Further, in the Western World where moral standards have effectively been torn down and everything reduced to an economic transaction, what exactly is wrong with offering to trade something of presumed value for something else of presumed value?  Is the author advocating for a return to moral standards of days past where women were revered and where chivalry towards women was the norm?  I would argue that rather than being the "oppression" argued by the author, her family's response was actually due to the extreme freedom (in the absence of a moral code) present in society.  Of course this begs the question of when does one's freedom become oppression to another person.  Regardless, it is a dangerous belief to actually think that it is oppression for other people to express their opinion even if the opinion could be wrong.  This is actually the opposite of "patriarchal tradition" as when the "patriarchy" was actually around, the emailer would have been challenged by her family.