Isn't this its own answer? It's prized precisely because it is unattainable for most.
I don't have an answer as to why that is, but the "scarcity" theory is consistent with my observations. The "social organization" theory is not. That's not to say that "scarcity" theory is correct, only that it isn't contradicted by observation in the same way that "social organization" theory is.
I don’t know what your age is but this is far from my experience.
In a professional context, no more or less playful / joking than men (this varies a lot by context, of course). But outside work, yes, in public, sure.
Not anymore. Now women can't depend on their family or partners for subsistence. If they do embrace their femininity, become softer, or forego job time to be more time with children, they earn less, they provide less for their kids. And worse, what if the relationship ends? What then? Now she has to be full the provider. A typical man role.
So it's too big of a risk to be soft and feminine.
e.g.:
> A good Asian woman is supposed to shine dimly, like a moon, and reflect her husband’s sunlight.
Not that she's completely sold on that model either.
I'm probably reading too much into this, but there tends to be a tradeoff between 'hardness' and 'toughness'. 'Endurance' requires some flexibility and ability to absorb/disperse energy that may require some degree of 'softness'.
> Not that she's completely sold on that model either.
As I read it, that is the "softness" / "stoicism" she's talking about. She's just exemplifying.
No, the question is why value softness so highly when you cannot survive without "hardness", when as a soft woman, you cannot even feed your children. Softness will lead to death.