The Comparative Value of Men and Women / How should one interpret Leviticus?

One of the problems with discussing an issue like marriage, as I've been doing recently, is the risk of making unfair statements about those one might possibly marry (i.e. women in my case).

Do I think that women are morally corrupt? Well ... yes. Of course, consistency demands that I apply the same argument to men generally and, more particularly, to myself.

Why take a relatively cynical perspective towards marriage from the point of men? There are roughly three reasons that I can think of:

1. I am male and thus have a male perspective on things. Some criticisms apply equally to both men and women, and some apply more to one than the other. Women have written about the issue from the female perspective, and I can read (and have read) their thoughts. For example I own a copy of (and have read) the book Where Have All the Good Men Gone?: Why So Many Christian Women Are Remaining Single. The book elaborates upon the results of a survey of single Christian men and women. Here are the six primary complaints presented from women about men:
   1. Passivity
   2. Unrealistic expectations - demanding perfection
   3. There are few single Christian men
   4. Men are emotionally / spiritually immature and intimidated by successful women
   5. Unwillingness to commit; Expectation of someone better around the next corner
   6. Pushing sexual boundaries
2. I hear more confusion from women about why men would not want to date them (which may partially explain point #1 on the list above). Oftentimes, the answer seems to be to blame men for everything, as this book (which I've also read) seems to do.
3. My idea of equality between men and women includes that of an equal ability to sin, albeit with each restrained by the legal system. Given the current legal system, I think that this means that there are some good reasons for men to be particularly cynical about marriage. For example, whether a children survives from conception to live life beyond the womb is under the current legal system the choice of the mother. A father has no legal recourse if the mother chooses abortion, however morally repugnant he finds that to be. Consider also the case of ending a marriage. Under the current legal system, either party is able to end the marriage without having to show a (legitimate) cause. The mother gets to keep the kids and is pretty much guaranteed an income, whereas a father is generally left with little more than bills to pay (whether or not he's in favour of divorce). It's the only type of contract in Western society wherein the violating party is able to sue for damages - and statistically women are far more likely to initiate a divorce.

So, what prompted a further post on this topic? In this case, it was me reading through the book of Leviticus in prep for a bible study and being left not quite sure how to interpret passages like Leviticus 27:1-7. That particular passage assigns monetary values to categories of individuals mentioned in vows, and in each case the male is given a higher value than the corresponding female.

I've also been trying to out why in Leviticus 4 the sin of a leader requires the sacrifice of a male animal which the sin of a commoner requires the sacrifice of a female animal. In this latter case, if all sacrificed animals were male that might seem a clear pointer to Christ, but that's not the case. Any thoughts / suggestions as to how to interpret these two?