Absolutely he could have planned to make women all along, I wouldn't dissagree with that. My concern is that myself (and many scholars) still find ch1 and 2 to be contradictory, as the wording of ch2 really does seem pretty clear about animals being created after man (unless we start getting really creative and imagining that that line where God's thinking about Adam being alone and then creating animals to fix this was supposed to be back in time before he created man, and it was written the way it was in ch2 to deliberately confuse people!).
The question I've heard many times is, if men and women were to be equals then why is women presented in this chapter as secondary (tertiary actually)?
This isn't my original opinion, this is something I picked up on and then later agreed with in a class on Judaism. Many people believe that CH1 was written to show men and women as equals, and that CH2 was written to show men as the more important. (Not saying that interpretation is right, just saying it's a common one, not just my idea).
The harsh thing is that not just due to the order of creation (especially if you're right about ch2 being more about "order of topical importance", unless by topical you have something in mind that I'm missing) but the whole Adam and Eve apple story, women have been really considered second class humans (or perhaps I should say my opinion here rather than keep going from the point of view of the Christians that taught me this idea - I don't think those stories originally caused this, I think that women already being considered less important by the men writing the Bible is why they wrote the story that way, but that's another argument. Genesis was certainly used to justify the subjugation of women later on in history).
Genesis was one of the first parts of the Bible I read (makes sense, being the beginning!), right from being about 14 years old (nobody gave me the Bible, I just found one and started reading) and though it may be due to my own interpretation of it, I was pretty shocked to read that woman and man wouldn't have been created at once, even as a kid it upset me a little. (edit: also, I didn't just hear the woman after man story when I was 14, that's just when I read it. I heard it when I was much younger, and iit bugged me then too!)
Please let me know if I start stepping on toes or coming off as agressive or rude. While I may not agree with your interpretations exactly, I am considering them and will consider to, and I always want to hear new interpretations (new to me anyways!). ;D
Not aggressive or rude at all, you're questioning and clearly interested in learning (as am I, it seems like there's SO much I still have to learn) and that can only be viewed as a very good thing.
Women have undoubtedly had it very rough for much of human history, being treated as lesser people. And yes, the Bible has been twisted to justify a lot of terrible things in history, beyond the mistreatment of women.
It's important to note that mistreatment of women after the original pair sinned was predicted. In Genesis 3:16 we read: "and your craving will be for your husband, and he will dominate you."
However, Jesus set the example in proper treatment of women. Consider the account at John 4:4-9, 27. Jesus approached a well hot, tired and thirsty. A Samaritan woman approached to draw some water. Jesus asked her for a drink. In amazement, she asked "How is it that you, despite being a Jew, ask me for a drink, when I am a Samaritan woman?" Later, when his disciples returned from buying food, they were taken aback, wondering why Jesus was "speaking with a woman."
The woman's question and the disciple's concern was two-fold. She was a Samaritan, and Jews had no dealings with Samaritans. (John 8:48) However, at that time, rabbinic tradition discouraged men from talking to women in public. Yet Jesus still openly preached to this sincere woman, even revealing that he was the messiah to her. (John 4:25,26) Jesus thus showed that he would not be bound by unscriptural traditions, including those that degraded women. (Mark 7:9-13) By what Jesus did and what he taught, he showed that women should be treated with honor and respect.
In the interest of keeping this from becoming a massive post, I will reference one more example. Husbands are told to assign their wives honor in 1 Peter 3:7. Peter used a form of the same word for "honor" at 2 Peter 1:17. There he said with reference to Jesus' transfiguration: "“He received from God the Father honor and glory, when words such as these were borne to him by the magnificent glory: ‘This is my son, my beloved, whom I myself have approved.’"
At Jesus' transfiguration, God honored his son by expressing his approval of Jesus, and God did so in the hearing of others. (Matthew 17:1-5) The man who honors his wife doesn't humiliate or downgrade her. Rather, he demonstrates by his words and deeds, in public and private, that he esteems her.
I could go on and on, but there are many scriptures that make it clear that although women have their place in God's arrangement, as do men, they are to be given honor and respect.
I wanted to see if mine said something other than Ethiopia and also wanted to check on something else, which I'll get to in a minute...
, my own take on the bible is that it's a collection of lessons and instructions to be taken with a grain of salt. Although Medsen phrases it far more nicely 
