In this article I explore how three early modern European feminists—Marie de Gournay, Margaret Cavendish, and Mary Astell—discuss wooing in surprisingly similar ways. Independently and without the benefit of a personal or intellectual relationship, all three highlight how wooing is characterized by deception, insincere flattery, and occasional coercion to secure consent to marriage; they problematize how wooing tricks women into consenting to their own subordination. This is a feminist social epistemological project: Gournay, Cavendish, and Astell recognize wooing as a gendered socio-epistemic harm, for wooing undermines women’s abilities to exercise their epistemic agency over making what was often the single most consequential choice in their lives—who to accept as husband. I argue that for Gournay, Cavendish, and Astell, wooing not only is a gendered socio-epistemic harm but also manifests an epistemic injustice, hermeneutical obscuring, which was deployed by wooers in service of maintaining patriarchal power hierarchies. For Gournay, Cavendish, and Astell, the social practice of wooing manifests patriarchal control via a kind of gendered epistemic tyranny. Successful wooing frustrates epistemic capacities, entrenches gender hierarchies, and traps women in the epistemically and politically subordinating relation of marriage.