So here’s what I am getting to believe now -women do have certain tendencies that go beyond cultural training. It’s in our biology, our evolutionary wiring. For generations, we’ve sought strong males – not just physically strong, but capable, stable, resourceful. It was never just a preference, it was a survival instinct.
A woman has always needed to feel secure – financially, emotionally, physically – especially when she’s carrying or raising a child. That instinct didn’t die with time. It’s still in us, whether we admit it or not.
But here’s where it turns dark in today’s world.
What once began as a pure survival mechanism has now started serving our ego, our unexamined desires, even our darker tendencies. Instead of using that instinct to build conscious relationships or inner growth, many women today have twisted it into something else:
- A sense of entitlement to comfort, praise, and provision – without equal effort or contribution.
- A demand for respect simply because of the role she plays – wife, mother, daughter – not because of her being, her values, her clarity.
- A glorification of struggle or sacrifice – even when it’s laced with unconsciousness or emotional manipulation.
- An obsession with being “treated like a queen” without doing the inner work to become a sovereign woman.
We’ve replaced survival with social performance.
We’ve replaced effort with identity-based reward.
And in many cases, women now expect to be revered for being women – without doing anything that actually reflects depth, self-awareness, or truth.
We want to be pampered like we’re divine – but we won’t sit with our shadows, our insecurity, our ignorance.
We want the crown without carrying the weight of consciousness.
And that’s where the feminine essence starts getting distorted.
That’s where the instinct becomes exploitation.
That’s where the feminine hunger becomes emotional weaponry.
Because when a woman doesn’t know who she really is, she starts using what she has – looks, charm, roles, relationships – to extract love, power, status, and comfort.
Not because she’s evil – but because she’s unrooted. And unexamined.
We can further investigate it…
So there’s that common saying: Men fall for beauty, women fall for stability.
And you know what? It holds immense truth. Not just as a general tendency – but as a collective behavioral truth across centuries and cultures, especially in places like India where social systems still quietly (or loudly) revolve around survival economics.
Men don’t really care how much a woman earns.
They don’t pick a wife by checking her income tax returns.
A man can fall in love with a receptionist, a student, a woman with no ambition – as long as she’s kind, attractive to him, or simply emotionally present.
His instinct isn’t driven by “how will she provide for me?”
It’s driven by visual and emotional connection.
But for women, let’s be brutally honest – it’s different.
Power matters. Provision matters. His position matters.
It’s not even conscious in many cases. But it’s there.
Let’s take the Indian reality for example:
In a typical arranged marriage setup, when a groom is being considered, what are the top questions?
Not: Is he emotionally intelligent? Is he kind? Is he a reflective, grounded human?
But instead, the door opening questions are:
- What’s his salary package?
- What’s his job title?
- Which company?
- Does he own a house or live with his parents?
- Does he have a car?
- The very first scan is about his social status, power, wealth, and stability.
And the moment a man earns below a certain threshold (defined as per the family) – no matter how good-looking, how gentle, or how evolved he may be – he’s crossed off the list. Even before he gets a chance.
Would that same woman, ten years into marriage, now say, “I love my husband, we have a great bond”?
Maybe. But go back in time – would she have even considered him if he were earning less than her?
Highly unlikely.
Because her system of value isn’t just emotional – it’s deeply entwined with survival, social reputation, and status.
Now flip that around.
How many men, in either arranged or love marriages, reject a woman because she earns less?
Almost none.
In fact, many men feel a deeper need to provide and protect, even if the woman doesn’t earn a rupee.
He may prefer if she’s educated or driven, but it’s not his deal-breaker.
His ego isn’t bruised by her financial dependency – sometimes, he even takes pride in it.
But a woman marrying “down” in terms of status?
That’s rare. And if she does it, she has to explain it to her family, to society, sometimes even to herself.
And when it does happen – when a highly educated or financially stable woman chooses a man who’s less successful – you’ll notice she’s very, very self-aware, maybe even spiritually evolved.
Because she’s breaking her own wiring. She’s going against what society trained her to value.
But let’s not romanticize those exceptions.
The truth is:
Most women choose men who either match or exceed their social standing – because love is not just love. It’s a transaction backed by centuries of programming.
Even in love marriages, where emotion is front and center, you’ll often find that the man is doing better – or is at least “on the way” to being successful.
If he’s not, the relationship becomes a ticking clock.
Families object. Her own doubts creep in. His masculinity gets questioned.
Why?
Because female love, in most cases, is deeply tied to admiration.
And admiration, let’s face it, often stems from what he can offer – not just emotionally, but practically, socially, structurally.
And this is the hidden hypocrisy:
A woman who says, “I love my husband deeply after 10 years,” may believe it. But ask her:
“Would you have married the exact same man if he had no job security, no social status, and no financial edge over you – back when you first met him?”
You know the answer.
Probably not.
Because that love grew inside the safety he provided, not in the absence of it.
And we need to stop pretending otherwise.
This isn’t about blaming women – it’s about understanding feminine psychology honestly.
It’s about seeing how the instinct for security has been carried over into a world where women now want the man to be both savior and equal – but rarely someone “below.”
And from that lens, there’s something that becomes hard to ignore – something many ancient philosophers, modern psychologists, and even spiritual mystics have openly spoken about, despite how uncomfortable it might sound:
Now let’s be clear – they weren’t talking about all women.
They weren’t referring to the awakened ones, the ones who have done the inner work, who live rooted in truth.
They were speaking about most women – because most women, throughout history, have been raised not to discover themselves, but to become pleasing, desirable, and adjustable to others. And that conditioning leaves deep consequences.
Why did the thinkers say this? Because they observed a consistent pattern:
- Women who lacked internal grounding were easily swayed by attention, charm, or social pressure.
- Their sense of value was external – dependent on what others thought, said, or gave.
- In the absence of their own identity, they absorbed the identity of whoever offered them love, status, or security.
This is why thinkers like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Freud, Kant, and even Confucius described women as being:
- Emotionally reactive
- Present-focused and short-sighted
- Influenced by appearances and immediate comfort
- In competition with each other for male attention
- And often morally corruptible by outside environment
They weren’t necessarily being hateful (though some were cruel in tone).
They were describing how the average woman behaved in their time, and frankly – even now, not much has changed in essence. Only the packaging has.
Let’s break it down logically – not emotionally.
If a woman hasn’t been taught to sit with her thoughts…
If she hasn’t been encouraged to question her desires, to investigate her fears, to look into her own eyes in silence…
Then what else is she going to rely on?
- She’ll seek praise to feel valuable.
- She’ll seek a powerful man to feel secure.
- She’ll seek social validation to feel beautiful.
- She’ll avoid discomfort and dress it up as “feminine softness.”
- She’ll choose comfort over truth, and call it “loyalty.”
Not because she’s weak or manipulative by nature – but because she’s unrooted.
Her morality isn’t solid – it’s borrowed.
Her desires aren’t her own – they’re scripted.
Her emotions run her life – because no one ever taught her how to look beneath them.
And what did women thinkers say?
They didn’t deny this. In fact, they confirmed it – but from the inside.
Simone de Beauvoir : “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.”
She didn’t mean ‘woman’ as a biological fact. She meant the social persona of a woman – a persona taught to prioritize appearance, desirability, and dependency over inquiry, selfhood, and agency.
Clarissa Pinkola Estés : “Women who do not learn to feed their own souls become prey to anyone who offers them crumbs of affection.”
She openly called out the uninitiated woman – the one who hasn’t discovered her wildness, her voice, her clarity. That woman, she says, can be easily bought with validation, flattery, or comfort.
… and many others!
The Essence
When a woman doesn’t know who she is, she becomes a mirror for whoever looks at her.
She’ll reflect your attention, your desire, your validation – but she won’t have a form of her own. And when you have no form of your own, you’ll trade your soul for the first man, job, or comfort that makes you feel momentarily seen.
And that is what the thinkers – both male and female – have warned us about.
“A woman without her own flame will warm herself by anyone else’s fire.”
— Unknown.
A woman who is unconscious of her own needs and shadow will find herself reacting to external temptations instead of choosing consciously.
She won’t even realize that her life isn’t being lived—it’s being acted out.
The unlived life of a woman makes her an easy target for psychological, sexual, and emotional manipulation.
What starts as hunger becomes immorality when:
- She denies her pain
- She stops being honest with herself
- She blames others for what she’s missing
- She says: “I deserve this” to justify a betrayal
But when a woman owns her hunger – when she tends to it, names it, sits with it instead of selling it – then her longing becomes a path of self-discovery, not destruction.
Because the feminine is sacred.
She holds the power to birth life, to destroy illusions, and to nurture truth. But only when she stops performing… and starts remembering.
A true woman says “I will not feed my hunger with betrayal. I will meet it with truth.”
A woman awakened is not a rebel.
She is rooted.
She does not shout, she sees.
She does not seduce, she shines.
She does not beg, she blesses.
But to arrive there, you must walk alone for a while.
You must lose your prettiness, your likability, your comfort, your sugar-coated identities.
You must sit with your discomfort and let your false self die.
That’s the fire of real womanhood.
Until you find your center, you will keep being moved by flattery, by fear, by loneliness.
You will keep calling chains “commitment.”
You will keep offering your body, your time, your soul-to those who do not even know how to hold your presence.
But if you decide to stop pretending… if you choose truth over convenience, even once…
Then you will begin to walk the path of the real feminine.
It won’t be easy. You may lose people. You may disappoint your family. You may be called difficult.
But let it happen.
Because when you finally sit in your own silence – untouched, unbent, and full –
you will never trade yourself again and always make choices with awareness and truth in centre.
And because – it’s always a choice – just have the courage to make it! I know you can and you will!
