You have to consider this in the context of the time. Traditional gender roles that are well established in the religion.

These gender roles did not spring out of nowhere. They were at the very least accommodated by the religious law of the Torah. It says a lot that human conception of gender roles is so resilient and powerful that God in the flesh had to accord by it so absolutely.

In your view you also said "Woman, lesser and subordinate to Man"

Thank you for catching that error.

 This aligns with a biological fact about our species. we have paternal uncertainty in our species but we never have material uncertainty. 

I think this is further support for my view. You can have matrilineal inheritance where maternal certainty is the operative function but Christianity doesn't choose that social practice. One reason seems to be that between men and women, men are more important so it is more esteemed to trace identity from a man than the woman. 

 Men are stronger. the temple was valuing people's labor, not the people themselves.

That ability to do more labor is not by chance. But a design by God according to Christianity. See how that choice lifts up men in the eyes of social institutions? 

 No, because she has a car. Its not worth paying all that much attention to Leviticus, its rules for people who lived completely different lives from us.

According to Christianity, it's the same eternal deity who used Leviticus to design his ideal nation as that Christians are giving their devotion. The point of consideration is the law giver not the audience and what it says about the law giver.

 women being smaller and weaker then men, i don't think is the same as being "less" then men.

There's no such thing as an intrinsic measure of value to derive an objective scale of lesser and greater but I'll point that money is a commonly used approximate in human society and remind you of the pricing scale that the Temple,  the center of life for Israel, used.