A peculiar ideology has quietly seeped into the wellness space, promising women a path to happiness through rediscovering their "feminine energy." This philosophy comes with a strange set of rules: She must avoid work, lest it drain her essence and force her into unnatural competition with men. She is never late; she simply "balances time and space." These are just a few tenets of a worldview that suggests a woman's success isn't something she achieves directly, but something she cultivates indirectly through a man.

Initially, these ideas were spread in offline workshops, but with the rise of social media, they have exploded in popularity. Packaged in glossy digital courses with alluring names like "The Earthly Path of a Goddess" or "Faculty of Queens," they promise a secret key to unlocking a perfect life. But why are so many women drawn to these programs, and what is the real psychological cost? The answer lies in a two-sided vise that squeezes modern women, creating a state of neurotic anxiety that these courses exploitatively claim to solve.

The First Pressure: A Hardwired Difference in Attraction

From an evolutionary psychology perspective, men and women often operate with fundamentally different strategies when selecting a partner. This isn't about social customs or laws; it's a deeper, more instinctual programming. The female strategy can be summarized as: most women are drawn to a minority of men.

If you were to analyze data from dating apps like Tinder, a clear pattern emerges. Given 100 male profiles and 100 female profiles, the vast majority of the women will show interest in the top 20% of men—those perceived as the most successful, attractive, and desirable. The remaining 80% are largely overlooked. This creates intense competition, with roughly four women vying for every one man in that top tier. Studies of online dating behavior confirm this, showing that women spend significantly more time evaluating each potential partner, applying stricter criteria before making a choice.

Men's strategy, on the other hand, is broader. Presented with 100 women, a typical man will find a large majority—perhaps 80 of them—to be viable partners. His approach isn't about finding the absolute "best" in a competitive lineup; it's about finding a compatible match within a wide field of acceptable options.

Evolutionary psychologists theorize this divergence stems from the different biological investments in reproduction. Historically, for a woman, choosing a partner could lead to pregnancy and a long period of vulnerability and dependency. This reality naturally selected for a highly discerning strategy, prioritizing a partner with not only good genes but also the resources and commitment to provide support. Men did not face a similar period of helplessness, so their strategy evolved to be less selective and more opportunistic.

This fundamental difference has uncomfortable implications. For men, if you find you must actively "court" a woman and make significant efforts to win her attention, you are likely not in her preferred "top 20." For women, if a man is courting you, it doesn't necessarily mean he sees you as the most perfect woman in the world, but rather as a desirable partner among many. It's a pragmatic, not a romantic, reality.

The Second Pressure: The Weight of Social Expectation

Layered on top of this biological reality is immense social pressure. Society still largely expects a woman's life to be validated by partnership and family. A woman can build a brilliant career and lead a fulfilling life, but if she remains single, her happiness is often questioned.

Imagine a successful, self-realized woman who openly states she is perfectly happy without a husband or children. The comments section of her social media would inevitably fill with remarks like, "Poor thing, you're just trying to convince yourself," or "You'll see, you can't be truly happy without a man." The unspoken message is that a woman's self-realization is incomplete until she is "chosen" by a man.

This creates a powerful vise. On one side, a woman is biologically wired to desire a man from a very small, competitive pool. On the other, society relentlessly pressures her to find a partner to be considered whole. This conflict generates anxiety, a feeling of being "unrealized," and a desperate desire for a solution.

The Scammer's Solution: Selling a Dangerous Illusion

Into this high-pressure environment steps the modern "info-guru," who sees not a woman in distress, but a perfect customer. He frames the "top 20%" men as "the right men" and promises to sell the secret technology to attract one. He whispers, "Are you still working at your job? Mary, who took my training, is already relaxing in the Maldives with a high-value man, all on his dime."

The woman is lured into a world of nonsensical advice: "Breathe with your uterus," "Evoke emotions in him," "Leave a date after exactly one hour, yawning indifferently." She is taught to perform a series of cheap manipulations, believing they are sacred knowledge.

But these tactics are doomed to fail. A man who is truly in the "top 20%" is there for a reason—he is likely intelligent, successful, and socially adept. He has countless options and has seen every trick in the book. He can spot clumsy manipulation from a mile away and wants nothing to do with it. The last thing a man of this caliber wants is a partner who plays games. He is often drawn to authenticity, to a woman who is genuinely herself, not one performing a script from a course.

When the prescribed techniques inevitably fail, the woman doesn't conclude that the guru is a fraud. Instead, her self-esteem shatters. She thinks, "It's me. I'm the problem. I'm not pretty enough, not smart enough, not worthy enough." Her mind spirals as she sees other women—women she deems "less than" herself in education, career, or fitness—in happy relationships with the very type of men she desires. She can't understand it. "I pump my glutes, read books, and drink orange smoothies," she thinks, "so why did he choose her?"

The devastating outcome of these femininity trainings is a deep-seated sense of personal failure. The primary lesson learned is one of inadequacy. Life isn't a classroom where the tallest boy is paired with the tallest girl. Attraction is not a simple equation. A man may choose a partner because she looks like his mother, shares a niche hobby, or simply makes him feel at ease. There are no magic formulas, and the attempt to use them only leads to a painful erosion of self-worth. These courses don't sell empowerment; they sell an illusion, and the currency they demand is a woman's confidence.

References

• Buss, D. M. (2016). The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating (Revised and Updated ed.). Basic Books.
  This foundational text in evolutionary psychology explains how different reproductive challenges for males and females throughout history have shaped distinct mating strategies. Buss details how female preferences evolved to prioritize mates who could provide resources and protection, while male strategies focused more on fertility cues, which aligns with the article’s discussion of women’s selectivity for a "minority of men" and men's broader acceptance criteria (particularly Chapters 2 and 3).
• Tyson, G., Perta, V. C., Haddadi, H., & Seto, M. C. (2016). A First Look at User Activity on Tinder. ArXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01952
  This computational study analyzes user behavior on the dating app Tinder. The findings support the article's premise that women are significantly more selective than men. The research shows that women "like" a much smaller percentage of male profiles they view compared to men, who tend to "like" a large majority of female profiles. This provides empirical data for the "different strategies" argument presented in the text.
• Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online Dating: A Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3–66.
  This comprehensive review examines online dating through the lens of psychological science. It discusses how the large pool of potential partners on dating sites can paradoxically lead to more judgmental and objectifying evaluations, especially given sex differences in selectivity. The authors touch upon how decision-making strategies are altered in this modern environment, which relates to the article's core theme of how women navigate a highly competitive dating market and the psychological pressures that result (see section "Access to Potential Partners," pp. 8–17).