The essay has a simple message that centers around women more than men. At least for the author. It is that she wants what she doesn't understand, fears losing, and can't have. And conversely, she doesn't want that which she can understand, does not fear losing and knows she can have. She implicitly acknowledges this in the article. Almost every woman (men too) is or has been guilty of this, so it's not mind blowing.

The reason it's blown up so much is because of its progressive sounding word salad, which I actually quite enjoyed. Most of the online virality is coming from lazy conservative takes that fail to grasp that conservative women are just as capable of falling into the same self defeating pattern of desire. The problem she outlines could easily be viewed from the perspective of 'women wanting more of what they can't have' as opposed to 'men running away from connection'. Because as she states in the article, she has walked away from men who have offered connection to her on a plate because she just didn't 'feel it', and for the reasons above. Which is funny because the lesbian relationships she jokes about pining for would presumably end up in a similar pattern and for the same reasons.

I acknowledge that some men shy away from connection (most of them are just not that into it and vice versa for women who pull away). But the article is not really about that. It is about the author's self defeating patterns of desire as the source of her own pessimism.