- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Although I disagree with the stress you put on your view of the situation (the three uses of the word EXACTLY in capitals are to me a blatant oversimplification), note that the situation you painted (assuming it really reflects our world) looks more like the result of the evolution of our society towards individual independence, the process that started when the extended family went dodo because of the Industrial Revolution and ended now with individuals potentially independent in every aspect except for psycho-emotional ones. Even for the sexual side, there's internet porn (either male style, more visiually oriented, or female style, more narrative oriented, like 'romance novels'), so in a significantly new sense an individual could spend his entire life at home, never interact with other people in meatspace and still survive till old age.
Before that, the links between people were a matter of life and death--you just couldn't afford to ignore others, your place in the network of existence was so dependent on others (e.g. you had to work your ass off for them) that you wouldn't have a chance in society entirely on your own. Therefore extended families, clans, local groups etc. developed, in which people played roles they might have hated because there simply was no way to avoid it. Specifically, women might often see themselves oppressed by men without having any chance of surviving without it.
Nowadays, it looks as if the only way to achieve communication with others--to form friends, to find sexual partners, etc.--is to make oneself interesting to them. It's not simply a sexual thing, Dick, anything that involves other people will eventually have to 'please' them too if society continues evolving in this direction (and assuming the kind of worldview that you painted). Sex, friends, relationships... So if the asymmetry between men and women that you see is true it's a simple consequence of the 'empower the individual' road that our civilization has taken. It can't be avoided. If men need women more than women need men, then men have to market themselves better. (And I have strong doubts about the picture you paint, because, among other things, of the number of women I've seen with broken hearts because they couldn't get a man, either a specific one or any man in general--I think it's all much more nuanced than you make it seem to be.)
Now, this 'asymmetry' (should it really exist) is logically independent of the final sentence in your post, i.e. that you think women are using the law to force men to behave exactly as they want--which is why you made that claim, since you would want women not to do that. But think about it--if the picture of reality that you've painted is true (and I have my doubts, as I indicated), then a situation in which women offer less than men want--where there's less offer than there is demand--puts power automatically in the hands of those who have what is looked for. If your claims about women wanting it less than men are necessarily true, then there is logically nothing to be done about it--little offer and big demand implies high prices, period. So again it would seem that the problem is unsolvable in the terms that you put it.
