I wish the author of this, whoever she is, wouldn't generalize or universalize so much. For example, she starts out saying

I decided to write about mindsets that women often fall privy to. These are ideas that women believe and apply to their personal life that unintentionally undermine their progress in life.

In my view, better phrasing would be

I decided to write about mindsets that some women in my culture/country of residence <insert name of culture/place here> often fall privy to. These are ideas that some women of my generation <insert when she was born> and background <insert relevant info about class, religion, race> believe and apply to their personal life that unintentionally undermine their progress in life.

Throughout, she suggests that the experience of some girls and women from certain cultural and class backgrounds who've grown up at certain times in history (and apparently are similar to her) represents the one and only universal experience of girls and women everywhere on earth in every era since the dawn of time.

She also seems unaware that even amongst those who've grown up in a similar culture to hers, are from a similar background and from roughly same time period in history, not everyone necessarily responds to social and cultural conditioning in the same way. Some kids are suckers for the influence of pop culture and the bullshit the adults in their lives tell them, and are deeply influenced by it. Other kids take what the see, hear and are told with a measure of skepticism, and are able to slough it off. Some kids have trouble paying attention, and learning disabilities and processing issues that mean a lot of the stuff they're exposed to slides right over their heads.

For example, she takes it as a given that

as we grow older, we watch Disney movies and see a knight in shining armor coming to save girls that look like us.

The Damsel in Distress is a plot device in which a female character is placed in a perilous situation from which she cannot escape on her own and must then be rescued by a male character. We see this in a lot of Disney movies, the Mario brothers, Snow White, Cinderella, etc.

This assumes that every girl in the world has grown up on a steady diet of nothing but sexist Disney movies and European-origin fairy tales about females being rescued, and that all girls not only identify solely with the female characters in these stories, but they all look like the female characters too ("girls that look like us" - sheesh.) Hilariously, she assumes every girl in the world is acquainted with Mario Brothers too.

Worse, she assumes that every child who does consume a lot of Disney stories, fairy tales and Mario Brothers interprets and is influenced by them in exactly the same way.

She also goes on to claim

Beauty is often the first form of power that women are introduced to. The intoxicating feeling of being admired and praised for your looks become deeply inscribed in the psyche of young women. This forces women to become deeply invested in acquiring and maintaining the only form of power that they are allowed to have in a patriarchal society.

Wow, this narrow, sexist take might be true for some women, but it sure isn't for lots! Many girls around the world first experience power in all sorts of ways: doing physical activity like learning to walk, mastering skills like running, swimming, riding bikes, doing cartwheels, walking miles to a water source learning to carry a heavy jug of water on their heads; developing academic, intellectual, artistic, craft and language skills; becoming competent at a multitude of essential life tasks like caring for children and elders, preparing food, going to the market, doing chores, collecting firewood...

After all, even pretty girls in fairy tales don't sit usually around all day doing nothing but being pretty and ornamental; they usually have practical skills that give them a sense of competence - like being plenty capable at cleaning and scullery work, spinning and weaving, singing, hiking through the woods, and taking baskets of food goods to grandma's house and helping the old woman out. Also, the story of Snow White isn't just about a beautiful girl who was rescued in the end by a male savior's kiss - it's about how after being left alone in the big, dark scary forest she kept herself alive and unharmed for years by exercising exceptional survival skills - and social skills with the dwarves too. IIRC, Snow White also could communicate with animals - which in my book is pretty much a super power.

Also, the author's description leaves out the vast number of girls and women who've never had "the intoxicating feeling of being admired and praised for" their looks and therefore do not have this feeling "deeply inscribed" in their psyches. Coz they're either not particularly attractive according to their culture's beauty standards. Or they're kept at home or entirely covered up so no one outside their family can see what they look like. Or coz they don't give a shit.

According to this author, being beautiful is "the only form of power that (women) are allowed to have in a patriarchal society." I find this incredibly narrow-minded and offensive. It's like she's willfully ignoring all the gains that women have made over the course of history especially in the past 100 years that had nothing to with our looks. Women like Margaret Thatcher, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Madeleine Albright, Janet Yellen, Sonia Sotamayor, Deborah Birks, Golda Meir, Janet Reno, Jacinda Ardern and a zillion others over time from a variety of countries have gotten into positions of power through their intelligence, many skills and hard work - not coz of beauty.

She also suggests that all women grew up learning to be manipulative, and our main way of manipulating others is to use tears:

As babies, we learn to manipulate our parents. We learn that if we cry for long enough, our parents would come and respond to us.

WTF? Babies cry coz they're hungry, wet, soiled, sick, tired, teething, scared or otherwise in distress and need comfort. And coz they can't talk yet! They don't do it to manipulate; they have no other way of making their distress known. Suggesting babies cry to manipulate their parents is twisted, the stuff child abusers say. What projection.

Yes, some kids - of both sexes - do learn to use tears - as well as tantrums, whining and saying "I'm bored" and so on - to manipulate their parents. But they learn that later in childhood, not when they'e babies. And if kids get away with this kind of behavior and see as a way to manipulate others the rest of their lives, it's not their fault and shouldn't be taken as a sign that the children are inherently manipulative. The fault is with their parents for caving in and not teaching them how to express themselves in more direct, appropriate ways in order to get their needs met.

But the main point is: assuming and alleging that all girls grow up learning to use tears to manipulate is sexist tosh.

I'm all for women writing self-help material for other women - and think a lot of young women in countries like the US today would benefit from more of it. So kudos to the Coffysalon author for the effort. But it's gotta be written in a way that doesn't assume that the experience and POV of some women is that of all women. Doing this isn't impossible. It just requires that the author have self-awareness, be clear about the specific audience she is writing to/for/about, and employ more careful phrasing.