No, just badly interpreted.. just like all Baptists, who imagine Jesus and his disciples were side actors in a 1950s Leave It To Beaver episode, complete with crew cuts and ties. Golly Gee Willickers, Beaver!
But it's also understandable. It's one of the most convoluted passages in the NT and most people just run away from it these days, not knowing what to make of it. He tries to tackle it, but in the end, he only cares about his American context. Nothing else.
In any case, it deserves more than 5 minutes of his ranting.
Paul wasn't simply talking about long hair, but flowing/laid out hair. It's why Orthodox tie their hair up. They're not trying to go against Paul. In their minds, the shamefulness is in the display of hair. They aren't out to look feminine either. But again, like all Baptists, he caustically attacks by creating stupid strawmen, using imaginary positions that the people he has in mind don't even hold, and then thinks he "wins" by how much of a jerk he can be about it.
Also, "long hair" wasn't simply a Nazarite thing. It's commanded in Leviticus to at least keep long side locks. Verse 19:27: "You shall not cut off the sides of your hair or trim your beards." This is why even Orthodox Jews to this day still have long locks. They're actually following the Torah.
Paul was a "Jew of Jews" and knew this well. So why would he interpret something like Anderson? One must rightly divide the truth on what he means.
And as for women, even the women in his own church don't follow that passage like Orthodox or (traditional Catholics) do - their women have no veils. He thinks the "hair" itself is sufficient covering, but that's the whole point of Paul warning about them. Flowing hair is the culprit. It had bad connotations in both the Greek/pagan (Paul's Corinthian audience) as well as the biblical context (Paul referred to covering women for the sake of angels. This is a direct reference to Gen 6 and Enoch.. the story of the angels who mated with women and found them irresistible). Even in Hippocratic medicine, female hair was considered sort of the equivalent to "testicles" (believe it or not! Look it up) and signaled vitality and appeal. In either the Greek context or the biblical context, they should be covered. In short, it's too sexy for public.
I've had this conversation once before, so I'm going to cut it short. People can have their Beaver Episode of Christianity if they want. I don't even care anymore.