I’m glad someone mentioned the 2008 financial crisis. Banks need to be fairly confident the person they are giving the mortgage to can afford the payment now and for the next thirty years. There are plenty of unfair reasons why someone may not be able to buy a home today, but not being able to afford a down payment is not one of them.

It depends on what you mean by current spending. I’m putting almost a third of my pre-tax income into savings already. If you mean I can live off of 65% of my default post-tax salary, sure. That probably wouldn’t change too much from my current expenses, and I would love the free time. If you mean 65% of what’s left over after my normal contributions, then that would be pretty tough. I consider my current lifestyle to be relatively frugal, so that would be very hard.

I’m actually trying to achieve the FIRE lifestyle, so the goal is getting to the point where average post-tax returns on investments is at least annual expenses. But I can’t do it by thirty.

But Genesis 3:16 seemingly has God setting man above woman, so a Christian could just use that instead.

To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

I suppose you could argue it only applies to a husband and wife, or possibly even just Adam and Eve specifically, but that seems unlikely given the first part applies to women as a whole.

There’s also Timothy 2:11-13, and Christians tend to hold the new testament in high regard.

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

(from the NIV for both)

So it seems like the Bible explicitly has God himself commanding sexism, rather than it needing to be inferred from symbolism.