Say what?

You've forgotten our long history, Hymowitz. Go watch a group of our distant relatives in the wild. No really, this is important. We used to know how to be equals.

Thank you for your letter.

I do know that unless you semi-isolate a child from popular culture via homeschooling that that child is going to be influenced more by the culture than the parents.

However, I firmly do not believe the solution is to surrender to culture. You mentioned peer groups. Parents have some influence over this. When my daughter was hanging with lots of people who became involved with drugs, I found ways to redirected, I made it clear that I expected more of her, and I actually limited (in a rather subtle way) her contact with them. When she was fourteen, I told her she couldn't spend much time at the homes of other teens unless I met their parents and I approved of them. I only approved of parents who tended to supervise.

This worked, as did getting her involve with a church.

As to the media, at home parents have complete control. Where parents fail is that they don't want to do without their television. It can be as simple as not having cable or unplugging the television. Adults should be willing to make some sacrifices for their children.

My main mistake was that, when she was 17, I allowed my daughter to date a boy (who seemed okay) who was nearing 21. That was a bad mistake. He wasn't dreadful, but his influence on her didn't improve her future. When she turned 18 she moved away with him and refused to go to college. In less than a year, they had broken up.

I believe that if I had been just a bit stricter (and also if I hadn't been depressed), I could have persuaded her to begin college.

But enough about me and my mistakes.

if women have a problem doing both maybe there is something to be learned there.

Thank you for your kind words.

Right now she is dating a guy of about forty who kisses her goodnight at the door. He says things like, "I would love to see you everyday."

We (she and I) are trying to figure out what is wrong with him. In 1960, we would think nothing of this. This isn't 1960.

This has been going on for six months.

Could he be playing hard to get?

"I was in the first generation (mid-60's) of young men wrestling with the changing expectations of women. It became obvious almost immediately that if I was myself, the right situation would eventually evolve. I did, and it did."

I was in the same demographic in my single dating years, but my solution was different from yours: I moved to Japan. It worked. Oh my Buddha, did it work.

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.

it isn't the central issue but is certainly a gratuitious irritant and does, I think, indicate a kind of totalizing/totalitarian mindset at work.