So few of the letters seemed to show that people had actually read the underlying articles. I read Hirshman, but not Brooks.

Apparently Brooks was condescending and told Hirshman to go work at a firm before spouting off about the rewards of the working world. As well he might.

The simple fact is that working at a big law firm is grueling and exhausting. Also, it sucks to have to answer to demanding bosses and clients constantly and be answering to dozens of tight deadlines per week. Also the work is rarely interesting. Contrast this situation with the typical "professor or researcher" like Hirshman. Such people choose their topics fairly freely, work limited hours and answer to pleasant other professors or students much of the time, if they answer to anyone at all.

Sorry Ms. Traister, Ms. Hirshman's experience gives her no insight into the crappy reality of the professions these days. They are hardly areas where creativity gets exercised. They are not rewarding. They provide little opportunity to influence the greater world in a positive way.

Most women lawyers I know want to quit working and have kids because their jobs suck and society will be happy to accept their choice if they have kids. In Ms. Hirshman's piece she alludes momentarily to the fact that there is some evidence that the professions aren't much fun. I think she should look into this more closely. It accounts for more choices than she realizes.

I sure know women who will only look at men who have attained a certain education or who work certain acceptable jobs.

I also know lots of men who will only look at women with a certain appearance. Is this the "for love" reason why men marry?

I also know many educated women who bemoan the fact that their dating pool is too small since men "won't marry up, like women will." Interestingly these women have seemingly never tried to find "lower status" men so they could test their pessimistic theory. I think there are more men who would marry up than there are women who would marry down.

Its a drag to carry the household on your back, espescialy if society isn't telling you its your responsibiltiy or rewarding you with respect when you do it. Its just not so great to be the woman who makes the households whole income. Then, when you find out you hate your job, you're pretty much stuck. No having kids and opting out on your husband's dime.

Most of the women reported on having sex with their students don't seem like pedophiles anyway. First they choose victims in the 14-17 age range. They are not choosing very child-like children. Also they often seem to really be "in love" with these young men. Also, from the reportage I have seen, there doesn't seem to be a coercive quasi-violent thing going on. More seduction than coercion seems to be the rule. I hope we can all agree that it is possible for any semi-attractive woman to seduce a normal 15 year old boy without the use of threats.

There may be many cases of coercion and threats being used by women to cow young teen boys into submission and for those cases maybe a long sentence is warranted. Still those kinds of facts should be found, not assumed based on the not-yet-of-age status of the alleged victims. This careful finding of facts should be the process regardless of gender. That is, if a man "seduces" and doesn't "coerce" a 16 year-old victim (male or female) then those circumstances should be taken into consideration at sentencing as well.

If emotional maturity is to be the cornerstone of consensual behaviour then we need to seriously reevaluate our social norms to achieve any semblance of consensuality in sexual relationships. Probably we would need to push back the average first sexual experience of our youth by five to ten years, and in some cases by twenty to thirty years. Many people would suffer a lifetime disqualification. Good luck with that.

In many of the female teacher cases it appears that the teacher may be operating on a low level of maturity and function. If she is at or near the level of her 16 year-old "victim" would that make a difference? Psychological coercion and offering people what they want are not the same thing. Elements of the crime (like coercion) should be proved up, not just assumed based on our "model" perpetrator. People should be sentenced based on their behavior, not that of the typical member of any given class of criminals.

I don't think the legal age of consent is based on hard science. It may aproximate some scientific estimates of human maturation, but that is a coincidence only. In some places the age of consent is below 18, and according to your numbers a safer age of consent would be 20, and I don't know of any jurisdictions that use that age.

Many alleged adults are impaired, not merely loutish. Also, power differences (sometimes determinative ones) persist among people of all ages. The illegality of these teacher student relationships has been presented as merely a question of age, not the teacher/student relationship itself. To my mind the sexual relationship between a 15 year old boy and an older woman is not remotely close to that of a 5 year old boy and an older woman. In one case you can imagine consent, even if it is slightly questionable consent, in the other case, talk of consent is completely bizarre. When a 15 year-old is involved it is much closer to a normal, two adult relationship. It may not be quite there, but its a lot closer. The prison sentences that these women catch should reflect that.