"Girls, how are you going to get a boyfriend if you’re disconnected from your FEMININE ENERGY? And you guys—what about you? An attractive man radiates MASCULINE ENERGY!"

For heaven’s sake! ヽ( `д´*)ノ where do these ideas of “male” and “female” energy even come from? Do tips like this actually make any sense?

DO FEMININE AND MASCULINE ENERGY EXIST?

Even though it might seem obvious, it’s important to clarify that, in a purely physical context, these concepts don’t make any sense. Yes, we get energy from the calories in food, which are stored as ATP and used by our cells and organs to function. It’s also true that the atoms making up our cells contain energy, and, simplifying enormously, subatomic particles themselves are energy. But nothing in science suggests that this energy has anything that could be identified as masculine or feminine.

But of course, when people use these expressions, they’re not referring to energy as the ability of a system to do work. Instead, they’re using it figuratively, much like the way we use “vibes” today. Or, as it was a few decades ago, “onda” (vibe).

It’s the intuitive sense or impression something or someone gives off.

“Monica has such a pleasant energy.” “Ricardo gives me bad vibes.” These ideas come from certain self-improvement movements influenced by mystical and New Age perspectives, which in turn borrowed from ancient Asian traditions.

For example, in ancient Chinese philosophy, especially in Taoism, it is believed that the entire universe arises from the interaction of two principles: yin and yang. Contrary to popular belief, these are not about good and evil.

Yin represents darkness, cold, the inner, the rounded, and the passive. Yang represents light, heat, the outer, the sharp, and the active. Yin is associated with the feminine, and yang with the masculine. These two principles complement each other, are in constant motion, and each contains the seed of the other.

Similarly, in Hinduism there are two principles: Shiva and Shakti. Shiva is masculine, immutable, and represents “pure consciousness,” while Shakti is feminine, creative, and material. Interestingly, in this tradition the masculine principle is passive and the feminine is active; a woman’s capacity to give birth to new life is seen as an inherently active quality.

By the early 20th century, pioneering psychologist Carl Gustav Jung, who was very interested in incorporating ideas from mythology and philosophy into the study of the mind, coined the concepts of “anima” and “animus.” The anima is the unconscious image a man holds of women, but also represents the feminine aspect within him. Within the male psyche, it embodies his rational, logical, problem-solving, and assertive side. The animus, on the other hand, is the image a woman holds of men in general, as well as the unconscious masculine aspect within the female psyche—her emotional, intuitive, creative, and empathetic side.

If you pay attention, you’ll notice that the traits associated with femininity and masculinity vary depending on time and place. The characteristics attributed to one gender or another are not natural—they are culturally constructed. Being a “noble man” in 6th-century China does not mean the same as being a peasant in medieval Germany, or a middle-class person in any country in the 21st century.

This way of thinking, called essentialism, suggests that things have an essence made up of fixed qualities, and that trying to change or guide them would go against “nature.” There is no evidence to support this notion.

It’s genuinely questionable that today’s influencers tell you how to “be a man” or “be a woman,” and try to pass off as natural and normal gender stereotypes and roles that were largely constructed in Europe in the 18th century, following the Industrial Revolution—women confined to the private sphere, men to the public.

Women were assigned to the home and caregiving, while men were providers and protectors. Worst of all, these roles came with hierarchies: “masculine” became synonymous with strong and dominant; “feminine” with weak and submissive. These stereotypes also limit how we feel and express emotions.

According to this logic, a man should always control his emotions and never show vulnerability, because doing so would make him “weak”—disconnecting him from his masculine energy. A woman shouldn’t show leadership or initiative, because being “bossy” supposedly disconnects her from her feminine energy.

This suggests that the rise of these “energy” discourses is really just taking the old idea that conventional gender roles are the only valid ones—which was already quite outdated—and wrapping it in a trendy new package, invoking spirituality and personal development. It turns ancient archetypes, which originally sought to understand how the universe works, into stereotypes that limit the diversity of ways people can be, all in an attempt to resurrect hierarchical structures that society has been trying to leave behind.

Precisely because it hinders the development of human beings of any gender, one might wonder why these ideas have been so successful, especially among young people. Possibly because when we’re very young, we struggle with finding a partner and deal with feelings of inadequacy and not fitting in. So when someone with a confident voice and an “I know it all” attitude tells us how we should behave to be accepted, we love and idolize them. It’s very tempting to follow their advice—but it’s not healthy.

Trying to fit into a stereotype can lead us to repress our genuine individuality or even cultivate resentment toward another gender over perceived loss of privilege. What’s particularly serious is that this way of thinking promotes building barriers between genders, instead of fostering better understanding.

Even Jung, though limited by the ideas of his time, had a perspective we can still value: having within ourselves certain aspects of the opposite sex allows us to build bridges and relate to one another. For Jung, the goal of therapy was to integrate the image of the other sex into our psyche in order to achieve balance.

If your concern is finding a partner, remember this: all we know is that there is no universally attractive or “masculine” or “feminine” stereotype. People have very different preferences, and we choose partners in diverse ways depending on our culture, personality, age, and current expectations.

Someone might be attracted to intelligence or shared interests, another to rebelliousness or kindness, diligence, artistic talent, affection, or a sense of humor… And on top of that, there are men who are attracted to men, women who prefer other women, people attracted to both, people attracted to none, or people who prefer partners who don’t identify with any gender. This doesn’t even account for the discrepancy that can exist between what people desire and what they actually choose.

Relationships between people of different genders are far more diverse than just romantic or sexual attraction: they include friendships, professional relationships, family ties, and many more. Reality is much more complex than what two “energies” can explain.

If we think of energy as that intangible quality of your personality, I invite you not to confine yourself to a stereotype, but to create your own energy—unique, just like your body, your experiences, and your values. What is most valuable is what cannot be replicated.

Although every culture has defined what is “feminine” and “masculine” in more or less different ways, these qualities themselves are not inherently gendered. Honesty, kindness, courage, the ability to protect and care, emotional connection, and self-confidence are traits that everyone can cultivate, value, and find attractive, no matter their gender.