There are exceptions" does not mean "literally any exception is valid". Just as the Nazarite vow must be taken into account when figuring out the meaning of Paul's words, Paul's words must also be taken into account.
So what did Paul actually mean? From the rest of the scriptures, we see that head coverings are a symbol of submission, or at least were considered as such in Paul's culture. There is an authority structure that is represented by head coverings. Paul reasons that angels have a symbol of God's authority over their heads, and thus we must also have symbolic representations of authority on our heads. The husband has authority over the wife, and so for this reason, she ought to have long hair to symbolise this authority. A man, by contrast, should not have long hair, as this would imply that he is the submissive one.
In our culture, this symbol has been all but eliminated. No one looks at a woman's hair and connects it to her submission to her husband. For this reason, those churches that insist on women wearing head coverings are a minority in the Christian world. It is interesting to note that Paul justifies this interpretation in saying "judge for yourselves". Thus, by Paul's own words, Christians are quite free to judge for themselves. Whether or not a woman has long hair or wears head coverings is between her, her husband, and her God. No other authority, be it her friends, her church, or even the culture, has any business making that decision for her.
This example demonstrates a larger principle: Scripture interprets scripture. The Bible is a huge book, not a tiny leaflet. It is of great importance to consider its every word on a given subject, lest we run into numerous errors. As Paul charged Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:15, study to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.