Again, you are an instance of someone taking the scripture out of context - the context being the entire rest of the bible.
First of all, would you rather be humiliated or die?
Second of all, this was in regards to a woman being unfaithful to her husband - she was an oath breaker and a lyer.
Third, people complaining about the Bible being so anti-woman only do it because they take this one scripture or others like it and fly of the handle with it. You don't bother to consider the way the Bible directs men to love their wives as their own bodies, or to treat them as though they were a valuable, fragile thing (tenderly). You don't consider the examle of Hosea and his wife, or the fact that the Israelites are recorded as doing something "detestable" to god in leaving their wives for younger women and writing certificates of divorce left and right.
No, the bible is not harsh or insensative toward woman at all. There were punishments for women AND men for comitting adultery and the punishment was, in fact, the same, "“In case a man is found lying down with a woman owned by an owner, both of them must then die together.” The scripture that you are trying to use as a point of proof that women are so poorly viewed by the bible is in fact a law that existed for her PROTECTION, because a jealous husband could claim she sinned against him - but rather than her being killed along with the man he accused this action was performed. This scripture just saved that womans life.
Further, it wasn't even a humilation. NOBODY KNEW ABOUT IT UNLESS THE SUPPOSED CURSE TOOK HOLD. How would they know to treat her any differently otherwise? The only possible way anyone would know about this test, which was carried out in private between the man, wife, and priest, was if one of them blabbed it all over town.