physiqueper4 - responding to you almost doesn't seem worth it as you seem to be so emotionally involved in a limited limited perspective, but for the sake of being a good sport, I'll try a bit.
The simple fact is that your thesis is wrong, and the language you use to express it is more than slightly frightening. As we see it, your thesis is that women are the 'actual leader of relationships' and that 'women are the sole deciders of their mates.' I was giving you some validity to your points, but since you've decided to dimiss everything we've said, I'll go ahead and eviscerate those points.
1) Women are the actual leader in relationships.
That's not true, even if all the other points stated or implied in your post are to be taken as valid. Accepting for a moment that women are more primarily the 'pull' member in initiation relationships - in that they pull attention to themselves as part of their effort to setup relationships: they broadcast signals of availability and then hope for the attention of men - this isn't always true, but it is a traditional model, and often valid.
This is also the context that you seem to work from.
Your argument further elaborates that since it is less effort for them to find another mate, they have more power in overall relationships. On a surface level and in some cases, it may seem true: assuming that it is easier for them to simply find another mate, they are less invested in present relationships or in overall relationship dynamics(easier for them to just find another mate), and therefore within the context of a stable relationship, they must have more influence as they can more easily switch partners.
This is untrue, however, even when the initial postulation is to be accepted as entirely true. First, while it may seem that it is easier for them to find another mate, it is also genetically a higher investment for them to actually commit to one. Once committed, the principle of sunk cost tends to avoid switching. We can see this in practice, for example, women are generally observed to have a higher emphasis on commitment and stability - noticeably, even in abusive relationships. This tendency to commitment may be considered the second posulation.
Accepting both the first and second postulations to be true, both which have empirical as well as biological evidence, while women may have an easier time finding a relationship, once investment in one, they also work harder to maintain it and must maintain it for better stability. If anything, then, the costs of switching are higher for them and more than overbalances the increased relationship mobility they might have.
There is a LOT more to explore on this, such as the actual difference in value versus the sexes on simply having sex: women have a far easier time on accomplishing it, but the overall sociological and biological value is less than that of males. All in all, though, your argument that "women want guys for status, sex or money" is no more true than "guys just want girls for sex" and your belief that 'women are the real leaders" is patently ridiculous.
2) Women are the sole deciders of their mates
The very most that can be concede is that women tend to be pull attention in their relational marketing, while men are expected to push attention in their relationship marketing. Your statement that 'you would not dare approach a girl unless she has already shown interest' is going to be plainly dismissed by myself from personal experience; my present girlfriend had no interest in a relationship and I have a very general tendency to hit on a lot of girls with entirely decent success. You can /create/ interest in an uninterested girl quite often - this can be plainly seen in marketing where advertisements create interest in a product from uninterested potential customers. Certainly you can't sell your Hoover to every single person, but the potential of creating interest from where there was few or none is definitely there.
I'll end this with an ancedotal story from my own life on how that exactly happened, and with a girl that you might consider as having extremely high attraction/selection value. At the time, J was a tangential friend of mine that I knew through her boyfriend - she was extremely young(only 15) when I knew her, and her romantic relationship was entirely emotional with him. I was quite a bit older than her and had no interest in her at the time at all either, obviously. By the time that she was 17 when her boyfriend dumped her, however, I began to see her in a rather different light; it was also fully legal in the UK then with her, which helped.
She had just broken up with her boyfriend and I offered console/support for a short time, but also having an interest in her, began to more or less subtly bring up sexual topics to discuss with her. Having already become comfortable with me, she accepted it and I maintained it for a week or so while steadily suggesting to discuss increasingly harder/more sexual topics with her. One thing led to another and we eventually had quite a lovely time together for several months and she's still a good friend; but from a girl who was entirely a tangential friend who could have chosen dozens of boys, I was able to seal a relationship with her despite her complete lack of interest in the beginning.
Consider that in your 'world', if you wish.
!
