The Rise of Infantilized Relationships: Zoya Hofseth on Why Women Are Taught to Be “Soft” Instead of Strategic
By: Alva Ree
Zoya Hofseth is a Miami-based relationship strategist, psychologist, and author of the Emotional Positioning Theory, a structured framework designed to help women build high-quality, intentional relationships. Working with clients across the United States and Europe, she specializes in transforming unconscious dating patterns into conscious, partner-level dynamics rooted in clarity, responsibility, and strategic thinking. Known for her direct and unconventional approach, Hofseth challenges popular dating narratives and introduces a structural perspective on modern relationships. At 43, she entered her first marriage as a partner, applying the same system she now teaches to women worldwide.
Modern dating advice is increasingly teaching women to be softer, slower, and more “feminine.” On the surface, this appears to be a return to balance. In reality, according to Hofseth, it often promotes something very different: psychological regression.
Across social media, coaching programs, and mainstream relationship narratives, women are encouraged to “lean back,” “receive,” and “let the man lead.” These ideas are framed as empowerment. Yet when applied without structure, they do not create partnership; they create dependency. What is being marketed as femininity is frequently a form of emotional infantilization.
In her work with women across different countries and cultures, Hofseth observes a growing pattern. Women who are highly successful externally often feel internally disoriented in relationships. They move between extremes, from controlling everything to withdrawing into passivity. This oscillation between dominance and collapse is not random. It is the result of a deeper confusion around relational structure.
To understand this shift, Hofseth outlines three primary models that define how relationships are structured: patriarchal, matriarchal, and partnership-based.
The patriarchal model is built on hierarchy. In this structure, the man leads, provides, and makes key decisions, while the woman follows, supports, and adapts. This model creates clarity and predictability but often limits the woman’s autonomy. It can function, but frequently at the cost of her agency. (This can limit the woman’s ability; it can work, but often leads to instability.)
The matriarchal model reverses this dynamic. The woman takes control, makes decisions, and holds the primary responsibility for the relationship. This model is especially common among high-achieving women who are accustomed to leadership in their professional lives. However, in romantic dynamics, it often creates an imbalance. The man either withdraws, becomes passive, or resists the dynamic altogether.
Neither model, Hofseth explains, creates sustainable intimacy.
The third model, partnership, is the most discussed and the least understood. Partnership is not about equality of roles, but about alignment of responsibilities. It allows both individuals to maintain autonomy while actively contributing to the relationship. There is no rigid hierarchy, yet there is a clear structure. Roles are flexible, but not changeable at every moment.
This level of relational design requires emotional maturity, something that cannot be replaced by simplified advice or trends.
And this is where the modern narrative around “softness” becomes problematic.
“Women are not being taught how to build a partnership,” Hofseth explains. “They are being taught how to exit responsibility.”
Softness, when misunderstood, becomes avoidance. It can manifest as avoidance of decision-making, boundaries, and emotional accountability. Instead of developing relational intelligence, women are encouraged to perform a version of femininity that removes them from active participation in the relationship dynamic.
This creates what Hofseth describes as infantilized relationships.
In these dynamics, one partner unconsciously takes on a parental role, while the other becomes the child. Responsibility becomes uneven. Emotional reactions replace communication. Dependency replaces connection. What appears externally as “being taken care of” often masks a deeper lack of agency.
Are you lacking anything in life? lacking some money, some fame, some success
We have a lack of milk in the house
At the same time, many women entering these dynamics experience internal conflict. They may feel anxiety, a loss of control, or a sense of disconnection from themselves. This is because, at a deeper level, they are not seeking dependency; they are seeking partnership.
But partnership requires skills that are rarely taught.
It requires the ability to communicate clearly, to tolerate discomfort, and to navigate conflict without collapsing. It demands the capacity to remain emotionally open without losing personal boundaries. Most importantly, it requires integrating two qualities often presented as opposites: strength and vulnerability.
A woman in a true partnership is not passive. She is responsive, aware, and engaged. She does not disappear into softness. She maintains presence.
Hofseth argues that the current rise of infantilized relationship models reflects a broader (wider, bigger) cultural tendency, the avoidance of complexity. It is easier to teach simplified concepts like “be soft” than to explain relational structure. It is easier to sell dependency than to develop emotional maturity.
But relationships do not stabilize through avoidance.
They stabilize through structure, responsibility, and conscious participation from both individuals.
Until these differences are understood, many women will continue to confuse regression with femininity and dependency with connection.
Because in the end, relationships are not built on the roles people perform. They are built on the level of psychological maturity each person brings into the dynamic.
Disclaimer: The information provided is intended for general informational purposes and should not be considered as professional advice. This article is based on the perspectives and insights of Zoya Hofseth, a relationship strategist and psychologist. The views expressed here are her own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of any affiliated organizations. Readers are encouraged to seek personalized guidance from a qualified professional regarding their individual relationship concerns.
